DulwichLondoner

Kennington road, A23, is 20mph: https://goo.gl/maps/9zdRY3zHdu62 despite being wide, straight, and with very few pedestrians (again, no high street, no schools, etc). The A3 between Brixton and Elephant and Castle, well, I simply assumed it was 20mph because the councils have implemented 20mph limits throughout, and there are no 30mph signs (I have just reviewed the whole Oval from Kennington stretch on street view). My bad, then, but possibly TFL (which controls red routes) could have put a 30mph sign because it?s not ******* clear at all

rendelharris Wrote: What roads around here don't their > criteria apply to? Sections of the South > Circular, maybe - which aren't 20mph anyway. We have already had this conversation. In my opinion, most red routes: most of the A3 stretch from Battersea Rise to Elephant and Castle, Camberwell new rd, the A202 from Camberwell green to New Cross Gate, etc. In your opinion, only some stretches of the south circular. I am very familiar with the part of the A3 around Oval and Kennington : perfect example of mostly straight road, with excellent visibility, limited number of pedestrians (no real high street, schools, etc.). In roads like this, riding my motorcycle at 20mph can actually be dangerous, as car drivers get angry and aggressive and often attempt dangerous overtaking. micromacromonkey Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > There was a top gear episode where the presenters > stopped being dicks for a few minutes and > attempted to accelerate to 30mph and hold that > speed without looking at the speedo. Interesting. But I'm assuming they weren't driving in congested London roads, right?

If you read between the lines, RoSPA?s own fact sheet https://www.rospa.com/rospaweb/docs/advice-services/road-safety/drivers/20-mph-zone-factsheet.pdf [Nov-2017] presents cases where 20mph limits are associated to safer roads, and cases, e.g. Portsmotuth, where the evidence is simply inconclusive. Bath is another example where, again, the evidence was inconclusive. What beggars belief is that none of these studies starts by analysing what the main causes of injuries are, and what can be done about them. Changing speed limits has no impact whatsoever on injuries caused by driving under the influence, driving at crazy speeds, or road users acting like idiots (pedestrians crossing against the red man, cyclists undertaking trucks turning left, motorists doing u-turns where they shouldn?t, etc.). For example, a big risk factor is the presence of cars parked on the street, because they hide those idiotic pedestrians who jump in the middle of the road without looking. I?d guess a 30mph road where you cannot park is safer than a 20mph road with cars parked! In reality, I suspect the impact on traffic during rush hour is not huge, but can be massive at night when roads are emptier; journey take longer, so vehicles are on the road for longer, polluting more and for longer. Also, unless it?s digital, when you look at the speedometer, can you really tell whether you?re doing 20 or 21mph? I struggle, but I appreciate that all forum users are incredibly better car drivers and motorcycle riders than myself, so my case doesn?t count? If you haven?t switched off and are interested in the details: In Portsmouth, casualties reduced but KSIs [killed and seriously injured] increased; however, and this has always been one of my points, ?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?; in other words, if you go from 2 to 3 accidents it?s technically a 50% increase, but practically the numbers were too low to begin with to be able to meaningfully infer anything. Bath witnessed a similar increase in KSIs. The Councillor?s admission in this interview is very telling: ----- https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/12/17/20mph-limit-dangerous-costly-reverse-council-admits/ "It has cost over ?800,000 to roll out the 20mph zone and it would probably cost the same to reverse them. "We just haven't got the money. I'm pretty sure the 20mph zones will stay in place for the foreseeable future." It adds that the rise in casualty numbers and severity would "suggest against further expansion of area based schemes." ---------- This biologist didn?t agree, and laudably went through the trouble of digging up the original report, criticising its lack of statistical rigour (I agree ? but the same reservations apply to the studies that support 20mph limits!) and running some statistical analyses. His conclusion? That ?there is no significant effect of introducing 20mph zones on the number of people KSI.? No. Significant. Effect. Neither positive nor negative!!! https://medium.com/@lewisspurgin/20mph-zones-are-not-causing-more-deaths-37d41e30e297

bels123 Wrote: > - call > ‭020 7708 8587‬ and they should send a > traffic warden The same ones that clumsily ride 125 scooters with flip up helmets not homologated to be used in the up position while riding? I'd love to have them fined... 😀

The point about keeping below the 20mph is not that it's difficult to drive at a constant speed (it's not), but that in city traffic you practically never do. You're constantly slowing down and accelerating and slowing down etc etc. Which means you are constantly looking away from the road and at the speedometer because by going just 1mph above you can be fined a % of your weekly earnings. I have no intention to revisit the whole discussion, either. We have different views about the need to have robust evidence before implenting expensive changes that cause lots of disruption. You support cycle lanes and 20mph speed limits despite the lack of clear evidence in favour of both! I'll just remind you that in both cases I never said I know they are wrong, I said the advantages have not been proven, which is different. As for RoSPA: "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. "?

