Southwark council considering 20mph limit across whole borough

[spanglysteve]

Why do southwark seem to hate motorists so much?

http://www.london-se1.co.uk/forum/read/1/163786

[Pugwash]

They do not hate motorists out right but there are drivers who go down roads such as Crystal Palace Road in excess of 40 miles an hour over the humps. I have been overtaken near a Barry Road junction when I am doing around 25 mph by drivers who ignore everyone else on the road, and decide the 40/50 mph is what they need to do overtake 2 cars and a bus, narrowly missing an on coming bus.

[Marmora Man]

As the effective speed when driving to and fro in Southwark (or anywhere in London) is seldom more than 20mph I don't see this as a problem. Perversely, its easier to drive at speeds in excess of 20mph on side road and residential areas. Standardisation could help reduce dangerous speeds on these roads.

[Townleygreen]

The idiots are likely to ignore such a limit unless it is enforced by cameras, etc

[first mate]

I'm sure someone can come up with research to justify this but frankly I cannot see why further reducing the speed limit would impact on those who already drive well in excess of 30mph- surely the punishment will be exactly the same?

I guess the rationale has to be that there is research to show that many people/children are being injured ot killed by cars operating within the current speed limit of 30mph.

[DJKillaQueen]

It's a completely idiotic consideration in my opinion. And I defy anyone to try driving over humps at 40-50 mpr without damaging their car...a bit of exaggeration there Pugwash.

Most drivers drive according to the conditions. Why punish them with draconian blanket speed limits because of the few idiots. Are we seriously expecting drivers to drive at 20mpr in the middle of the night when there are hardly any vehicles or pedestrians about too?

Incidently...Southwark has no power to change speed limits on main roads. Only TFL have that power.

[cosmonaut]

Councils can change speed limits, but it won't apply to roads managed by TFL.

[DJKillaQueen]

Yes and TFL manage all the main roads.

[DulwichFox]

Driving in a 20mph zone has it's own hazards...

Drivers are used to judging their speed at 30mph...

Cars are not designed to be driving at 20mph.

In a 20 mph zone a driver has to Constantly look down at their Speedo as it is so easy to creep above 20 mph

This means you are also constantly driving with yours eyes off of the road.

Driving at 20 mph cars tend to travel closer together.

So looking up from your speedo (Which is the same as looking up from your mobile phone or radio)

you find the car in front has suddenly stopped or a cyclist or pedestrian is in front of you..

20 mph does not necessarily mean safer..

Fox

[the-e-dealer]

So Dulwich Fox - The faster the safer! And what speed are cars designed to driver at? 30 33 40 60 70 80?

Where do I get a car designed to drive at 30?

[DJKillaQueen]

Fox is right. Modern engines are not designed to work best at ultra slow speeds. They also consume more petrol at slow speeds, due to the constant braking and speeding up/ down. And not only is the constant watching of the speedo a distraction from what is going on around the driver, but so too is constantly scanning the road for speed humps. Sinusoidal humps make cars meander all over the road as well as wearing down the inside edge of tyres and sending tracking out.

In other words, all these efforts to control speed are actually more damaging to the environment, but then again, traffic calming has no consideration for the environment, just reduction of accidents.

[intexasatthe moment]

When trying to drive at 20 mph I find it helps to change down a gear or two .

[the-e-dealer]

cars are of-course designed to be driven at a variety of speeds. With the huge variation in speed limits across the world manufacturers would be stupid to pick on one speed.

[edhistory]

DJKillaQueen Wrote:

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

>

> In other words, all these efforts to control speed

> are actually more damaging to the environment, but

> then again, traffic calming has no consideration

> for the environment, just reduction of accidents.

And the award of contracts.

John K

[Miacis]

Interesting that people Seem to think that reducing accidents is a bad thing. Hmmm

Lower speeds do mean less serious injuries. No one can argue with that.

If they do reduce the speed limit then it does need to be enforced properly. I can't see them doing it on the main roads but there is a strong case for better enforcement of the current limits there eg with cameras at hot spots. There is a real problem up at the top end of lordship lane where it meets court lane.

Cars can cope and the effect on the environment is debatable. Drivers could also be made aware that driving more smoothly speed wise ie smoother increases or decreases in speed really reduces fuel consumption.

