Lowlander

Loz Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Lowlander Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > 20mph seems to be the equilibrium in terms of > cost/benefit. > > You have a source/reference for that? Yes - it's burgeoning adoption by councils UK wide and public acceptance (~60% in favour). Haven't seen any mainstream arguments for above or below 20mph.

Loz Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Lowlander Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > So the question is are people thinking that > time > > savings outweigh the life savings? > > Where does that line of thinking stop? Is 15mph > even better? 10mph? 5mph? What is an 'acceptable' > number of deaths/injuries? 20mph seems to be the equilibrium in terms of cost/benefit. Similar on rail and air transport - MH370 disappeared because it's not deemed worth the investment to track planes in real time for a once in a generation incident; and why we haven't got fully automatic signalling across the rail network, because the investment would be billions...to possibly save a few lives.

JohnL Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > mako Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Lowlander Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > > Sydenham Hill length 3 miles > > > > > > At 30mph - 6 minutes > > > at 20mph 9 minutes > > > > > > Assuming generously that you could drive at > > those > > > speeds the entire length, you'll probably > waste > > > more time posting on this thread in > frustration > > at > > > the new limits than you'd spend driving at 30 > > > > 3 minutes there and back each day and that is a > > couple of whole days every year that you could > be > > spending with friends family etc instead extra > > time stuck on a big wide road doing 20. how far > do > > you take it lowlander? 10mph limit may mean > less > > chance of death. 5mph limit even less chance of > > death. no cars? As mentioned on the other > thread > > the last year of full records available for > rtas > > (2013) was the lowest recorded number of deaths > > ever. its politically motivated and has nothing > to > > do with safety. > > Does speed decrease journey times in London though > - or > does it just get you to the next bottleneck > quicker. City of London calculate that: Yes. If the average City spot traffic speed of 21.9mph is reduced to 20mph a 1.6-mile journey across the City journey times will increase by 25 seconds. http://www.cityoflondon.gov.uk/services/transport-and-streets/traffic-management/Pages/20-mph-speed-limit-proposal.aspx Generally the consensus seems to be 20 seconds per mile So the question is are people thinking that time savings outweigh the life savings?

How far do I want to take it? Much further personally, but let's compromise on speed limits. As to time, how much do you waste on inefficient traffic lights? Some European cities switch them off at night. Campaign for that and you'll save far more time!

Blah Blah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Not the same thing lowlander. Drinking and driving > has far more serious consequnces than driving at > 30mphr, which is why people lose their licences if > caught. Some people can drive well pi$$ed Some people can drive well at 40 - 50 in a built up area We have the laws in place to control the ones who cannot do either AS my last post, I cannot see a valid argument against the new 20 iimit

But enough people drive stupidly at 30 to warrant the 20 limit. As a driver myself I'm fully in support of 20mph blanket ban and have yet to see a convincing argument in favour of retaining the 30 limit. The injury / fatality saving figures stack up and you'll waste more time posting objections here than you'll lose in driving at 20 rather than 30.

Sydenham Hill length 3 miles At 30mph - 6 minutes at 20mph 9 minutes Assuming generously that you could drive at those speeds the entire length, you'll probably waste more time posting on this thread in frustration at the new limits than you'd spend driving at 30

kford Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It's a massive distraction from the real causes of > accidents - inattention, from motorists on the > sodding phone, fiddling with sat-navs, not using > mirrors or simply not looking where they're going. > > > It's these drivers who nearly have me off my > pushbike or motorbike almost every day. > > And the DoT's figures will back this up. Being a driver who is fully in support of a blanket 20mph limit, would love to see those figures?if they exist? Really I've yet to see a solid argument against...might as well oppose the drink driving laws because "some people will drive pi$$ed anyway"

Probably heard the same story in 1930 when the 30mph limit was introduced. Like the smoking ban, give it a few years and people will be thinking "why didn't we do it sooner"

dbboy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > And increases pollution. Or decreases. Depending on driving styles, terrain. I've seen that argument elsewhere and there's unanimous disagreement. The only consensus is that any impact is negligible. But really, if it cuts deaths and has a negligible impact on journey times, the only logical reason to oppose it is because of the fear of being overtaken by speeding motorists?

phobic3000 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It's ridiculous. I've seen people overtaking along > Sydenham Hill because they are stuck behind > someone doing 20. It's dangerous overtaking on > that road yet completely inappropriate to drive at > 20mph on such a wide road. Why is it inappropriate? The 20mph limit also reduces road noise (by a surprising factor) and makes it more pleasant for pedestrians. And as has been shown it's confusing to have varying limits all over London - 30mph on Red Routes and 20mph everywhere else is simple. But yes I totally agree it's dangerous overtaking on that road. Downright stupid in fact. As a driver and pedestrian I welcome the 20mph limit.

