20 mph limit (in East Dulwich)

[Peckhamgatecrasher]

Kford: "I like those active signs. Especially the ones which 'smile' if you're under the limit. A good carrot, not stick, approach"

Have to disagree with the smile ones - going down Streatham Common I almost caused a pile up: the sign lit up and I immediately assumed I was going too fast and braked far too hard. Anything that distracts from driving is not a good thing.

[Wino]

The problem with Lordship Lane is that no matter how many crossings you put in, people will still insist on crossing at what ever point is considered most convenient for them and damn the consequences.

I have lost count of the number of times I have seen people crossing (sometimes with toddlers, pushchairs or both)into the middle of the road without an ounce of common sense. A lot of the time this is within 50-100 paces of traffic lights or Zebra crossings and your map highlights this.

I am not actually against a new crossing nearer Somerfield/Co-Op, indeed I think it is a good location. Far better than the one at the roundabout. I disagree that this crossing acts as a slow down for traffic. This naturally happens anyway as the roundabout is so small and there are 4 possible lanes of vehicles entering it. I think it is a dangerous location for pedestrians as drivers have too much to concentrate on at that point anyway, particularly the way larger vehicles such as buses traverse it.

I suppose this should really be on the crossing post but I chipped in as James mentioned it.

In terms of 20 mph speed limits I am yet to be persuaded.

JBARBER Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I recently acquired a map of Southwark with red

> dots for reported collisions involving people

> being hurt.

> See attached. I'm afraid I've lost the context of

> the period covered - memory tells me three years.

> Shows ribbon of crashes involving hurt people

> along main roads. Most of them TfL roads.

> Clear that Lordship Lane a problem. Hence the

> proposed crossing and ?500,000 to improve road

> safety along Lordship Lane and Grove Vale.

[tomchance]

SeanMacGabhann Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> James - people aren't interested in facts. You can

> prove anthing with them. They prefer blind

> prejudice and gut feel

Too true! So here's my gut feeling.

What most people get annoyed by is money wasted on lots of ugly signs, painted road sections, speed humps, traffic calming islands, and by speeding idiots whether on a bike or in a van.

20mph zones allow you to get rid of lots of that. Just like the highway code, they set a clear standard for the whole area and in the places they've been tried out they've worked a treat. In an area like East Dulwich, nobody needs to go faster than 20mph.

[James Barber]

Hi Tomchance,

That's exactly why we're doing it.

Hopefully the public consultation proves most people would like to try this concept.

[PeckhamRose]

All fine till the government tells us how - when riding at 10mph - you cause far less damage to someone's insides than you would do hitting them at 20mph, because they crossed the road without looking even though it's not your fault, and so we'll have a blanket ten miles an hour across the whole borough / London.

And then all fine till the government tells us how when riding at 5mph you cause far less damage to someone's insides when you hit them because they crossed the road without looking even though it's not your fault, and so we'll have a blanket five miles an hour across the whole borough / London.

What!

[tomchance]

PeckhamRose, maybe we shouldn't have a speed limit at all then! ;-)

[Huguenot]

PeckhamRose in danger of Godwinning this thread ;-)

For the uninitiated that means exaggerating an argument until it becomes ludicrous, most pertinently in comparing unrelated legislation to the Nazis.

[Jeremy]

PeckhamRose - interesting point about pedestrians also needing to be more careful, in reality this seems likely to be a much more significant factor. But not really possible to enforce.

I don't oppose this proposal as such, but building a couple more crossings on LL would probably be more effective than reducing the speed limit.

[Magpie]

Lets be honest here, the majority of changes to the roads eg traffic lights, speed bumps, road narrowing are there to make it better for pedestrians, and almost by definition worse for drivers. That seems to be the policy to roads in London.

Are there any actual studies that support the assertion that a 20mph zone actually increases traffic speed, with such studies normalised for area, time of day, traffic conditions at the time etc?

20mph seems sensible along residential streets, I would not classify Lordship Lane nor Barry Road in that category.

[Siduhe]

magpie, I asked the same question when the last set of 20mph consultation took place. TFL managed roads like Lordship Lane aren't included in the proposals because Southwark isn't responsible for managing them. Not sure about Barry Road though.

[intexasatthe moment]

I do support the 20 mph proposal for side roads but I do have doubts about it working on Barry Rd.

[Whoosh]

I think it's an ill-thought out idea. Speed limits are adhered to by either common sense or 'measures' - cameras, speed bumps, road narrowing etc. In the first case the limit itself is rarely relevant; people will go at the speed they think best, the actual number on a signpost is not going to make much difference. When it comes to traffic calming measures, I think they're mainly a waste of (a lot of) money and only really go towards adding frustration, damaging vehicles, adding to noise and C02 and adding an extra danger in themselves, especially for those on 2 wheels who tend to have to face oncoming traffic in the middle of the road constantly.

