bawdy-nan

I don't think there's any kind of scandal. I think there's been a shift this year in how the DoE report the results. In previous years the "best shot" result was counted but this year its the first attempt only. Who can blame Charter for crowing about the fact that so many of their pupils ultimately attained 5 gcses at c or above with english and maths included. I'm pretty sure that if my child didn't manage to hit the C grade first time I'd want them to resit. I;m guessing that's where the discrepancy lies...

Blah Blah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > BN, on a clear road the journey time will be much > more than 20 seconds a mile. So at night it's > going to add considerably more time to journeys. And they do have variable speed limits in France, for example, when wet (ie when road conditions change) but I suppose a variable speed limit is even harder to implement than the blanket 20. > > Tfl's own figures for the last ten years show that > traffic in the congestion zone has only decreased > by 10.2% with no increase in journey times since > 2007. 10% reduction seems not bad when you consider the year on year increase in car ownership - low percentage increases between 2007 and 2012 but 1.5% increase between 2012 and 2013

No BB - I'm talking about the increase in journey times. The evidence from many local authorities where this has been implemented suggest that per mile the increase in journey time is max 20 seconds (usually less). The evidence I'm citing isn't anecdotal - see the links I posted earlier in the thread. Certainly my reckoning that more people will get out of their cars if the roads are perceived to be safer for pedestrians and cyclists is pure I reckon but even if that's not the case the evidence supporting the new limits is very powerful. On the C Charge who says it didn't reduce congestion - would be interested to read that study.

except that the increase to journey times is tiny. Say, you do 100 miles in the day that's an extra 30 mins...(1t 20 seconds a mile extra)...

There's so much evidence in favour of this and countering the assertions made here about journey times and other "dangers". The only "anti" actual evidence I have come across is that without proper enforcement the reduction in actual top speeds is less. Very happy to listen to proper arguments against my position on this but backed up with evidence. All we're getting on here is a load of "I reckon". It seems like a total no-brainer: evidence shows that it will massively reduce deaths and injuries, especially of children and young people. The perceived increased safety is also much more likely to encourgae people out of cars and onto the streets and cycles at key congested times (ie school in and out). As congestion is the main factor in increasing journey times in urban areas (according the RAC) this can only be a good thing for those who want or need to make their journeys by car as it will reduce congestion and speed up your journeys. Is what I reckon.

No, the figures I've quoted are from the Dept Education who apply the same criteria and don't allow for any "fudging". This year they are counting only first tries" at exams in order to try and stop the practice of early and multiple exam entry. The idea is that constant exams inhibits learning, I suppose. Charter must have known this but decided to publish the figure which they calculated differently to the govt and which showed them at the upper end of the scale in Southwark schools rather than bang in the middle for outcome in terms of percentage of pupils getting 5 grade c or above GCSEs including English and Maths and at the low end of percentage of pupils making expected progress in Maths.

odd that the published stats don't seem to chime with what some schools published at the time the "results" came out ... http://www.charter.southwark.sch.uk/news/?pid=3&nid=5&storyid=197 On their wesbite Charter say their pupils achieved 77 percent at a-c including maths and english but the published figures say this was 67 percent. Presumably this must be down to the govt figures only counting first attempt exams rather than the result "best achieved" after multiple attempts...

ha - well that's impossible to read! Headlines for 2014 % of pupils getting 5 at a-c including maths and English Harris Boys' AcademyED 71% Sydenham School 56% Forest Hill School 58% Haberdashers' Aske's HC 64% Kingsdale Foundation School 76% The Charter School 67% Harris Academy Peckham 50% Harris Girls' Academy ED 56% datasets here: http://www.education.gov.uk/cgi-bin/schools/performance/group.pl?qtype=GR&f=AeBa4D93Bx&superview=sec&view=&sort=l_schname&ord=asc Also interesting are the figures on "percentage pupils making expected progress" in English and Maths National Average of pupils making expected progress in English is 71.6% and in Maths 65.5% Harris Boys' Academy East Dulwich 88% 84% Sydenham School 71% 65% Forest Hill School 75% 74% Haberdashers' Aske's Hatcham College 75% 74% Kingsdale Foundation School 86% 74% The Charter School 86% 69% Harris Academy Peckham 89% 79% Harris Girls' Academy East Dulwich 82% 71%

