Lois Pallister

Yes it is very worrying that people are walking less but the increase in London's population of over 2 million between 1986 and today means that the miles walked are the same if not slightly more today. Okay I was being a tad facetious about the Lewisham web site, which I know you already realised, but in all seriousness I find that a shocking statement to put out there, even with "we realise that" replacing "we don't expect". It only serves to prove that they have no intention of enforcing it. Which to those drivers who just don't care will be taken as "Oh that's okay then, I don't need to worry about it". If as Cardelia says 1008 pedestrians were killed back in 1998 and 446 in 2014 then there will have been many factors but less pedestrians on the streets is not one of them. We all know how many are killed at 20mph compared to 30mph, and if we didn't anyone on this thread certainly does now after your repeating it so many times but with the smoking ban there was very heavy enforcement and with reducing the speeds on roads there isn't any more than there was before the speed reduction when the 30mph speeds were already being ignored due to the enforcement being almost zero. So just because there are drivers who ignore speed limits which should be enforced but are not, pedestrians who do not take due care and attention and people who opt to commit suicide by running in front of a vehicle, we must all drive at 20mph on major roads, increasing the danger rather than decreasing it because of no enforcement, causing more pollution, at least half as much time again on most journeys (causing distress and detrimental effects on peoples lifestyles), on roads where there have never been such incidents in the first place as well as on those where there have, which as I've said over and over again I am in favour of! The most dangerous roads where such collisions do occur will remain at 30mph (but still without any enforcement!) such as the South Circular. And South Croxted Road, which should have been 20mph decades ago wasn't because there wasn't a bee in the councils bonnet about a blanket road speed reduction. They put in a camera after one fatality, a zebra crossing after another, but at no point did it occur to them to reduce the speed limit! It's unbelievable! Hey don't stop at just road speeds! Why not campaign to close most places that open to the public where there is the slightest danger too. I think you'd have a heart attack if you came on one of my tours of Shirley Windmill! Oh and any sports where there is a risk to the participants and spectators. This list could go on forever so I'll stop there. Do you have a driving licence Rendel? I am daring to assume that you don't because your comments do not hint at any kind of experience as a driver. I wrote this reply only because you asked me a direct question and I don't like to appear to be rude but please don't ask me any more. Just put your opinion forward and answer the questions yourself, which you have proven yourself more than capable of. Over and out.

Cardelia Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > rendelharris Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > You'll forgive me if I say I think we should be > > more concerned about cars not hitting > pedestrians, > > rather than how safe they'll be when it happens. > > > I'd be prepared to bet it's a lot safer to be > hit > > by a 1970s car at 20 MPH than a brand new one > at > > 30 MPH. > > I agree that reducing the chances of cars hitting > pedestrians is the priority. But from a purely > safety point of view, the best way to achieve that > is to remove the cars. And that's not going to > happen. > > As to your wager, I think you'd be surprised. Car > design back in the 60s and 70s still followed the > school of thought that making the car as strong > and rigid as possible would be the safest path. No > crumple zones, no thought to dissipating the > kinetic energy of impact, no thought on points of > impact. Modern cars have to consider all those > things. For example, the major cause of pedestrian > death is not the initial impact which is typically > where the bumper hits the legs of the pedestrian. > The secondary impact, where a pedestrian's head > hits the bonnet or windscreen, is usually what > causes death. So modern cars have a crumple zone > built into the bonnet to absorb some of the energy > where the pedestrian's head hits the bonnet. They > also have much more pedestrian-friendly bumpers > which help to absorb some of the initial energy of > impact. Some even have pedestrian airbags (Volvo > V40 for instance) which cover the bonnet and > windscreen in case of a collision. > > I doubt the data exist to prove the argument one > way or the other. But if I'm given a choice, I'll > take the modern car at 30 mph please. Especially > if it's one with a collision-avoidance system > built in :) Couldn't agree more Cardelia, I'd take the modern car at 30mph too. My car has a collision-avoidence system and a huge range of other safety features including alerting me when those idiots are overtaking me when I'm doing the speed limit. I don't need that but glad that it's there for less observant drivers. You are right that reducing the chances of cars hitting pedestrians should be the priority but I'd also suggest that making the cars safer could be an equal priority. Certainly, if there was as much drive for enforcement of speed limits on our roads as there is in the car industry to make cars safer then many lives would have been saved. But sadly that won't happen. And Lewisham are telling the public they will get away with ignoring the new limits on their web site!

