Speeding ticket - near Piemont Green

[teddyboy23]

14 hours ago, malumbu said:

You would get points and a fine for 40mph in a 20mph and fully deserve them.  Shame that you did not take on more of what was said at your speed course.

Complain to TfL rather than using this as a justification for speeding.  Warnings have never been issued in my memory for speeding caught on camera.  That was forty years ago when a police officer may have stopped you in a following car.

 

 

are you thick or what.im not justifying anything.you really think you know everything. Idiot

[ianr]

19 hours ago, malumbu said:

Go on a speed awareness course and they will explain how every extra 1 mph will cause much greater harm when you hit bone and soft tissue.

How do they do the "explain how"?

[Penguin68]

The introduction of 20mph speed limits, initially in local (residential) streets in London was based on two 'facts' - that a collision at 20mph between a child and a car was less likely to result in life-changing or fatal injury than one at 30mph, and that a collision with a child was far more likely on a residential street where children play, walk and ride bicycles.

Whilst the first 'fact' is a universal and transfers to any road type, the second is not. Which is why, initially, roads such as the South Circular (A205) remained at 30 mph as the likelihood of a child straying or playing on or about these roads was far less likely than on their local residential street. There are many roads in and around London, and not just the A205 (indeed, most A roads alongs almost all their route) where this is true (setting aside those parts of roads which pass schools, of course). 

The move to mark all roads within certain boroughs (at their choice) other than those covered by TFL is thus to some extent at least (and I apologise for the term) considerable over-kill. The risks of casualties of the type I mention in the first paragraph above (which are very real) are substantially reduced for many of the roads locally now deemed 20mph limited. They have the benefit (some will feel) of penalising those middle-class enough to own and use cars (and if they had taken public transport they would be travelling far faster, as some have suggested) and of course the revenues, if hypothecated, are still able to add to public finance.

But the value they add to the public weal is comparatively limited compared to their costs to the general public. It would, of course, be even safer to insist that all vehicles should be preceded by a pedestrian carrying a red flag - as used to be the case - and I am sure there will be those on these pages willing to lobby for that - but I believe in proportionality, and I believe that many of the designated 20mph roads are unnecessarily limited to no real public advantage as regards their apparent intent (putting aside revenue generation).

[Earl Aelfheah]

Powerful new long-term TfL research shows 20mph speed limits save lives on London’s roads

It is also unlikely that 20mph speed limits make much difference to overall journey times in a built up area like London. If you increase your speed, you're mainly just racing towards the same set of lights you would have been sat at had you proceeded a little slower.

Edited Thursday at 11:01 by Earl Aelfheah

[Penguin68]

This study (or rather its summary) shows nothing about road type on which the accidents (or exacerbated by speed injuries) were avoided. There are far more miles of residential streets where I have argued a 20mph limit is warranted than there are of linking through roads - if the figures are based on accidents per mile, for instance, then more will have been avoided, arguably, on these residential streets.

[Earl Aelfheah]

But what's the point of accelerating towards the next line of cars or set of lights? It doesn't actually speed up your overall journey in any material sense. It just makes it more likely you'll hit someone and more likely you'll injure them if you do.

Edited yesterday at 09:21 by Earl Aelfheah

[Penguin68]

It's about not being arbitrarily fined for travelling quite safely. I rarely reached 30 mph on the A205, I quite regularly ranged from 23 to 28. Because I knew what 'up to 30' felt like. And I didn't feel I was in an adversarial position with 'the authorities' . 30mph was a fine and safe limit on A roads. 20mph is on residential streets. 

[Earl Aelfheah]

The speed cameras there are really obvious. The speed limit is clear.

The limit isn't arbitrary, it's an evidence based intervention that has saved lives. Stopping distance increases by approximately 11 metres when increasing speed from 20 mph to 30 mph, and risk of a pedestrian being killed is approximately five times higher if hit.

That road runs alongside a park and driving faster towards the end of a line of stopped traffic achieves absolutely nothing. A 20 mph limit does very little to slow down your overall journey

It's a fair cop. I see little point in complaining about getting fined for doing something you know is subject to a fine.

Edited yesterday at 12:15 by Earl Aelfheah

[Pugwash]

I drive an automatic car and have to go into drive 2 to maintain a 20mph otherwise in 'normal drive' I am constantly using my brakes. Discussed this recently with local police who stated that this was common with automatic engines.

