DulwichLondoner

rendelharris Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > For > cycle safety it's clearly better to have > segregated lanes on main roads than winding routes > through often poorly surfaced backstreets where > the majority of drivers don't observe the 20MPH > limit. Dog Kennel Hill and Camberwell New Road do not have segregated cycle lanes. The alternatives I mentioned of Camberwell Grove and Calais street, in my humble opinion, make more sense for cyclists because they are less congested, have fewer traffic lights, and much less vehicular traffic. It's nothing to do with cyclists not having the right to be on Camberwell new road, and all to do with the fact that it would make a lot of sense for everyone, including them. They would breath less polluted air and be exposed to less traffic. Just like with the advice of staying back from large vehicles, I speak from direct personal experience, because these are the routes I prefer(ed) (before the bridge on the grove was closed) when riding my motorcycle, for this very reason. It doesn't mean I don't think I have the right to ride on the main road, it means I find it more convenient not to in light of the alternatives. Have you ever driven or ridden along Calais street? I ride there often and, let me tell you, regardless of the speed limits, going above 20 mph is hard: the road is narrow and twisty. I admit I never see cars speeding there; on the main roads yes, but not there. Again you reveal your attitude that > cyclists don't have the same rights as motorised > traffic to be on the road (before you say I'm > putting words in your mouth again, this from you > in the past: "A city the size of London is not and > cannot ever be cycle-friendly like Cambridge or > Amsterdam. Road space is a very scarce resource. > It should not be allocated to a minority of > users"). I wish you'd just admit this. Of course I admit it. If a majority of bus users is inconvenienced for the sake of a minority of cycle lane users who only use it at rush hour, according to my experience), that's not right. > I said to you what feels like many moons ago that > obviously action against heavy vehicle traffic > would have to be taken, including bans at certain > times, encouraging nighttime deliveries, > offloading heavy loads onto smaller, greener > vehicles outside London, greater use of the river > etc. On this we seem to agree! But closing down lanes and roads without doing any of the above simply worsens congestion and pollution, for the reasons mentioned previously. >There are solutions, none of them perfect, > none of them complete solutions, but it's no good > just throwing your hands up and saying "Oh this is > always going to happen, you won't discourage them" > (which is not putting words in your mouth, that's > an exact paraphrase of what you said above). I never said nothing should be done. My bullet points in the previous post show exactly what I think should be done (which is not nothing). > Focus needs to be on all car use in all of London, > not just in the CCZ - the person who commutes by > car from Wimbledon to Streatham causes just as > much pollution as someone commuting from Peckham > to Westminster. Yes. Having a decent public transport system that doesn't cost a kidney would help. In my case, it was the Southern Fail/London Bridge fiasco that prompted me to use my motorcycle to commute to work.

Lowlander Wrote: > Try in a car. I've come close to 35 or so before > the lights change or I hit more traffic. Never > 40mph. I don't need to try in a car: seeing all the cars and lorries riding at my same speed, if not higher, is sufficient proof that 40mph are very feasible there even on 4 wheels.

Lowlander Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I've never in my 30 years of driving managed to > reach 40mph on Park Lane, and am lucky to hit 30! ??? Are we talking about the same road? The one from Hyde park corner to Marble Arch? I ride my motorcycle there very, very often. I almost always manage to reach 40mph (on the northbound lane, the southbound lane has a 30mph limit), even during the morning rush hour. In fact, speeding there is so easy that police motorcyclists very often hide there to catch speeding motorists, especially at rush hour! > In East Dulwich, there are so few places you could > get to 30mph for more than a minute - or two at > the most - before having to slow down for > lights/junctions. Yes, but if driving at 30mph lets you spend less time at red traffic lights, then you'll be polluting less. Also, small differences add up, once multiplied by the number of drivers in London.