It was such a joy driving down the newly-surfaced Dunstans Road tonight. I'd almost forgotten the pleasure of driving at a steady 20-ish on good tarmac, able to look at the road in front of me rather than staring a few feet ahead for obstacles and not having to brake to a near halt every 20 yards and accelerate off again, making uncomfortable and noisy progress.

The ones that speed now will speed then... and they're often the ones that can avoid the humps anyway or are cushioned against them - lorries, vans, 4x4s, scooters, motorbikes. The irony is that I have a fast sports car but so have to go so slowly over every hump that I just irritate everyone behind. The noise of the car constantly accelerating and decelerating in first gear is probably annoying for everyone. Purring along in 2nd and 20mph is a different story.

[intexasatthe moment]

I believe that speed humps reduce speed of traffic.

Sadly they also make it virtually impossible for my 90 year old mother to be transported anywhere without jarring and causing pain to her back where she suffers from post herpetic shingles.

[Lou]

I accidentally recycled the letter about the proposed 20mph limit. Can I download it anywhere?

Thanks,

[intexasatthe moment]

I can't find anything on line ( that would be too simple I guess ) but contact details on doc that I have are

Andres Antury 020 7525 5553

[email protected]

On a different point - I'm probably a hopelessly inattentive driver ,but consultation doc shows Barry Rd going north from junction with Underhill as already being restricted to 20 mph.

Am I alone in being surprised by this information ?

[Geraint]

Yeah, I thought that looked wrong too - I can't recall seeing a 20mph sign there. Barry road is a main road which allows traffic to bypass most of the smaller residential streets at a reasonable speed and without humps; I can't see a good reason for lowering the speed limit to 20mph on this road.

[intexasatthe moment]

Mmm - well looking again at " consultation " doc ,I see that this stretch of Barry Rd marked yellow is described as

" existing 20 mph zone road ".

So I guess the answer will be ( when I ask Southwark ) that it's inside a 20mph zone - ie adjacent roads are 20mph restricted and signed.

Gives the impression that this stretch is also restricted though - and I still can't see any speed restriction signs ,only

" you're entering a residential area ,please drive carefully ".

[intexasatthe moment]

Right ,ok ,here's the answer

The whole length of Barry Road is 30mph limit at present. The proposal includes introducing a 20mph speed limit on Barry Road from its junction with Lordship Lane to its junction with Underhill/Whateley Road .I do apologise for the confusion on the drawing.

Which then raises the question - what's the rationale behind a speed limit of 20mph on only part of Barry Rd.

You're driving along at 30mph and when you reach the Underhill junction you suddenly switch to 20mph ? ( or vice versa )

And if you've not all dozed off yet - personally I think Barry Rd should be left at 30mph .

[James Barber]

Hi intexasthe moment,

Apologies, I thought I'd made the rational clear but clearly failed.

The southern end of Barry Road is subtely different to other parts. It has a bend in it and an adjacent school and nursery.

Changes to the junction of Underhill Road/Barry Road are in the process of being made - new yellow lining.

This then leaves crashes at the sotuhern end of Barry Road to reduce.

[Loz]

James,

If you are going to make part of a road 20 MPH, make the whole thing 20 MPH, unless there is good reasons not to. Otherwise it makes it look like a revenue-raising trap.

[Huguenot]

I think James has made abundantly clear what his considerations are.

For someone to continue to accuse him of underhand motives they would need to be wilfully and cynically denying the fairly obvious.

It's a shame that by accepting that the school is the only concern for speed reduction, not an attack on car drivers in general (along the full length of Bazza Road), that this is used as a weapon against him.

[Loz]

For someone to continue to accuse him of underhand motives they would need to be wilfully and cynically denying the fairly obvious.

Prey tell, to which posts does this refer to?

And have you been reading the scripts to 'Yes, Minister"? I'm sure Sir Humphrey must have used that sentence at some stage.

[Huguenot]

You're still persisting Loz?

After calling our hardworking councillor a profiteer, you now appear to be calling him a liar?

What's next?

James has made clear that he's concerned about safety near the school, about the impact of a particular piece of topography, about the apparently inconsistent views on speed limits, and that he needs to walk the road before he comes to a firm conclusion.

Then you start calling him names. Greeeeaaaaat! Way to go!

[Loz]

Which planet do you reside on Huguenot? In which posts did I call him a 'profiteer and a liar'?

I'm a big fan of James, as I've made clear in other posts. I'm not going to put up with his sort of crap from the likes of you.

[Huguenot]

A revenue-raising trap being presumably non-profit making, and Sir Humphrey was famous for the sincerity of his recommendations?

Sure Loz.