Applespider Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > My goal is simply to have people drive at whatever > the designated speed limit is - not for any > particular number on any particular street. I can > see the point of 20mph in some places but the lack > of infrastructure and enforcement means that the > nutters driving dangerously won't stop. > > Excellent point on drivers potentially never > having driven above 20-30mph. That surely needs to > be addressed. Do you think we will ever get to a > point where we end up with urban driving being one > category of driving entitlement and > carriageway/motorway being another? Or do you have > other ideas to solve it? I just about remember the > first time my instructor got me to drive along a > 40mph stretch. It was scary how much faster you > had to process stuff. And one of my most useful > final lessons he took me out onto some single lane > 60mph country roads to teach me how to judge speed > into corners and then a stretch on a dual > carriageway at 70. I agree totally that enforcement is the key and the councils should not be throwing up signs and leaving it to the police to enforce the new limits at all. And Lewisham are even telling drivers they don't need to adhere to the signs! Read the article by Michael Snasdell that I linked to in my last post. Sounds as though you had an excellent driving instructor. Unfortunately today the majority of instructors just train their pupils on the test routes so that they know what to do to get through the test but it's another matter when they set of on their own on unfamiliar roads :-( I have many pupils with full licences that haven't driven for years, some who only drove once after passing their test and I had one who had done an intensive course who couldn't even guess which pedal was for what and ended up taking as many lessons as my total beginners before she felt safe enough to venture out on the roads alone! And that is why I struggled on my Standards Check Test recently, as it was conducted at the test centre I take my pupils to and I don't have any knowledge of the area at all as I think it important that they pass their test on roads they are not familiar with. My memory for routes isn't the best but I gladly got through it with the top grade. Two of the four points I lost were because I didn't know the area that well but I'd actually predicted all of those and thought I'd lose a couple more on certain points due to not knowing the roads so I was very happy with the result but out to get full marks next time so will be taking out the time to get used to the area myself. I wanted to get to know the area around West Wickham Test Centre instead, as I could do that during my working day with my pupils if they are taking their tests at Mitcham. But sadly, although West Wickham is one of the few local test centres left where there will still be access to faster roads it will be closed within the next year. There have been attempts to have a two tier licencing system for years now and as the DVSA are currently struggling to implement the next round of changes where the test will include pulling over to the wrong side of the road, reversing and moving off again and driving forwards into a bay and then reversing out as well as having the candidate drive for half of the 40 minute test following a sat nav, I feel that it will be years before anything as sensible as that is brought in if ever. So the DVSA are bringing in manoeuvres which, although I realise are sometimes unavoidable, I don't consider the safest of options and drivers will feel they are a good idea as they were taught them and had to do one of them on their driving test. And the instructors are already asking which make and model of sat nav the DVSA will be using and how they can program it with the test routes! I took part in the consultation and made my concerns known to the DVSA but as usual, I am sure they will just go ahead with implementing the changes anyway. If they really want to make the roads safer they should ban instructors from training on the test routes. They do ask us not to do this but as the vast majority of instructors ignore that plea they now wear high vis jackets so that if they come to a point where they want the candidate to carry out a manoeuvre, the instructor blocking the way with their pupil practicing there knows they are an examiner and can get out of the way. And the other thing they could do is insist on drivers looking where they are going! Hardly any instructors teach this but I insist upon it and without that being second nature I won't let mine take their test in my vehicle. It is entirely natural for us to look in the direction of where we perceive the most danger to come from, rather than to look where we are going and I often see candidates emerging left onto a 40mph road from the test centre whilst looking to the right and when they all come back I often notice that they passed their test. Years ago a pupil of mine stopped at the give way at the top of Crystal Palace Park Road, where it joins Westwood Hill (there are lights there now). After noticing in my rear view mirror that the driver behind me had also stopped and the one behind her I almost placed my head on my knees due to the angle of the roads to check whether my pupil had needed to stop. She hadn't needed to stop. There was a vehicle coming up Westwood Hill but it was a long way down the hill and not breaking the speed limit. I said 'Lyn' and before I could say 'why do you not think that a large enough gap for us to continue?' BANG! The woman behind rammed her vehicle into the back of mine. She saw a gap but didn't think to check whether the car in front of her had moved away. I ended up with a whiplash injury that lasted almost a year. That is by far the greatest cause of collisions but it simply isn't insisted upon that new drivers look where they are going before they move the vehicle. A candidate who does not check his/her offside blind spot the moment he/she starts to steer to cause the front of the vehicle to swing out when reverse parking or reversing into a road on the left will fail the test. This is fair enough but it has always baffled me that when they are moving at 2mph they fail for lack of observations but when they are pulling off with the intention of getting the vehicle to 30mph or faster, as soon as possible they don't fail for lack of proper observation. Apologies for ranting on but all this makes my job far more difficult than it needs to be. I am a responsible driving instructor currently doing a BTEC 4 course in coaching skills and client centered learning which has cost me over ?1300 and causes me to lose out on work, which is probably why most of my peers think I am mad and simply don't believe in further training after qualifying as an ADI. I am doing my bit but the DVSA and local councils make my life more difficult on a daily basis. In answer to your question, no, I don't have any other ideas in order to solve the problem. All I can do is attempt to put across how vital it is for the pupils own safety and the safety of other road users that they take the extra hours to allow me to train them adequately and then do my best to encourage them to return for post test training on the Motorway. And I'm hoping that an increase in my coaching skills will help me to do this.