If the limit is 30mph, like I said, I can easily keep the speed between 25-29 without constantly looking at the speedometer (and away from the road). If the limit is 20, I either constantly look at the speedometer, or must keep a speed of around 15, which is ridiculously low, causes even more congestion, gets the other motorists insanely angry at me, etc etc. Next time you drive in town with a passenger, ask him/her to check the speedometer and tell you how often you go above the 20mph limit. The reason most of the civilised world allows a minimum tolerance is precisely because it would be stupid, dangerous and counterproductive to get motorists to spend more time looking at their speedometer than at the road.

I remember multiple discussions with rendelharris about this. The DfT commissioned a multi-year study on this because the results from initial trials were not conclusive. And what have most councils done? Ignored the DfT and started implementing 20mph zones all over, so that, even if the DfT should recommend against them, it will be too late. RoSPA, for example, don't recommend setting 20mph limits throughout 100% of a council. Note I am not saying I know 20mph are useless; I am saying that their effectiveness has not been proven. I am also sceptical because 20mph is such a low speed that it's all too easy to go slightly above without realising; when I dared mention this, lots of people had a go at me, so I can only suppose all the forum participants are incredibly more skilled car drivers and motorcyle riders than myself, so hats off to them. And no, it's not the same with 30mph, because it is easier to keep speed at 25-29 mph without constantly looking at the speedometer. Also, there is no tolerance for speed tickets, so I could in theory be fined a % of my salary for going at 21 mph. I find this whole thing rather dumb because it almost forces people to spend more time looking at the speedometer than at the road, which does not seem the best way to promote road safety.

I'm not so sure there are many more buses in SW London, but: there are way more trains; when you have trains to central London every 3-4 minutes during rush hour, even if they cancel two in a row it's not the end of the world in some stations (Balham, Earlsfield, I think Putney but not too sure) there are multiple lines converging into central London - not so at ED; this builds some redundancy, because if there is a problem on one line, there are still other lines which work just fine Also, no one will confirm it officially, but I do get the impression that the East Dulwich to London bridge line is not Southern's priority; I genuinely do not understand why the Balham to Victoria (also Southern) worked reasonably well even when ED to London Bridge had 1 train per hour in the morning for two consecutive summers

Interesting, thanks. It sounds like yet another Taliban and rather unfounded campaign by the MAG, which was, after all, founded to protest against the new laws which made helmet compulsory. One thing they're right on, though, is that TFL's move to make many roads less wide and therefore prevent filtering will worsen congestion and pollution for all

I was on the 8.51 this morning which left almost 10 minutes late (I remember double checking my watch which synchronises to my phone, so is quite accurate). I admit I did not jot down what time the train arrived in London Bridge, so I cannot verify whether the website's claim that the train arrived only 1 minute late is accurate.

The Thameslink trains that were cancelled were from SE to Central London; I don't know if they were meant to continue to North London (maybe some were) but I know they have nothing to do with SW London. The trains, all cancelled, from Denmark Hill to Victoria were from SE London to Central London. They all stop at Victoria, so nothing to do with SW, West or North London. The overground to Clapham Junction does go through both SE and SW London, true. The ED to London Bridge line was working normally, which means the usual 10-minute delays, but at least it was running. Yes, overall I call this that we get in the East Dulwich - Camberwell - Peckahm area an awful service. What do you call it? And, yes, most SW London stations have much better connections.

@Monkey,how do you get to Brixton? I tried a few times, but the 37 bus is not frequent and takes a while to get to Brixton. From Camberwell there are more options and it's easier, but from East Dulwich it's a bit of a pain.

My modest proposal is: don't renationalise, don't cap the salaries and bonuses of the railway bosses, but simply force them to live in Brighton and to commute to central London for work. Every. Single. Day. Who wants to bet the service would improve drastically? :)

Well, either it's just a hell of a coincidence, or there must be some intrinsic reason why services in our area are so much worse than those in SW London - including those run by the same awful Southern Fail (eg the Balham to Victoria line). We pay the same fares but are stuck with one of the poorest services in the capital.

dbboy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The Mayor seems to want to slow the traffic to > walking pace. > > There was this idea that if traffic is restricted > to 20mph oh that would deter drivers using their > vehicles. Drivers find 20mph is hard to maintain, > and again journeys as a result take much longer, So I'm not the only one who dares have this opinion!?

Yes, but neither the Mayor/TFL nor the Motorcycle Action Group has, AFAIK, presented any data supporting their point - which is why I said I do not have an opinion on this. The only thing I have found in TFL's impact assessment is a table showing that motorcycle journeys would account for 1-2% of total journeys in London. The questions are (should be): how much more than a modern motorcycle does an old one pollute? how many old motorcycles are there in London and what is the impact of these? If the total impact is very very small then I can kind of see MAG's point.