Quite interesting for local secondaries ... figures for pupils getting 5 A-C inc Maths and English English Average for 5 at C and above (inc Maths and English) is 56% 2011 2012 2013 2014 BAc %ENg/Maths C &above Harris Boys' AcademyED NA NA 0% 71% 27% 78% Sydenham School 64% 66% 67% 56% 29% 59% Forest Hill School 57% 66% 66% 58% 19% 65% Haberdashers' Aske's HC 78% 74% 70% 64% 36% 65% Kingsdale Foundation School 60% 36% 60% 76% 33% 77% The Charter School 67% 78% 72% 67% 45% 68% Harris Academy Peckham 50% 56% 58% 50% 6% 59% Harris Girls' Academy ED 67% 64% 67% 56% 26% 57%

Re increased journey times: the estimated increase in journey times is 10-25 seconds per mile (evidence from central Bristol cited in the Edinburgh 20mph fact sheet)

Blahblah there's been some research done by tfl looking at the impact on numbers of collisions and severity of outcomes in London, examining data once 20mph limits have been introduced and the results are overwhelmingly supportive of the idea that 20mph reduces quantity of collissions and diminishes the severity of the impact. I've cut and pasted some of the info below but you can see the full report and references here: http://www.tfl.gov.uk/cdn/static/cms/documents/research-summary-no2-20mph-zones.pdf Casualties The impact on casualties due to the introduction of 20 mph zones in London can be summarised as follows; ● Allowing for background changes in KSI casualty frequencies, the installation of 20 mph zones has reduced the frequency of road user casualties within the zones by about 45% and reduced the frequency of fatal or serious (KSI) casualties by about 57%. ● There were statistically significant reductions in the KSI casualty frequency for most classes of road user within the 20 mph zones. ● The KSI casualty frequency for children also fell significantly -- by 60%. ● The severity ratio (the ratio of KSI casualties to all casualties) fell from 0.16 to 0.12 following zone installation ? indicating a reduced severity. ● The average annual reduction in fatal and serious (KSI) casualties per 20 mph zone suggests an annual saving of about 66 KSI casualties across all of London?s current 20 mph zones. Using DfT figures this is equivalent to a current annual saving of at least ?8.8 million, at 2001 prices.

Blah Blah, I drive, use buses, trains and tubes, cycle and walk, as do most people who drive. I absolutely support 20 mph roads in an urban and suburban setting, in fact anywhere where there are pavements (although, of course, in the few instances where you can expect pedestrians and cars on the same track I would also want to see a limit). The only places I could imagine an increased speed being ok would be in those places were roads are already segregated and usually have 40 mph limits at the moment. I'm not sure where these "main roads" are that don't involve pedestrians. The overwhelming reason for this would be the reduction in harm to anyone hit by a car. The risk of pedestrian death or serious injury rises sharply between 20mph and 30mph (at least according to ROSPA http://www.rospa.com/about/currentcampaigns/publichealth/info/rs4-casestudy-20-mph-zones.pdf). I can see your argument about night time use but imagine that variable road speeds might be tricky to enforce.

I'm just saying that if you "need" to be able to park near a shop (and one of the reasons I could think of was that you had too much to carry easily) then there is a Sainsburys nearby which caters very generously for customers in cars and if you're in your car anyway it's not much further to go ... Sainsburys themselves describe their "convenience" stores as being for those on foot: "Sainsbury?s Local stores are the smallest in the Sainsbury?s estate; typically around 4,500 sq ft gross (3,000 sq ft sales). They provide local people with quality, fresh, affordable food within walking distance of their homes and for those needing to top up their shopping". So, not an especially ridiculous assertion.