first mate Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Lois, > > I think you make some good points. > > I would be interested to know what reason has been > given for putting Sydenham Hill back to 30 mph, if > true? I would support it though. > > Like you I am all for the bulk of roads being > 20mph but main routes better at 30mph. I have > never seen such aggressive driving behaviour on a > regular basis since 20 mph was introduced. I do not yet know if it is true. I have taken photos of the very misleading and dangerous signs and emailed them to one of my councillors and asked if Sydenham Hill will be going back to 30mph but have had no reply, even though she asked me to email the details to her. It also seems that the Lewisham 'Highways' department consists of one woman who is on holiday until 13th September! This is a quote from the latest Sydenham Society newsletter though and they don't usually get stuff wrong: "From 5 September Lewisham is planning to follow other London boroughs and introduce a 20mph limit borough wide. (There are exceptions and, it would appear, locally Sydenham Hill will revert to 30mph along its entire length.)" And yes aggressive driving behaviour has gone through the roof since they made such roads 20mph and now although it looks as though Lewisham will be changing Sydenham Hill back to 30 they will be making Westwood Hill and other main roads 20 so it is sadly set to continue. This is an interesting blog post: http://michaelsnasdell.blogspot.co.uk/2016/08/how-to-slow-residential-traffic.html

rendelharris Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > So what I'm getting from your post, Lois, is that > some drivers feel a sense of entitlement to drive > at 30 MPH when the speed limit is 20 MPH and so > get frustrated, "lose their sense of calm" and so > decide it's OK to break the law? Is this really a > good basis on which to base traffic safety > measures - that some people break the law because > they regard it as too frustrating to stick to it? > > An example: as a cyclist, I never run red lights. > Ever. Lots of cyclists do because they feel > frustrated that the law is telling them to do one > thing when they want to do another. Should the > law be changed because of that? No. > > ETA: Sydenham Hill is 1.3 miles long, so driving > it at 20 MPH instead of 30 MPH means you'll cover > the distance in 3.9 minutes instead of 2.5 > minutes. As you say you're in favour of 20 MPH > limits on "most" roads, are you sure you can't > save that 90 seconds somewhere else in your day > without getting too bored and frustrated? No Rendel, both you and Applespider seem to have 30mph as the goal of these nutters despite comments on this forum that they were driving faster than that. I feel that most drivers who stuck to the 30mph limit will be happy to stick with the 20mph limit. The drivers we are discussing here are used to driving at 45mph in a 30mph limit. I am getting tired now of repeating myself but all I am arguing is that SOME roads should be left at 30mph WITH proper enforcement. And the fact that they are going to change Sydenham Hill back to 30mph means that the planners, whoever they are, realise that too! I agree about it taking time for drink driving to become so anti-social but that was a danger we were all facing anyway. The increased danger of putting 20mph limits on roads that don't need them and aren't suitable for them without any enforcement is increasing the risk to other drivers and is not in the least bit sensible. Oh and drink driving still happens way more than I think you realise. The fact that so many less drivers are being convicted of it doesn't mean it isn't happening Once it dropped a bit they cut back on the enforcement and now we also have drug driving as another issue. Check out the accident statistics and you will see that drink driving is still quite prevalent. This is all about one road at the moment, Sydenham Hill, which is going back to 30mph anyway. But I fear that drivers will face similar problems on Westwood Hill too. I don't know what job you do Rendel or even if you drive but for me that 90 seconds isn't just 90 seconds because when all the major roads are reduced to 20mph it adds an awful lot of time to my day travelling between pupils. As it is I'm often late because of all the roadworks in the area so now I may be forced to do something I thought I'd never do and like many other instructors only offer 2 hour lessons. I do anything from 1 hour, 90 minutes, 2 hours and beyond to suit my pupils time schedules and what needs to be covered with them next. I am fine with the huge amount of extra time and fuel costs but at the