edcam Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The point being missed here is that on any given > journey I'd be amazed if anyone could travel at > more than an average of 20 mph in London. > Therefore the limit seems reasonable. I did say very explicitly that I don't expect huge differences during rush hour, but I do expect differences outside the peak times, eg travelling from South to North London at night will take longer. It's also about the extra time you spend waiting at traffic lights. If the speed limit is lower, outside peak times you are more likely to encounter more red lights, and stay still at more traffic lights for more time, with the engine running, polluting more. Some cars and scooters automatically switch off when stopped at traffic lights, but they're a minuscule minority. It's not only about the inconvenience: it's about the inconvenience plus the additional pollution this causes. Oh, by the way, speed humps and bumps are also terrible for pollution because they cause motorists to brake and accelerate all the time, rather than keeping a more constant pace. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/12/01/speed-bumps-could-removed-cut-traffic-pollution-save-lives/ http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/04/09/speed-bumps-could-disappear-uk-roads-part-new-plan-cut-pollution/

malumbu Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Wasn't having a go at an idividual rather making > points that (a) citizens have an important role > (b) poor driving standards, in particular London. My points still stand, and remain unaddressed. Without even the slightest assessment I was demanding, we risk spending lots of money on something that may have a minuscule impact, while other causes of pollution remain unaddressed. Not a very wise approach.

We all want clean air. No one wants pollution. That's not the point. The point is that, without a proper assessment of what makes up current traffic, your approach risks worsening it. Your approach of punishing drivers by making driving even more miserable than it already is may discourage the handful (and statistically irrelevant, I'd guess) of people who still commute to central London by car, but does little to discourage all the lorries, vans etc that must get somewhere to work and to deliver goods; it does little to discourage the Uber driver who sees it as part of his routine, and who will still want to reach central London because that's where most of his business his. It does little to discourage the HGV that must reach a construction site in zone 1, and will reach it regardless of how many roads you close to make him miserable. My solution is not to give up (again, putting words in my mouth...). As i said countless times, my solution is: 1) understand what on Earth makes up current traffic 2) try to incentivise large vehicles to enter the congestion charge zone after 9am and before 4pm 3) assess how many minicabs are in London, determine if we have too many, and if some kind of specific congestion charge for them makes sense Without an approach like this, your approach of simply closing down roads to make way for cyclists worsens the problem, because, guess what, goods still need to be delivered to central London, construction works will still take place, etc, and all the related traffic will simply cause more congestion and more pollution. Oh, and it would also help if cyclists were encouraged to use secondary and narrower residential roads. For example, for cyclcists going from East Dulwich to, say, Oval, it would make more sense to ride along Camberwell Grove than Dog Kennel Hill, along Calais street and Foxley road than along Camberwell new road, etc. Yet I have never seen this encouraged: the official policy seems to be that cycle lanes should be on the main road, where they breath a more polluted air, share the road with dangerous vehicles, and cause congestion by removing other lanes (especially bus lanes) to make way for them.

rendelharris Wrote: > So most of the areas you mention do not fit the > away from schools, shopping areas and areas of > high pedestrian or cycle use criteria. I disagree, for the reasons I mentioned above. Let's remember that pedestrians do not have a constitutional right to jump out of nowhere into the street, crossing where they shouldn't. This must be one of the reasons why Park Lane (40mph limit northbound, 30mph southbound) is not the road with the most accidents in London, despite being very busy and full of pedestrians on both sides. The key point is not so much whether there are many pedestrians, but the road layout. In a narrow and curved residential roads, with cars parked on both sides, and no pedestrian crossings, visibility will be limited and pedestrians will cross the street pretty much everywhere. Near a primary school or playground, young kids may run away from their parents and jump onto the road, despite the parents' best attempts at stopping them. All reasons for a 20mph limit. On the Lordship lane high street pedestrians shouldn't cross wherever they feel like doing it, but many still do... On the Streatham high street there are more pedestrians than on Lordship Lane, but most of the high street is a dual carriageway, with very clear separation between lanes, and between pedestrians and cars. I don't see a huge risk in 30mph limits there. Unless you tell me the whole policy should be based on safeguarding the occasional idiot who decides to jump in the middle of the road crossing where he shouldn't... Let's also halve train speeds for the same reason, then! Also, the fact that the South Circular has more accidents is to be expected, since it is one of the main arteries of the city! Roads with more traffic flow are more likely to have accidents, it is a very self-evident concept. Don't believe me? Fine. Let's look at some data for 20mph schemes elsewhere. The National Archive website has the PDF of a report commissioned by the Department for Transport on 20mph zones in Portsmouth: http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http:/www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/roadsafety/research/rsrr/theme4/interimeval20mphspeedlimits.pdf The key is on page 3, section "safety": "None of these results were statistically significant when compared against national trends". I also remember other newspaper articles and reports quoting the Department for Transport saying the results were "inconclusive" http://www.roadsafetygb.org.uk/news/3451.html I see no one has commented on the fact that the Department for Transport commissioned a multi-year study on the topic, yet councils rushed to implement 20mph zones before the results were public. Why? By the way, for once the DfT did the right thing: the initial assessment was inconclusive, so it commissioned a more detailed, multi-year study, instead of rushing to implement expensive and disruptive changes which are not backed by clear evidence. This is the right thing to do. Is it such a weird concept, for xxxx's sake? Am I the only one who doesn't want his tax money frittered away in initiatives of dubious effectiveness? Lambeth introduced 20mph zones about a year ago. I don't remember exactly when Southwark did, but soon we should be able to compare accident statistics in 20 vs 30mph councils. That will be interesting.