I have recently been approached by the Police Road Watch team to see if I would be interested in doing a speed road watch in Barry Road. (I have done 2 in the past 5 - 10 years). They will give me some dates so if anyone in Barry Road interested in joining me - PM me. It is likely to be at the Etherow Street end.

[malumbu]

5 hours ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

Powerful new long-term TfL research shows 20mph speed limits save lives on London’s roads

It is also unlikely that 20mph speed limits make much difference to overall journey times in a built up area like London. If you increase your speed, you're mainly just racing towards the same set of lights you would have been sat at had you proceeded a little slower.

Driving smoothly avoiding harsh acceleration and braking actually increases the capacity of our roads as well as saving fuel, better for the vehicle and occupants and less pollution.  No brainer.  So why do so many of you speed up to speed bumps,  stationary traffic at lights etc?

[pebs]

20 mph on South Circular road - totally ridiculous 

[malumbu]

On what basis do you say that?  Are you an expert or just an entitled motorist?? Just accept it and move on.  

[rjsmall]

15 hours ago, Pugwash said:

I drive an automatic car and have to go into drive 2 to maintain a 20mph otherwise in 'normal drive' I am constantly using my brakes. Discussed this recently with local police who stated that this was common with automatic engines.

I have recently been approached by the Police Road Watch team to see if I would be interested in doing a speed road watch in Barry Road. (I have done 2 in the past 5 - 10 years). They will give me some dates so if anyone in Barry Road interested in joining me - PM me. It is likely to be at the Etherow Street end.

The Etherow Street end seems an odd location to be doing it - I would think between Goodrich and Upland would be a more likely location for people to be speeding. Near Etherow Street drivers are either going to be coming from a standing start at the library intersection or slowing down for the corner and the traffic lights.

[pebs]

12 hours ago, malumbu said:

On what basis do you say that?  Are you an expert or just an entitled motorist?? Just accept it and move on.  

Since when did car drivers become 'entitled'?  For goodness sake.

For the record I am a cyclist, walker and driver, probably in that order. I fully agree and support 20mph speed limits on residential roads and can see the safely concerns.  However I cannot support a blanket restriction to encompass pretty much all roads in South London. 

Roads need to work for ALL users. That is why there needs to be differentiation between main roads, of which the South Circular is the best example, and residential roads.  It's the key main road in the whole of South London.  North London has the benefit of the dual North Circular which helps get to places quickly - it's 50 mph! We don't have similar but the dropping from 30 to 20 is a big mistake and impacts businesses as well as London residents. It now takes forever to get out of East Dulwich and this has got considerably worse since the introduction of 20mph.

There needs to be balance. 

[Earl Aelfheah]

I thought we were talking about the speed cameras on Peckham Rye near Piermont Green?

Edited yesterday at 12:01 by Earl Aelfheah
spelling

[Rockets]

20 hours ago, malumbu said:

So why do so many of you speed up to speed bumps,  stationary traffic at lights etc?

@malumbu do you consider yourself as one of the "many of you" - you're a driver as well aren't you - with,  by your own admission, quite a rap-sheet of driving misdemeanours ? You rally against a culture war but you use the language of someone trying to catalyse one.

[malumbu]

3 hours ago, pebs said:

Since when did car drivers become 'entitled'?  For goodness sake.

For the record I am a cyclist, walker and driver, probably in that order. I fully agree and support 20mph speed limits on residential roads and can see the safely concerns.  However I cannot support a blanket restriction to encompass pretty much all roads in South London. 

Roads need to work for ALL users. That is why there needs to be differentiation between main roads, of which the South Circular is the best example, and residential roads.  It's the key main road in the whole of South London.  North London has the benefit of the dual North Circular which helps get to places quickly - it's 50 mph! We don't have similar but the dropping from 30 to 20 is a big mistake and impacts businesses as well as London residents. It now takes forever to get out of East Dulwich and this has got considerably worse since the introduction of 20mph.

There needs to be balance. 

All of the South Circular in the 20mph is a residential road.  And a fair few schools on it too.  Let's face it, much of the South Circ is a hotch potch of narrow roads.  For much of it not even wide enough to pass a bike with appropriate room.  The shared pavement/cycle path is uneven and has no priority over side roads.  Further East when it is a proper dual carriageway speed limits are higher.

If there were less vehicles there would be less congestion.  

Perhaps it will take half a generation or so for the masses to adjust to 20mph.  I'm a fan.

Please avoid one liners and whilst I don't agree with you, you have your point - rather than my wrong interpretation that you were a  poor 'victimised' driver.