moment I'm hating my job because the signs out there right now just don't make any sense whatsoever. I shouldn't be put into the position of having to tell my pupils to ignore a 20mph sign because it should be covered and isn't! Consider all those in my position or worse. Delivery drivers who now cannot make so many deliveries in their day because they have to take half as long again driving between their drop off points. And I'm sure I don't need to continue. This will affect the lifestyles and earning capabilities of so many people. And many of those people are used to getting away with driving at 40mph or faster on the 30mph roads. Now they are stuck behind law abiding drivers doing 20mph and getting angry and are likely to take far more risks. Oh and let's please not kid ourselves that it isn't a small minority that are sticking to the new limits. Sydenham Hill has been 20mph for over a year now and I am amazed if I have a vehicle in front of me on that road. It does happen but it is a rare occurrence. I usually have a huge long trail of cars behind me with many trying to overtake in the most dangerous circumstances and nothing in front at all! Why are you not arguing that all the TFL roads should be 20mph too? Why are TFL not making them all 20mph? And lastly consider the fact that the local driving test centres are not closing. London will still have test centres and I will have the opportunity of becoming busier if I want to as many people will want to take their test here at 20mph. They will do that and pass their driving test having never gone over 30mph and driven the route mostly on 20mph roads because now the examiners won't have time to get them to the faster roads, and then the next day they are free to drive up the country on Motorways. I used to battle to get my pupils onto 60 or 70mph A roads but when they weren't included on the test they didn't want to pay for that tuition. And they rarely returned for a Motorway lesson after they passed their test. I was over the moon when faster roads were included on the test as I could train them all on faster roads but now I will not be able to because a 2 hour lesson won't give me time to get them to those roads, give them tuition on those roads and bring them back. If they don't want to pay for a 2.5 or 3 hour lesson they simply will not receive that training, because believe me it won't take them long to realise they will no longer need it on their test here in London. I really hope I am wrong, unlike when I begged for a camera to be put on Crystal Palace Parade and when refused I said that they would wait until someone was killed by the boy racers and that is exactly what happened. I've had enough now as this is painful with me having to go over the same points over and over. All I am saying is that to reduce a road such as Sydenham Hill to 20mph when it is a very wide road with very few pedestrians and has had hardly any serious accidents, when there is no intention of enforcing the new limit is irresponsible and stupid. And they realise that as they are putting it back to 30mph which I notice you keep ignoring. I will make an FOI request to find out about the incident and hope that I will still be able to teach people safe driving for life, although at the moment that looks unlikely.

nxjen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > "But I don't understand why you would think the > incident would have nothing to do with that speed > limit. Are you suggesting that if the limit was > still 30mph this offender would have performed the > same manoeuvre only at 50mph in order to get past > them all?" > > As I understand it, the two buses were only just > pulling out when the speeding car overtook and > nowhere near any speed limit regardless of whether > it was 20 or 30mph. Yes that is as I understood it too but then there was the oncoming car so the driver would have to be faster to get in before the oncoming car became too close, which I don't think he/she would. Partly because it would be a far higher risk manoeuvre and partly because the driver would not have lost so much of his/her sense of calm on a 30mph road. On really narrow residential roads this behaviour is just not possible but on a road like Barry Road there simply has to be a sense that there is enforcement in operation. Don't get me wrong I am in favour of 20mph limits on most roads but not roads such as Sydenham Hill or Westwood Hill (other than by the school). When you are out there day by day with learner drivers at the wheel you get a keen sense of what sends these people over the edge and what I suspected would happen on Sydenham Hill is happening - every day.