This morning the only rail line with few trains cancelled was the East Dulwich to London Bridge one (note: few, not none). From Denmark Hill: no overground (broken down freight train somewhere) most Thameslink trains to Blackfriars, Farringdon etc cancelled (some power problem somewhere near Blackheath) most trains to Victoria cancelled (no clue why) Supposedly none of this has anything to do with the handful of timid snowflakes in the air this morning. Of course without privatisation it would have all been worse and those who dare suggest the opposite, or dare ask how John Major's promise that "franchises will provide a better, cheaper and more effective service for the commuter" reconciles with reality (spoiler alert: it doesn't) are dangerous Marxists. I'm not sure if there is much comedy on the privatisation of trains, but this about a privatised police force comes to mind:

natty01295 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > BIKE PROTEST > 28 FEB2018 > NO TO THE ULEZ > REGENTS PARK That's a protest organised by the Motorcycle Action Group and others, on the grounds that charging older motorbikes would penalise the working poor that need them to get to work. I don't have an opinion as I don't know how much older bikes pollute more than modern ones (the charge would apply to bike solder than 10-11 years), nor how much bikes as a whole contribute to pollution in London (as in bikes vs cars vs buses etc).

Lowlander Wrote: > Err, in most cases Dulwich Estate do allow it: > > http://www.dulwichestate.co.uk/som/policy-guidelin > es/8-replacement-doors-and-windows Most or some? There have been discussions here about people being refused double glazing, e.g. http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?5,1403483,page=3 and I know a few such cases, too

Oh, please, how much more difficult do you want driving to become, and what do you think it will achieve? And I say this as someone who does not even own a car. If you go from zone 2 to zone 3 or 4, driving might be feasible, but if you're going to a more central area, whether for work or else, driving is already so expensive (and rightly so) and infuriating that I do wonder how many people do it. Do you know anyone who goes to central London, for shopping or for work, by car? Maybe regulating minicabs (we might have too many...) and trying to make sure that delivery vans and construction trucks do not congest the roads at rush hour might help somewhat.

PS Oh, and also the environmental efficiency of British homes is a joke by European standards. In many cases double glazing is not even allowed. The Dulwich Estate doesn't allow it, for example, because of course the "charity" must fleece homeowners by policing the beauty of the houses and overcharging them so that money can be funneled towards posh independent school attended mostly by overpriviliged kids - a most charitable endeavour. (No, I don't live in the Dulwich Estate area - heel will freeze over before I do).

AFAIK there has never been any real incentive towards those vehicles (mostly automatic cars, but also some automatic 125 scooters) that automatically switch off the engine when stopped in traffic or at a traffic light. I am no scientist, but I would imagine that not polluting while stationary (which is a huge part of the time in a city like ours) would make quite a big difference? I also do wonder about the generic impact of replacing an old vehicle with a less polluting one vs keeping it a bit longer. For those who live in the areas where the new vehicle will be driven, a new vehicle will be better. But for the environment overall? What's the environmental impact of scrapping an old vehicle and producing a new one? I genuinely have no idea.

"they seem to think cyclists should never be there" Let's please not get into the usual "us vs them" sterile and pointless argument. I am not sure I understand your post. Anyone (and this applies to both cyclists and motorcyclists) who tries to undertake another vehicle in a bend is an irresponsible idiot whose demise would be a welcome Darwinian improvement of the human species. There is no excuse whatsoever for this kind of behaviour. A motorcyclists should be disqualified for life - and so should a cyclist, although it's not feasible.

@bodsier, as far as I understand it, the highway code has generic, common-sense indications (check if other vehicles are coming, do not try to darwinianly improve the species by riding between the kerb and a very large vehicle, etc.), but AFAIK it does not explicitly state who should give way when in these circumstances. A little common sense would go a long way... Highway code: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/rules-for-cyclists-59-to-82 rule 72 (for cyclists): When approaching a junction on the left, watch out for vehicles turning in front of you, out of or into the side road. Just before you turn, check for undertaking cyclists or motorcyclists. Do not ride on the inside of vehicles signalling or slowing down to turn left. https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/using-the-road-159-to-203 Turning left Rule 182 Use your mirrors and give a left-turn signal well before you turn left. Do not overtake just before you turn left and watch out for traffic coming up on your left before you make the turn, especially if driving a large vehicle. Cyclists, motorcyclists and other road users in particular may be hidden from your view

Ha ha, I happen to be Italian, so I believe I know what I'm talking about. Didn't say there's no difference, but that the difference is not such to justify the presence of a home made pasta shop (of which there are very very very few on Italian high streets). Also, we don't all make fresh pasta in our kitchens. Maybe they should have marketed it as a restaurant which also does fresh pasta rather than as a fresh pasta shop which was also a restaurant...