1600-1900 also when the road is most busy. There are often very long queues extending past Crystal Palace Road Junction towards the Barry Road crossroads. The "parking" area is the bus lane and obstructing that means the buses (3 high frequency routes) have to also sit in the traffic. The restrictions do serve a useful purpose. There is recessed parking on the opposite side of the road. Maybe customers who need to use their cars to shop (because of the quantity of shopping, for example) could use the Sainsburys at Dog Kennel Hill, during peak hours. where there is adequate parking.

I disagree, bobbsy - standard 20mph aside from non-residential main, arterial roads is great. Average speeds in London are less than 20mph anyway and additional urban journey times estimated at anywhere between 20 - 40 seconds. The impact on safety and outcomes of collisions with pedestrians significant - 7 times more likely to survive at 20mph than 30 mph. (I got this from the Edinburgh Council FAQs http://www.edinburgh.gov.uk//download/downloads/id/3647/20mph_faq and the "20's plenty website" http://www.20splentyforus.org.uk/FAQ_on_20mph.htm Obviously both selling the idea hard, but I find it convincing. I agree that implementation has felt a bit scattergun.

But that's kind of my point -most people aren't just cyclists or car drivers or users of public transport or pedestrians ...they're usually at least 2 or 3. So, I am puzzled by the "you cyclists" comments. I'm interested though by your passionate opposition to "pro-cycling bias"... I'm very pro cycling and would like to see more of it, and walking, but I can't see the benefits of the NRHT. Green Goose Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > bawdy-nan Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > > > GooseGreen, presumably you are a pedestrian and > a > > car driver? Lots of people who use bicycles > also > > use cars and are pedestrians. > > Wrong presumption. This Goose uses his most > treasured possession (Freedom Pass) most of the > time and when the weather is amenable, uses his > trusty blue 1970'a Triumph with 3 speed Sturmey > Archer. And of course there's a bit of Shank's > pony. But driving? - less than 20 miles a month. > > GG

And what does this mean for any proposed new school ... ?We are tasked with selling land and buildings that healthcare commissioners have declared surplus for best value. All money generated from such sales is reinvested to improve primary care buildings nationwide.?

blimey Blah Blah, that's impressive!

Tessmo Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > No, Bawdy-Nan, that's enough. No one wants a trial > of something that's potentially dangerous. It > doesn't matter whether it's a trial, or permanent > - if it puts pedestrians and cyclists at risk, > don't do it. I agree with Safe Routes on this: all > junctions must be safe for local schoolchildren. Well yes, I'm not an advocate of NRHT and am concerned about the knock on impact but I can't be sure I'm not just reckoning that. There isn't any evidence on this one. Southwark asserts the outcomes will be positive, I fear they won't be. At the minimum some modelling should be done but I don't know how accurate that would be in predicting likely outcomes. In their FAQs on the southwark site they make some estimates on the likely impact but I have no idea on what they're based. GooseGreen, presumably you are a pedestrian and a car driver? Lots of people who use bicycles also use cars and are pedestrians. Encouraging cycling and walking to school can only help the car drivers who can't or don't want to cycle by reducing car journeys which clog up the roads, especially at school drop off and pick up times. As so many people have pointed out its the school run that's causing a good deal of the congestion. But that doesn't mean at all that I think there should be a ban on the right turn at all - on the contrary I do worry that the knock on impact will be to make existing junctions much more dangerous. For example, my son currently walks to one of the village schools on his own. If the NRT was put in place I don't think I'd be happy for him to do that because I would worry about his safety.