nxjen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I don't think the incident described by a speeding > car overtaking two buses and a car at speed had > anything to do with the 20mph speed limit. In > fact, it could be argued that had the oncoming car > that had to brake and swerve been exceeding the > 20mph speed limit, which they might have been this > information is not given, the outcome could have a > lot more serious. I'm not sure that Barry Road shouldn't be a 20mph limit as it's ages since I drove down that road and it did seem pretty congested what with the buses and parked cars, so I'm not suggesting that the 20mph limit isn't suitable for this road. But I don't understand why you would think the incident would have nothing to do with that speed limit. Are you suggesting that if the limit was still 30mph this offender would have performed the same manoeuvre only at 50mph in order to get past them all? Do you not think it possible that to this type of driver the 20mph limit is like a red rag to a bull? This is why if these limits are to be imposed, enforcement is paramount. We need to get rid of the 2001 law that stipulates that all the cameras need to be painted yellow so they can be seen with ample time to slow down for them. Then it might be possible to have less visible cameras that can be moved from road to road, maybe even with the posts for them also being moved now and then so that the driver is never sure where a camera is until it flashes to catch them out. Add to that an increase in both the fine (which would help to offset the setup cost) and the points on the licence and I feel that most of those who break the limits would stop doing so. And if that were the case we could also see the end of the road humps and other traffic calming monstrosities. Also another thing that seems ridiculous to me is that the speed awareness courses are not offered to the worst offenders. Yet surely these people are the ones who need it most! I've known of 4 people who have gone on the course to avoid points on their licences. They all were dreading it and saw it as a pain but they all returned waxing lyrical about how good it was and how glad they had done it. Not one of those people had been doing the speed limit +10% +9mph, which is the criteria for being offered the course. They had just gone over without realising it doing say 46mph on a 40mph road because they were reading the road ahead rather than watching their speedometer and following the speed of the other traffic. It's great that they benefited from it but surely the driver deliberately doing 65mph on a 40mph road is in more need of further road safety education. They may not listen, I grant you but why not keep the threshold but offer it to all and anyone over that threshold understands that if they are caught speeding again above that threshold at any time, they will get the points and fine for both offences and at least a year ban? That way they have the increased knowledge and a strong incentive not to be so reckless again. The laws and punishments are just too soft which is why I find it very difficult to believe that road safety is the reason behind any of this. The driver doing 40mph on Barry Road would not qualify for the option to take the course in order to avoid the points on the licence. At the moment the courses can cost more than the fine but are worth it to avoid the points. Increase the fines so that the course is an even more attractive offer and increase the points too. 4-10 points for speeding rather than 3-6 and with the threat of double the points and a year ban rather than 7 to 56 days, if the offence is repeated, not just for the next 3 years but for life. But I am dreaming here. We are far too soft with our punishments and sadly always will be, putting other law abiding motorists at a far greater continual risk. The safety of the law abiding driver is not considered to be at all important.

You are calling me patronising! And to be honest I don't really have any concern as to whether what I say holds up in your opinion. I was just replying to your very insulting earlier message. At least I didn't pick and choose bits of your conversation to argue against without it being in context. And then you ask me for evidence that I have already provided - that of Portsmouth which you claimed proved the contrary. There is no evidence that just takes the larger roads in to consideration but there should be and I am sure that eventually there will be. I agreed that it saves lives on the narrower residential roads which is why the fact that the slight increase in the KSI'S in Portsmouth, whilst there was a drop in the rates nationally does prove my point. I am sure the KSI's for the narrow residential roads would have fallen so those on the larger roads must have risen far more than can be seen by that report. I made a mistake about the road and speed limit and admitted that but I'm not going to repeat the parts of my earlier message that you chose to ignore other than to say that we know nothing about the incident so just as I cannot assume it was caused by some maniac who was made angry by the 20mph limit as he or she came up Lordship Lane, you cannot assume otherwise. This is the reason I posted here to ask if anyone knew what had happened. I still can't help but find it very odd that it wasn't reported anywhere though and would like to know why. Perhaps I will make a FOI request to try to find out. I take it you do not drive at 20mph down Sydenham Hill or perhaps you never drive down it at all because I have no idea where your 30 seconds came from. But that isn't the issue at all. The fact that it takes me 1 minute more to arrive at the end of the 1 mile road doesn't bother me in the slightest. It is the fact that I'm either sitting there forced to crawl at a ridiculous pace along on a huge empty road or I am put in danger due to those who choose not to observe the rules which I always do. Of course we shouldn't abandon laws because some people choose to break them! But neither should we introduce new laws that a majority will break and some to extremes thereby putting those who are law abiding at more risk rather than less risk. Especially when there is no intention of any protection in the way of any attempts to enforce those new laws. One minute you are singing the praises of a blanket 20mph limit as it saves lives but now it's fine for pedestrians to be put at risk by that limit on certain roads where they never were before they got out of the habit of exercising the caution needed to cross such a large road. The first step is to find a way to enforce the rules before putting those who do abide by any new rules at risk because of those who don't. And THEN reduce the speed limit if there is evidence that makes that necessary as there has been on South Croxted Road for years. There never has been on Sydenham Hill. I always read the reports and statistics with a very dubious and inquisitive mind as I know they can be very easily misinterpreted or even manipulated to show the desired result. And I am sure that if they could have shown there were less KSI's in the very first city that went for this scheme they would have. But they didn't because they couldn't. What is more important to me is the experience of the drivers on those roads. And I am not the only one. First Mate knows what I am talking about as I'm sure many other members on this forum do. And certainly many on the Sydenham Forum do too. Road safety is the biggest part of my job and I know from my own experience that Sydenham Hill is more dangerous with its 20mph limit which wasn't even necessary. If this was really to do with keeping the roads safer then South Croxted Road would have had a reduced speed limit decades ago and Sydenham Road would have been left as it is. They must be at least realising their mistake there as they are going to return it to a 30mph limit. And at least I can now use South Croxted Road without being made to feel that I am attempting to inconvenience other drivers. Now when they flash me and occasionally overtake me, I know that I am going as fast as the law says I can go and that they know they are breaking the law. And soon I will be able to feel safer driving at 30mph when safe to do so on Sydenham Hill. I am not against a 20mph speed limit where it is needed. I am just against this ridiculous all or nothing approach without any apparent reasoning. We obviously won't come to any agreement here but that's fine. You stop being patronising to me and I will to you Why don't we smoke the piece of pipe ;-)