Btw I drive so am not anti car just anti plonker drivers

[the-e-dealer]

So if ww double the speed limit how many lived and carbon feet will we save. Honestly apart from one or two of my oiled posts i have never read such nonsense. Petrol consumption higher st low speed that will be why mpg is calculated at an urban speed and its safer at high speed how on earth does that compute.

[*Bob*]

Studies have show that the air inside car interiors tends to turn acrid and poisonous at speeds lower than 30mph.

Worse still, as cars near 20mph, the sun begins to emit toxic rays which may melt our brain - and for every speeding ticket a motorist receives, a baby panda dies.

You can't argue with the facts.

[the-e-dealer]

And bones break more cleanly at 30 resulting in better healing! I didn't know we had so many Clarksods in East Dulwich

[*Bob*]

20mph is definitely the 'danger speed' for cars. As you approach 20, the g-forces combine dangerously with resonant frequencies in the engine block, which can all too often lead to a catastrophic explosion.

Thank god we live in London, where - because of relatively small number of traffic lights and low levels of congestion, cars don't have to spend long taking their chances between 0 and 20.

[the-e-dealer]

I do wish they would build cars designed be driven at many different speeds. Sort of Multi Purpose Vehicles or MPVs !

[DulwichFox]

intexasatthe moment Wrote:

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

> When trying to drive at 20 mph I find it helps to

> change down a gear or two .

Because most of my driving is in town, I drive an automatic.

20 mph is around the point where the auto gearbox changes up.

It makes it difficult to keep at a constant speed.

You need delicate foot control.

With the addition of average speed cameras people get nervous about exceeding the limit even for a few seconds.

People are not concentrating on the road ahead.

There would be a big increase in low speed shunts.

Pedestrians are more likely to run across the road and cyclists are likely to take greater risks.

20 mph is fine in residential back streets. where there are parked cars.

Fox.

[nashoi]

Surely the obvious solution is to return to the idea of having somebody walking in front of the vehicle waving a flag, this would simultaneously lower unemployment, solve the obesity crisis and reduce the number and severity of accidents. The kind of joined up thinking we need to mend broken Britain.

[DJKillaQueen]

Laugh all you like guys but engine efficiency has a peak and it's not at the lowest or highest speeds in road vehicles. Plenty of high tech documents on the physics of it out there if you take a look.

I'm not arguing against reduced speed equalling reduced fatalities, just getting increasingly annoyed at being told we have to be carbon conscious at one end (or pay more tax)....and trundle around like mobility scooters at the other, because of a few plonker drivers who can't observe safe driving. Just feels like a paradoxical nanny state onslaught to me.

And for the umptienth time, TFL manages A and some B roads, so anything Southwark decides to do won't apply to those roads without TFL's (unlikely) say so.

[Lowlander]

DulwichFox Wrote:

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

> intexasatthe moment Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > When trying to drive at 20 mph I find it helps

> to

> > change down a gear or two .

>

>

> Because most of my driving is in town, I drive an

> automatic.

>

> 20 mph is around the point where the auto gearbox

> changes up.

> It makes it difficult to keep at a constant

> speed.

>

> You need delicate foot control.

>

> With the addition of average speed cameras people

> get nervous about exceeding the limit even for a

> few seconds.

> People are not concentrating on the road ahead.

>

> There would be a big increase in low speed shunts.

>

>

> Pedestrians are more likely to run across the road

> and cyclists are likely to take greater risks.

>

> 20 mph is fine in residential back streets. where

> there are parked cars.

>

> Fox.

Then drive at just under 20mph. It's a limit not an advisory. Your speedo will be calibrated around 10% over, so real spead will be 18mph. Police guidelines for speeding are 10%+5mph so you could safely drive around with your speedo reading 25mph.

And after all that, driving along a one mile road, you'll be there all of 60 seconds less. Or you could just walk. There are few side streets in ED off the main drags that I feel safe going over 25mph.

On Lordship Lane I rarely get above 15mph...

[kford]

I'd prefer a borough-wide crackdown on people using mobiles while driving. It's this type of driver that always seems to trying to knock me off my bike.