If you need to drop off / pick up then Denmark Hill is easier (or East/North Dulwich) Peckham Rye and Rye Lane are terrible for traffic..

You could book a free collection from Southwark although they'll just be recycled Or if you want to donate them try British Heart Foundation https://www.bhf.org.uk/shop/donating-goods/book-a-free-collection As uncleglen said they have to, by law, be tested before being resold so any charity who takes them should be trusted to do so!

I've successfully appealed all five parking tickets I've had during my life and don't think you don't stand a chance here (although good luck to you if you go ahead!) On what grounds do you think the PCNs are unreasonable? The signs are quite clear and there is no leeway (as you've paid to find out).

Every year I do this with electric/gas/BT/broadband/mobile/car insurance/home insurance Two hours max a year and I save between ?500 - ?1000 a year; best hourly rate I can get!

?10 a month is about right, GiffGaff get good reviews, more here http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/phones/mobile-phone-cost-cutting#toppicks

I think I experience this around once a month as a pedestrian. Alongside the ones who actually accelerate hard when the lights are changing from Amber to Red - was nearly taken out by one of those the other week by the Library. Green man 2 seconds later.

Plough is un-crowded but small screens.

And Marigolds - I too get a morning train from North Dulwich (0747 or 0807) and have been lucky to get on one of the short formed trains recently. The driver simply turns up at the depot and takes the train he's given - he has no input into what it is or how long it is - that is down to maintenance staff and operations managers, so likely that there's been a fault with the set and it's been taken out of service. The drivers have been very apologetic and communicative of late and it's not their fault. Last night I was on the 1751 from London Bridge which, outside South Bermondsey, had to divert to New Cross Gate! Lots of confused passengers; I ended up on a crowded overground train to Forest Hill and then a bus back - over an hour late home... This morning - normal length train and on time arrival at London Bridge for once!

Robert Poste's Child Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I heard recently something like if they send a > short train they don't have to include it in the > stats on punctuality, so at the reporting level it > makes the service look better. Does anyone know if > that's true? No, and a train is reported as cancelled if it misses any of its stops. http://www.networkrail.co.uk/about/performance/ You can find out all the stats here - they report under a fudged measure known as "PPM" which is for Southern 83% The real measure you want is right time performance, i.e. within 59 seconds of arrival time - for Southern, it's 50.5% ! And they cancelled 4.6% of services. Note these are network specific stats for the whole Southern network. You can check past times here and find out which trains are most reliable http://www.recenttraintimes.co.uk/ For instance the 07:50 from ED to London Bridge is 100% reliable whilst the 08:51 is 57% reliable

Planes/cars can be nice but rare and I wouldn't advise you buy for someone. Go for something plain, preferably silver and rectangular - there's a shop on Northcross Road - Rigby Mac? - that sells some nice plain ones. Lastly you shouldn't have to pay more than ?50 unless you're buying gold

Driving to a local store for a pint of milk eggs and bread is just bone idleness and the reason this country has high obesity/health/recession problems. I live a 5 minute drive/10 minute walk - and walk every time. by the time you've driven, got through the lights and found a parking space, what have you saved? 10 minutes max.

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It's a very short stretch of road outside the > Sainsbury's Local, maybe 50 metres. The bus lane > starts there (just past the junction of Crystal > Palace Road, so you're talking about maybe two bus > lengths. The idea that it could cause tail backs > to Townley Road is far fetched. I walk past there around 1800 most days (Townley Road to Mount Adon) and there's often traffic from around there right up until the south circular. It starts to slow around Townley and grinds to a halt around Goodrich. Edited to add: This traffic isn't caused by the bus lane...the blocking of which just slows down the buses

MrBen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Of course. They all do. > > The Chelsea's 2 year 1.64% fixed rate, with a ?345 > product fee is another example. If you want to > draw equity and use it as leverage to invest in > something else...it's got to be one of the > cheapest loans you're ever going to get. > > "Would you like to borrow ?100k for 2 years? I'll > charge you 1.64% interest is that ok?" > > "Yes please". > > You could stick that in a boring unit trust and > make money on it. And pay the principle back. Or > buy some oil. Or Euros. Whatever's looking good. > If you can handle the down side and uncertainty of > rates in year 2,3 or 5...and you think your > property will hold its value there or there abouts > (+/- 10%) it's a no brainer. Oil? With the Saudis going the way they are and demand down, watch it go towards $25 a barrel. Surely you mean olive oil?

I always assume no parking during the bus lane operating hours (i.e. 0700 to 1000 and 1630 to 1900)? Are they ignored then? I've never actually noticed tbh..