Lewisham are also making things even more dangerous during the transition with signs that should be covered until it goes live in Sydenham and a sign erected in Forest Hill which I believe is now active which is completely hidden by branches of a tree. A new sign just put up and they didn't trim the tree back? What speed should I go through this camera on Westwood Hill?

rendelharris Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Sorry if you're bored, Lois, though one would have > thought a professional driving instructor should > be able to maintain their concentration at all > times? However keeping drivers entertained isn't > the main purpose of speed limits, they're there to > cut the appalling toll of 3000+ people killed and > seriously injured in London each year. 20 MPH > limits in other areas have been proved to reduce > accidents by up to 60% and, incidentally, only > slowed average journey times by 1-2 MPH. As I'm > sure you're aware, 20% of children hit by cars at > 30 MPH will die, those hit at 20 MPH almost always > survive........... > One last thing: you say your pupils are less > attentive on 20 MPH roads? Well the average > traffic speed in London is lower than 20 MPH, does > this mean they're less attentive most of the time? I didn't say at any point I wasn't able to maintain my concentration at all times and you display perfectly with your quip about 'keeping drivers entertained' that you did not make any attempt to listen (read) or try to understand where I am coming from at all. And the end of your post also shows your total ignorance of the point I was making. I will attempt to spell it out for you more clearly. My pupils are less attentive, and I am bored or frustrated at having to drive at 20mph along Sydenham Hill which is a very wide and safe road without many pedestrians, which makes it feel as though the car is hardly moving at all. However, in busy road conditions where the speed is naturally reduced due to other traffic, and traffic controlling measures such as lights etc. of course they are concentrating on all that is happening so that they can deal with it effectively and safely, and I am helping them to do that. > How do you know the accident you witnessed wasn't > caused by excessive speed? I've tried to think of > ways in which a 20 MPH limit could make roads more > dangerous, the only way I can see it would is if > people ignore the limit. Again you are making assumptions! Where did I say that I didn't think the accident was caused by excessive speed? That is exactly what I thought probably was the cause, along with lack of observation and anger and frustration. And can I add to your only reason that a 20mph limit could make roads more dangerous? If SOME people ignore the limit WHILST OTHERS ARE OBEYING IT. That is where the main danger comes from on the roads that are not suitable for such a low speed limit. I was out working today from 1100 to 1500 and I made a deliberate decision to note all such situations and in those few hours I counted 12 incidents that could have proved very dangerous involving drivers who have no regard for the speed limit at all, 5 of them on Sydenham Hill which has been a 20 limit more than long enough for drivers to get used to it and even has a camera which I see go off at least once a week. I have had so many near misses on that road since it became a 20 limit and don't think I had any before that and on 4 occasions now I have witnessed pedestrians, including children, have to quickly jump out of the way of cars overtaking several vehicles driving at the speed limit at 40mph or more. Even worse, this isn't just at the zebra crossing. I am seeing far more pedestrians walking across the road at any point and sometimes just after a bend, because they have been lulled into a false sense of security. If I am driving along that road and am the only car on the road I am bored and that is because the speed limit is unsuitable for the road, not because I am a speed freak. I don't know about you but I have never had a point on my licence or any driving convictions whatsoever and have only been involved in two small collisions (although I was injured in one of them) that were not only not my fault but also unavoidable by myself. Over 90% of collisions are avoidable by the person not at fault and I am avoiding them on an almost weekly basis and having to avoid more on Sydenham Hill now than I ever have before. If I am driving along that road and have a huge long queue of cars behind me I am ultra alert but also very frustrated that I have been put into such a position of increased danger by the whim of some local council member who very likely has far less understanding of road safety than I do. Thankfully there are now plans for it to be changed back to a 30mph limit now and I wonder why they would do that unless it has proven ineffective? I would be interested in seeing any reports you have showing a 60% reduction in accidents with only a 1-2mph reduction on journey times for this type of road. I am sure there aren't any. I don't have time to look through all of my files but in Portsmouth KSI's were not reduced. In fact they increased! But then that study was for the whole of Portsmouth, including the roads that would have benefited from a 20 limit. I wonder what the statistics would have shown if they took just the wide main roads for which a 20 limit is not suitable? http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http:/www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/roadsafety/research/rsrr/theme4/interimeval20mphspeedlimits.pdf