malumbu Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > If some of you insist that you have the right to > abuse speed limits to save time I have the same > right to run unecessary red lights when cycling. ???????

Also, some deaths and injuries are caused by behaviour which is unlikely to be affected by a 20mph limit. E.g. drunk driving, crazy speeding (ie if you're stupid enough to go at 50mph in an urban area, a 20mph limit is unlikely to deter you), low-speed collisions at intersections, etc. Increases or reductions in these types of collisions have little to do with speed limits.

You seem unwilling to accept that a big city like London needs a certain level of vehicular traffic to function. You seem to think (or at least this is what I infer, correct me if I am wrong) that with the right incentives traffic could be cut to an acceptable level, so that happy pedestrians and cyclists can all hug each other while singing kumbaya in a finally pollution-free city. I beg to differ. That's not going to happen. Sure, polluting vehicles should be disincentived as much as possible. Private cars already are (between the congestion charge and the cost of parking, getting to zone 1 by helicopter might be cheaper than driving :) ). I talked about looking into whether London has too many minicabs, and into higher congestion charge fees for large vehicles at rush hour. Apart from this, there will still be goods that need to be carried back and forth. The larger supermarkets and stores get their deliveries at night, but not every shop can feasibly restock at night. There will always be some vehicular traffic which cannot be reduced. I don't like it but that's the way it is. Causing even greater misery to this traffic, by closing roads etc, does nothing to punish these nasty motorists, while paradoxically causing greater pollution. Not exactly a win-win. It's nothing to do with a right to drive and all to do with the physiological level of vehicular traffic a big city like London needs in order to function properly.

rendelharris Wrote: > You do know that it takes more fuel (hence more > emissions) for a car to drive at 30MPH than 20MPH? > Rather basic physics. Yes, but at the same time journeys tend to take longer. I genuinely do not know if the two effects offset each other. Do you?

@rendelharris, yes, your figure comes from TFL, but I have explained in great detail why I dare consider it meaningless. Would you like to challenge my opinion with some concrete argument, or do you think we should just switch our brain off and shut up when an official body writes something? Yes, your number comes from TFL, but so does the (rather obvious and unsurprising) statement that car usage and ownership vary a great deal between the inner and outer boroughs, which was the basis of my argument. Do you disagree with that? Do you disagree that that statistic could well be driven by people living in the outer boroughs and needing the car for relatively short trips to destinations not served by public transport? Again, after all those are the very people who'd need a car, whereas lots of people in the inner boroughs don't even have one, and those who do use it little. It's like saying that official data from HMRC show the average London income to be ?X. It would be quite meaningless as an average because the variability would be huge! rendelharris Wrote: > How many "major through routes" of that nature > (with low pedestrian and cyclist movement and away > from schools, shops, markets and playgrounds) can > you think of in London? If you want to keep Park > Lane 40MPH that's fine, where else in our local > area or in central London can you apply that > description to? Let's see... Lordship lane runs all the way to Forest Hill and the South Circular. Most of it is not a high street. East Dulwich Grove is neither a high street nor narrow. Many stretches of the South Circular are not high street. Parts of Camberwell road. Most of the A2 from New Kent road, to Old Kent road and New Cross gate at least. Brixton Hill. Streatham High road (the limit may already be 30mph there, I'm not sure). Also, let's not forget that a 30mph limit does not mean that the speed will always be 30mph, everywhere. I think the speed limit is 30 in most, if not all, of Westminster, yet I do not see all motorcyclists and drivers crazily rushing at 30mph in narrow residential roads there - sure, there is the occasional idiot, but the occasional idiot will always be present, even with 20mph limits.