 

Edited yesterday at 14:23 by malumbu

[Rockets]

@malumbu the south circular is the very definition of an urban road and it has street lights so, by the Highway Code, that is a 30mph road. It's only in Wales and parts of London that it is a 20mph road and that's because the local traffic authority (TFL and Southwark council), not the police, decided to set the speed limit as thus. Some would suggest that these decisions were driven by political, ideological and revenue-generation reasons.

3 hours ago, pebs said:

There needs to be balance. 

Absolutely. But often those doing things for ideological reasons leave pragmatism behind....;-)

[Earl Aelfheah]

The South Circular is an edge case. It's possibly the one street where you might make a reasonable case for 30 mph. But for the vast majority of borough roads 20 mph has minimal, if any, impact on overall journey times, and has been shown to save lives, so not sure why anyone would object. And the thread wasn't about the South Circular, but driving alongside Peckham Rye Park, where at 30 you're just moving slightly faster towards the back of the next line of cars or of lights.

 

[Rockets]

And this is the point - by not taking a pragmatic approach those rolling out these plans tend to highlight themselves as being driven by ideology rather than common-sense - the A205 and many similar A-roads under TFL's stewardship are perfect examples, the A40 elevated section another and the whole of Wales was another.....and all it goes to do is turn people against all of the measures and people then look on them all ideologically rather than pragmatically!!! ;-).

 

[snowy]

So Tory boroughs like Westminster and Kensington & Chelsea which have pan borough 20mph limits are secret trotskyites driven by ideology rather than common-sense?
 

Huge news if true. 

The supporting guidance is here:

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/setting-local-speed-limits/setting-local-speed-limits

and former research 

 https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/20-mph-speed-limits-on-roads

Which was published in March 2024 - who was in power then? oh yes, Sunak. 

The Westway as has been pointed out to you before was reduced as the vibration of vehicles is damaging the elevated section. 
 

And it wasn't 'the whole of Wales', it was 35% of roads in Wales  - roads which were defined as 'restricted' e.g. those in residential or built up areas. It was supported by Labour and Plaid Cymru with only the conservatives objecting.

Councils can (and do) apply for “exceptions” — roads that stay at 30 mph where it’s judged appropriate (e.g., main through-routes).

But i don't think any of that matters to you in your posting here.

 

Edited 20 hours ago by snowy

[Rockets]

@snowy have we touched a raw nerve..you've gone very defensive...?;-)

Maybe you are not aware but TFL started rolling-out 20mph on London roads in....2020.....

49 minutes ago, snowy said:

The Westway as has been pointed out to you before was reduced as the vibration of vehicles is damaging the elevated section. 
 

Absolute nonsense. The 30mph was applied in 2020 as a temporary order whilst joints were replaced and then once the work was completed TFL made it permanent under their "Lowering Speeds Programme" in 2021 to "reduce road dnager".

 

49 minutes ago, snowy said:

Councils can (and do) apply for “exceptions” — roads that stay at 30 mph where it’s judged appropriate (e.g., main through-routes).

Are there any exceptions in, says Lambeth or Southwark...? Seemingly not....and the justification from Southwark for the blanket 20mph reads like it is far more ideological than pragmatic....would you not agree?

Southwark believes that a borough wide 20mph speed limit is the most cost effective method to reduce collisions, encourage more sustainable forms of travel such as walking and cycling and help improve air quality.

 

 

[Sue]

2 hours ago, Rockets said:

the justification from Southwark for the blanket 20mph reads like it is far more ideological than pragmatic....would you not agree?

Southwark believes that a borough wide 20mph speed limit is the most cost effective method to reduce collisions, encourage more sustainable forms of travel such as walking and cycling and help improve air quality.

How on earth  do you interpret those very sensible reasons as "ideological"?

[Rockets]

Err @Sue how on earth does reducing speeds to 20mph encourage more cycling and walking exactly...do vars drivers suddenly say...oh, I can only go 20mph perhaps I will walk instead....ideological claptrap...

[Sue]

11 minutes ago, Rockets said:

Err @Sue how on earth does reducing speeds to 20mph encourage more cycling and walking exactly...do vars drivers suddenly say...oh, I can only go 20mph perhaps I will walk instead....ideological claptrap...

Maybe people might be more inclined to cycle and walk if they are less at risk from speeding cars whilst doing so, and their journey is generally more pleasant?

How do you define a) ideological and b) claptrap in this context?

And what is your opinion on the other two reasons, ie reducing collisions and helping to improve air quality?

Edited 17 hours ago by Sue