Oh yes, my apologies, it is before the start of the 20mph zone. I do still find it very odd and like Ampersand, I was very surprised that there was nothing anywhere about it, especially as the road was closed from before midday until after half seven at night. First Mate makes some very sensible and accurate observations and if this wasn't an accident involving a police vehicle it could be possible that a driver became irresponsible with either speed or care or both having just been stuck behind vehicles who were adhering to the 20mph speed limit. And don't accuse me of blaming 20mph speed limits. I blame the authorities who put them where they don't belong and then make no move to enforce them! I agree totally that there should be enforcement but what hope have you got when there was never any before the 20 limits came in? Why do we have to have big yellow cameras. I've never understood that. Surely 'entrapment' would involve you actually somehow 'encouraging' a driver to break the speed limit. Breaking the limit is breaking the limit - nobody else is driving the vehicle but the person who chose to break the speed limit and they should be punished for that but when they know they can get away with it then of course many will continue to do it making these 20mph routes on unsuitable roads more dangerous than they were before. Rendel, I take it you are referring to Specs average speed cameras when you say "timed in and out zones" which do use ANPR and are proving VERY effective on faster roads. But maybe I have that wrong. I am sure you will let me know if that is the case. If these were just 'zones' the problem would still exist outside those zones and if they were on all roads apart from a ridiculous amount of clutter on our streets, which the government is trying to reduce, the cost would be ridiculous. I have a far better idea than that which would be very effective, cost way less and cause less clutter but the simple options are never explored for some reason. I would love proper enforcement but I believe that wide main roads such as Sydenham Hill and the top of Lordship Lane up to the old Police Station should be 30mph (with proper enforcement). Narrow residential streets, such as those studied in the Webster and Layfield report you quoted from, AND narrow main routes with parked cars all along them are another matter altogether and I have no problem at all with all of those being 20mph. And just to highlight the extremely poor implementation of this by the local authorities, Sydenham Hill was made 20mph long before South Croxted Road! What were Southwark thinking of? Unless SCR was left to Lambeth, the motive could not have been safety on the roads! Since I moved here in 1986 I am only aware of one fatality on Sydenham Hill (on the roads that is) and that was a motorcyclist in the early hours who was alone on the road. Just in the few years I was working 6 days a week, coming up to the implementation of the Theory Test and beyond, I knew of 5 fatalities on SCR. That road should have been 20mph even before I moved here in 1986. Now that would more than likely have saved lives. I avoided the road because I was so fed up with abuse from the drivers behind me because I refused to go above 20mph and was sometimes even slower than that. And that includes before I was qualified as an ADI. It is pure common sense that 30mph is way too fast to be driving along that road. But for all the roads of London, other than the TFL red routes, to be 20mph is a complete farce, and I believe more dangerous than leaving them at 30mph but actually enforcing that 30mph limit which could be easy to do if there was only any will to do so. But instead they will be made 20mph for years possibly causing more deaths, and how long will it be before they work that one out? Maybe they won't want to admit they got it wrong and will wait until there are studies in the declining health of Londoners since this madness due to higher pollution levels and stress and anger caused by less sleep and a reduced quality of life.

Yes it just doesn't work and is not the answer on main routes at all. The answer is in enforcing the speed limits. If 30mph meant 30mph then that would be fine for much of Lordship Lane, and Sydenham Hill and now Westwood Hill and the whole of Lewisham is about to go to a 20mph limit. I use the mini roundabouts here on my lessons so take my pupils down Kirkdale, right at the roundabout and up Westwood Hill and right at the next roundabout and then down Sydenham Hill. I have been a qualified driving instructor since January 1995 and am always aware of my pupils behaviour and mood (I need to know if they are too stressed, or getting upset or very happy with what they have just done) and I am painfully aware that on the 20mph Sydenham Hill they are less attentive to the road and their surroundings. They will often turn their heads to look at me when I speak which they do not do on the other 30mph roads. And I have to admit that I myself feel extremely bored, especially as with my speed limiter I don't even need to concentrate on keeping my speed down. I have no problems with the bottom end of Lordship Lane with the shops and parked cars and narrower road being 20 because I think that is suitable and you still need to be aware, but where this accident happened the road should still be a 30mph limit.