rendelharris Wrote: > TfL: > http://content.tfl.gov.uk/technical-note-14-who-tr > avels-by-car-in-london.pdf page three. Thank you. I find the statistic you quoted utterly meaningless, for the simple reason that it is the average across extremely different areas. Unsurprisingly, the report mentions that car use is much lower in inner London boroughs. For all we know, that statistic could very easily be driven by people living in outer London boroughs and needing to reach destinations not well served by public transport: the local railway station, the local supermarket, etc.; after all, these are the very people who'd need a car in the first place, whereas, unsurprisingly, car ownership and use are much lower in the inner boroughs. I have seen the same statistic mentioned numerous times by cycle and green activists, who say it with great outrage, as if this proved that the average central London resident was so lazy to drive everywhere instead of using public transport, while, in fact, the reality could well be different! > Really, > you are capable of looking this stuff up yourself > instead of every time someone says something with > which you disagree demanding sources - something > notably lacking from your own posts. Good night. I only quote information I am reasonably sure of. Sure, this causes me to quote fewer sources and data points than other people :)

I replied here: http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?20,1811635,1811664 The document you mentioned happens to agree with my key points! :)

@rendelharris, you mentioned this: http://www.rospa.com/rospaweb/docs/advice-services/road-safety/drivers/20-mph-zone-factsheet.pdf Have you read it? It agrees with my key points. Do you agree with me, too, or have you simply not read the document you mentioned? :) The document mentions that: "the relatively low numbers of recorded KSI casualties in Portsmouth mean that small fluctuations up and down by chance can have an undue influence on this. Much of this increase came from the number of pedestrians injured and it was not possible to measure whether the amount of pedestrian activity had increased following the introduction of the 20mph limits." Its conclusions are: "RoSPA does not believe that 20mph speed limits are suitable for every road in a local authority area. They should be targeted at roads that are primarily residential in nature and on town or city streets where pedestrian and cyclist movements are high (or potentially high), such as around schools, shops, markets, playgrounds and other areas. Roads which are not suitable for 20mph limits are major through routes. " Both the criticism above and the conclusions are exactly my points! I am all for 20mph in narrow residential roads, or in roads which may be wider but are busy high streets, with cars parked on both sides, people everywhere, and lots of children who might unexpectedly jump onto the street from a parked car which hides them from view (eg the Lordship Lane high street). Like I said, I am not convinced of the benefits of 20mph limits on "major through routes".

alice Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > speed limit 20 driver go 25/30 > > speed limit 30 driver go 40 Not quite, because it's full of cameras everywhere and, especially in North London, lots of fines have been handed out to motorists going over 20

@rendelharris, And the source of the 2/3 statistics is? A statistic is utterly meaningless unless someone explains how it was calculated. For example, the statistical 'estimates' for the official immigration numbers were criticised because they were based on surveys taken in the main airports, at times which excluded arrivals from specific destinations. Oh, and you only need to look at the main political events in the UK and US over the last year or so to realise how wrong surveys and polls can be! Also, your calculation is quite meaningless, because speed is far from constant, and there are lots of traffic lights everywhere. A lower speed limit means a greater likelihood of encountering more red lights and taking longer to complete your journey. And, as keano rightly points out, more time x all the vehicles in London means more emissions and more pollution!