Wondering what is wrong with a trial of no RHT. If it is trialed and none of the anticipated outcomes occur and Southwark Council are right about the main impact being on traffic that is already using Calton Avenue as a rat run (their FAQs in which they imply a positive benefit will be to discourage such rat running)then that's ok isn't it? If the trial shows significant detrimental impact then there will be the evidence that is lacking now.

keyhole Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It's so quiet ther now,right now,it's only at > school times it's busy,,,,,like other school > sites....There is no problem,just some cyclists > seem to have no patience! It's not for cyclists coming out of Greendale to have patience as they have right of way. The problem is that car drivers either don't realise this or can't see the cyclists coming properly.

probably just needs a bit of bedding in and some advertising along the lines of "most roads are now 20mph in Southwark"

slarti b Wrote: > > - Quietway > Are you sure that Southwark are taking full > responsibility for delivering the E&C-CP Quietway? > This is not the impression given by TFL web > site. Is there confusion between this Quietway and > the Southwark spine? > I'm not absolutely sure about this but I'm pretty sure this is what was stated at the meeting. Apparently Sustrans have won the overall contract but local authorities can choose to opt in or out on level of delivery. In the case of Southwark, I think, Sustrans are not delivering. > So, if they didn't give impression at meeting they > supported RHT ban they are at best inconsistent, > at worst duplicitous. On the other hand, if they > have changed their mind about the RHT ban they > should put a statement on their blog\web site > announcing this and clearing up the confusion. That might be my wishful thinking then ....what I heard at the meeting were a group of people who've been stymied at every turn and who want improvement to safety. They've done really good things throughout the area as far as I can see. I too think they're wrong to support this wholeheartedly, if that's what they're doing, but I like that they exist - maybe you should get involved and help them be more effective in their campaigning and communication - I know they were looking to sign up more people at the meeting ...

Agree with you slartiB; but at the meeting it was stated that Sustrans aren't delivering the Quietway in Southwark but that the counil have opted to do this themselves and, also, I don't get the impression that Safe Routes DO support a right hand turn. From what I could gather at the meeting they have been trying to get safety improvements at that junction for years and years and have themselvs proposed much much much cheaper and simpler options and were advocating them at the meeting. I know that on their blog they are urging qualified support but, as far as I can see, this seems to come from a position of desperation at anything happening there ever. I really don't think they're the bad guys in this.

On this thread, and at the meeting, one of the alternative proposals, to maximise safety for cyclists coming from Greendale on a major cycle route(and where car drivers are not able to properly and / or aren't aware of this being a crossroads), was that a cycle specific light be installed on Greendale or that the lights be phased to give the Greendale exit a head start. It was stated, I think, this wouldn't be possible because of TFL objections (they, according to the Cllrs at the meeting, assume that any changes to lights will have an unacceptable impact on traffic flow). Is this really the case? There are lots of places in London where cycle specific lights are used to great effect. And, of course, it is hard to see how the proposed ban on a right turn wouldn't have a huge impact on traffic flow. Similarly, on Sustrans website, in relation to the Quietways (a Mayoral initiative) integration with main roads they specifically cite segregation and crossing points as being the means by which cyclists will be assisted. "where directness demands the Quietway briefly join a main road, full segregation and direct crossing points will be provided, wherever possible, on that stretch. Quietways will be particularly suited to new cyclists." Whilst I fail to see the benefits of a NRT and, indeed, fear that it would increase the danger at other, already busy junctions (and Greendale itself) for vulnerable road users. I am slightly baffled by the vehement animosity on here shown towards people who want to improve safety for children and young people trying to get to school and people who use bicycles to get around or get to work. Overall, in terms of impact on traffic flow and congestion, it surely must be the case that getting people out of cars for short (or longer) journeys is going to have a positive effect and improving safety at junctions like these locally is in everybody's interest - car drivers, pedestrians, public transport users alike. And most people will fall into at least 2 or 3 of those categories. For example, if parents could be persuaded that they didn't "need" to bring their children to school by car and the schools could be persuaded to behave more responsibly with regard to the coach transport they provide that would be a "good" thing surely even if only in terms of reducing congestion.