Does anyone know anything about this incident? I was held up by it at 7pm and later discovered that the road closure went into force before midday. When I got there I saw yellow markers all over the road and the police with a camera and a smashed up motorcycle on the pavement by the road. I haven't been able to find anything reported about this incident and assure you that my interest is not a macabre one. I am a driving instructor in the area and researching as to whether the 20mph speed limits are making our roads safer or more dangerous. This left me wondering if there is a ban on reporting serious accidents that occur on the roads that have been changed to a 20mph speed limit.

I am also a driving instructor in the area. I was in Chingford for the day but heard about the incident on LBC. Very sad indeed. As for the road markings: It is a bus lane which is in operation between the hours of 7am to 7pm Mon to Sun. This means that if you are not driving a bus, taxi, motorcycle or on a push bike you should not enter the lane during those times where the line separating the lanes is solid. The arrow does indicate that it is a left only lane (for all those unable to drive in the bus lane during its operation). To make use of this you need to wait until the broken line begins and then signal to move into the lane to turn left - and of course look too as ANY vehicle could be in the lane driving along at speed. Between 7pm and 7am you can use the lane all along the road if you are planning to turn left and in fact you should use it anyway and come out of it if you are going straight on as all drivers should keep to the left unless there is a reason not to. I feel very much for all concerned and it is possible that errors might have been made by both the motorcyclist and the lorry driver which is often the case in many road accidents. A fact that I very much love and teach all my learner drivers is this: Over 90% of accidents can be avoided by the person whose fault it isn't. I firmly believe that one of the biggest reasons a lot of the accidents happen is because as drivers we tend not to look where we are going!!! I know that sounds a bit mad but it is true. I didn't before I became an instructor and still today many instructors don't teach pupils to ALWAYS know what is in front of their car before they proceed. You also need to know what is at the sides and behind you but most instructors do teach that. I know that this wasn't a cause in this accident but I'd love to take the opportunity to explain this to all drivers using this forum. A good few years ago when the junction with Crystal Palace Park Road and Westwood Hill had no traffic lights but just a give way line, I suffered a whiplash injury at that junction whilst giving a driving lesson. My pupil stopped at the give way line. I noticed that a woman had stopped behind us and another car was stopped behind her with more approaching the junction. The angle there is so severe I had to bend forward almost until my head was on my knees to take a look. There was a car coming up Westwood Hill but it was a long way down and there was time for us to have continued rather than to have stopped. I said "Lyn" and before I could say "don't you think that is a big enough gap?" BANG - The woman behind drove straight into us pushing us out onto the main road. This is because she stopped behind us, looked to her right, saw that there was room, assumed we had gone and drove off to the left to emerge from the junction whilst still looking to the right. So many of us do that. I used to and most drivers do it because they were never taught not to at the beginning. So please will all drivers try to notice any times that they start to drive in one direction whilst looking in another and then try to remedy this by looking before going once they have established that there is a gap in the traffic for them to go. You can look back again as soon as you are moving but DO look FIRST. I just wish I could teach all drivers on the road to do this as it would reduce accidents dramatically. In this case, if the driver of the lorry was indicating left and was using the right lane so that he had room to get his vehicle round the tight corner then the motorcyclist would have been wise to have waited behind the truck until it had turned. It may have been easier for the motorcyclist to have taken this action than for the truck driver to be able to see the motorcyclist in his blind spot, but I wasn't there and I think it is not good to point the finger when the details are unknown. Once they are known though, discussing such things isn't bad because it may help prevent similar accidents in the future. I am sure everyone feels for both road users and their families and discussing how it may have happened does not detract from that in any way whatsoever. Let us not criticise those who have made mistakes because at times we have all made mistakes but instead let us learn from our own and others mistakes to make a safer future.

Hi Fran, I have been teaching people to drive in the area since 1994 and I specialise in the older and more nervous pupils. My website is at safemotoring.co.uk. It is being reworked at the moment and there is a lot missing but all the vital information is there. Apparently there is a recommendation on this forum for me somewhere, which is why I just signed up to try to find it but I have never been able to. Good luck with your goal Fran, You will absolutely love the freedom, Lois