@rendelharris, what you propose is not always feasible. Part of the road from Oval to Vauxhall has a single lane of traffic, now that bus lane has been removed. If you make that lane a bus lane, where would the rest of the traffic go? If you do what you propose on Vauxhall Bridge, what would the impact on traffic and congestion be? Wouldn't more congestion cause even more pollution?

I took the liberty of creating a separate topic on the 20mph limits here as it would be off-topic in a discussion on emissions: http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?20,1811635 @rendelharris, it saddens me that I cannot make myself understood. Demanding to see a minimum of cost-benefit analysis before deciding to implement major initiatives that cost money and cause disruption is basic common sense. Some things are impossible to measure or estimate; others are not. For the last time, now that cycle lanes have been built, it shouldn't be particularly complex nor expensive to install a few cameras that count how many cyclists use them during and outside rush hour; it would be a very reliable assessment, not a wild, objectionable guess. Is it too much to ask? I struggle to trust a body which puts forward expensive project with no detailed assessment, then doesn't measure their impact, even when doing so wouldn't be particularly complex nor expensive. Am I wrong? Should I just shut up and trust politicians and bureaucrats who don't bother presenting any evidence at all? As for the 20mph limits, it's the councils and the campaigns which claimed over and over again that "research shows" and "evidence proves". I am not demanding to see data which cannot exist, I am simply demanding to see the research which these campaigns say supports their case so strongly. Again: is it too much to ask?

This started as an off-topic in other thread: http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?20,1807137,1811590#msg-1811590 but I think it's more appropriate to have a separate topic. I would like to learn more about the case for 20mph speed limits. I have a number of reservations, because I have not found convincing evidence presented by the councils that implemented this measure, nor by the campaigns that support it. I am very much in favour of 20 mph speed limits in narrow residential roads. I am, however, not entirely convinced of the merits of 20mph speed limits on large roads, especially those, like most wide A roads in London, with multiple lanes, parking forbidden on both sides, and limited pedestrian crossings: any pedestrian who tried to cross outside of the designated crossings on this wide roads would be stupidly jeopardising his life and that of others ? not to mention committing a sanctionable offence. I therefore do not understand how 20mph limits would make pedestrians any safer on these roads ? if anything, they might achieve the opposite effect by encouraging the dangerous behaviour of crossing illegally outside of the designated pedestrian crossings - something I have already witnessed first hand. During rush hour in busy cities like London, motor traffic very rarely reaches 30mph so I would expect the impact of 30mph speed limits to be negligible. However, 20mph limits would certainly increase journey times outside of rush hour, e.g. for night journeys. This can be a very big inconvenience for all road users, including users of public transport (bus users). It is often mentioned that 20mph limits would ease congestion; I do not understand why this would be, since when roads are congested most vehicles already travel at speeds below 20mph. I understand variable speed limits may help ease congestion on motorways, but I don't understand how motorways may be comparable to urban roads - there are no traffic lights on motorways forcing motorists to stop every 3 minutes. Of course being hit at 20mph is better than being hit at 30mph. Being hit at 10mph is even better, but this is not a valid reason to enforce 10mph limits! What is the evidence that 20mph limits actually have any effect on the number and severity of collisions and accidents? The London council of Lambeth mentions some very vague statistics on a supposed reduction in collisions in other parts of the country, but, without any details to substantiate these claims, these numbers are meaningless. The scientific way to analyse this problem would be a controlled experiment: taking two similar roads, one with 30mph and one with 20mph, are the collisions significantly different in the two? Do you know of any such study being carried out? I couldn?t find any data. These experiments are also hard to interpret because, luckily, the number of serious incidents is relatively small; according to TFL data, the number of road casualties in a given year in London is around 120. 120 too many, no doubt, but if 120 is the total, how many casualties can a single road account for? What is the natural variability? Making sense of rare data may well be impossible: if in a given road there was one accident in 2010, two in 2011 and one in 2012, does it really make sense to say that accidents first doubled then halved? Does anyone have insights into what the main causes of collisions and casualties are? If it were all about speed, then there should be more collisions in the Northbound lanes of Park lane (the only urban rod with a 40mph speed limit in London, as far as I know) than in the southbound ones (30 mph); is this the case? Finally, is it true, as some drivers' associations claim, that the Department for Trasnsport had commissioned reserach into the issue? If yes, when will it be published, and why did so many councils not wait for this to be made public?

Applespider Wrote: > Pedestrians and cyclists should lobby together for > better conditions. We would be stronger together > when campaigning for improved junctions, traffic > light phasing and for each group to have > appropriate space. In cities, both groups should > take priority, alongside public transport users, > over private vehicles. I agree. Which is precisely why one of my main gripes with segregated cycle lanes is that a number of bus lanes have been removed to make way for them. Even the most fervent pro-cycling lobby should acknowledge that everyone can take a bus, while not everyone can cycle.

@rendelharris, so you think it's fine to spend loads and loads of public money without a proper cost-benefit analysis, even in a situation like this one, in which some of the impact of the cycle lanes can be measured very reliably and cheaply (counting cyclists and road users)?

@malumbu, you have not addressed any of the points I raised. First of all, I'm not sure if it's intentional, but the tone of your message is very holier-than-thou, confrontational and aggressive! I was just demanding to see some evidence. For God's sake, what is possibly wrong with that? I don't think any one is saying that PM is good for us! I was simply saying that the first step in reducing pollution is understanding what its key causes are. How many vehicles would be affected by the ultra low emission zone? Are there other sources (eg heating) that produce more pollution? Etc. Without an answer to these questions, it's just a shot in the dark. For all I know, only a handful of vehicles might be affected by the ultra low emission zone, the whole thing might therefore have no material impact on pollution, while other sources of pollution are not addressed at all. I'm not saying that's the case - I am saying we should know more in order to have an informed debate. Also, what do you mean by blaming? Who is blaming whom? Again, I'm just saying the first step should be understanding the key drivers of pollution. By the way, I don't even own a car! I am a motorcyclist. Have been for a long time, but only started commuting to work about 2 years ago, when the whole London Bridge and Southern Fail fiasco turned my commute to central London into an unbereable nightmare.

The 20mph speed limits are another example of public money being spent without a proper cost-benefit analysis. I find it particularly puzzling that so many councils decided to implement the 20mph limits BEFORE the department for transport finalised a study on the matter. Websites like 20splenty and the like fail to present even the slightest evidence in support of the lower limits.

Is there any detailed study on the level of pollution in London and, most of all, on its key causes? Everyone agrees we should have fewer vehicles on the road, and that those which are on the road should pollute as little as possible, but I wonder if there are other causes which are not being addresses at all. E.g. heating - how much does heating contribute vs traffic? Is there any regulation on the maximum temperature that can be reached indoors? Such a limit would be hard to police in private houses, but not impossible to enforce in offices, stores, apartment blocks with centralised heating, etc. How many minicabs are licensed in London? Has there been a spike in the number with the rise of Uber? How many enter the congestion charge zone? Can TFL cross check the plates of vehicles entering the zone with those of licensed minicabs to get a reliable number? Do we maybe have too many minicabs - would it make sense to reduce the number of licences? What can be done to incentive lorries and HGVs to enter central London outside of rush hours? Eg has anyone thought of, say, higher congestion charge fees for large vehicles before 9am and after 4pm? How many old vehicles are expected to be affected by the ultra low emissions zone? I genuinely do not know the answer to all these questions. My reservation is that, without these answers, we risk spending lots of money on a measure which may well have very little impact! Also, I don't own a car nor lorry, let alone a diesel one, but let's remember that years ago the government was actively promoting diesel as a green alternative. The frustration of those who had listened to official advice and bought a diesel vehicle, but are now told that now, diesel is nasty, is understandable. By the way, the Standard article does NOT say that 7% of Southwark population is killed by pollution; it says that 7% of the deaths in the borough have been attributed (not clear by whom nor how) to pollution! To put things in perspective, Southwark has a population of ca. 300k people, and there were 1,305 deaths in 2013. 1,305/300k = 0.44% . One may argue the ratio may change depending on how you count births, and that the ratio will be different from year to year, but certainly not 7% of the population dies every year because of pollution!