Speeding ticket - near Piemont Green

[Rockets]

Do you consider 30mph to be the definition of a speeding car? As I was saying....ideological claptrap. 

The blanket rollout of 20mph by councils like Southwark was driven by an anti-car ideology and was not at all pragmatic. I think some in the active travel lobby would refer to it as a "nudge technique"...

 

[malumbu]

Your blinkered thinking is shocking.  I cycle maybe 15 hours many weeks in London.  20 mph makes it so much more welcoming.  And much safer for pedestrians too.  I really can't get my head around your position on everything brought in to make our streets safer and encourage people to drive less and use active travel.  Is this really because of the LTN?

[Rockets]

Because often those measures are not brought in pragmatically. The A205 being 20mph is one of those, the Westway elevated section being 30mph is another. I very often cycle to West London and I would never want to cycle along the A4 no matter what speed it was - that's me being pragmatic. I often see people trying to and I often think that is being driven by ideology or stupidity - or a dangerous combination of both! I have been doing that journey far longer than the 20mph blanket measures were brought in and the route I chose to go those measures have made zero difference because the route I use is wonderfully quiet and always has been. 

Do you really think the A205 should be 20mph? It's one of London's most important arterial routes and is the very definition of a 30mph road in the Highway Code. 

Surely you can put your ideology aside and use your traffic management expertise to acknowledge that?

Edited October 18 by Rockets

[Sue]

11 hours ago, Rockets said:

Do you consider 30mph to be the definition of a speeding car? As I was saying....ideological claptrap. 

The blanket rollout of 20mph by councils like Southwark was driven by an anti-car ideology and was not at all pragmatic. I think some in the active travel lobby would refer to it as a "nudge technique"...

 

It would help if you quoted my  post you are replying to. How convenient that it was at the end of a page.

30mph is significantly faster than 20mph - 50% faster -  otherwise there wouldn't be much point in having reduced  the speed limit, for the reasons given.

I notice you completely ignore the rest of my post. 

I will copy and paste it here to jog your memory.

"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 October 18 by Sue
Adding info

[Rockets]

Well @Sue I answered the first part addressing the "more people will walk and cycle if the speed limit is 20 mph" in my previous messages.

TFL has actually addressed the claim around pollution by saying there is no difference in No2 pollution at 20mph but that if cars are driven in a "smoother" way at 20mph there may be a reduction in particulate matter. I think we all see cars being driven less smoothly as they accelerate and brake between speed cameras.

Collisions, yes of course reducing speeds reduces the risk of accidents but most accidents happen at junctions and the A205, in the main, has junctions controlled by traffic lights.

This is why that statement by Southwark is so flawed, much of what they claim does not pass the scrutiny test, it is a collection of ideological soundbites they know they can throw out and their supporters will throw around as fact. On this thread alone there have been two very clear examples of people making claims that are just nonsense (claims that police set the speed limit in the area and claims that 30mph on the Westway was because of ageing infrastructure). 

And this is the point, a pragmatic approach would say roads like the A205 should remain 30 mph, but the pragmatic approach is not the one taken.

I ask you again, do you consider 30mph on a A-road like the A205 to be too fast or as you refer "speeding".

[snowy]

"nonsense claims that 30mph on the Westway was because of ageing infrastructure"

"Speed limit restriction

The speed limit was reduced in July 2020 from 40mph to 30mph along the entire stretch of the Westway between the A40 Northern roundabout to the west and Marylebone flyover to the east.

Slowing the speed helps protect and extend the life of the ageing expansion joints in the road until they can be replaced. This makes it less likely we'll have to close parts of the Westway for unplanned works."

from

https://tfl.gov.uk/travel-information/improvements-and-projects/a40-westway

Edited Sunday at 16:12 by snowy

[malumbu]

@Rockets in response to your response to Sue

1.  Pollution.  Cars accelerating and braking between cameras.  This is poor driving.  I don't drive like that as I am an excellent driver who has had additional training.  Anticipate the road ahead, light touch on the accelerate and be prepared do stop when you see stationary traffic ahead, approach junctions and the like.  You can't excuse bad driving and blame it on 20mph zones.

2.  "Most accidents occur at junctions".  Rather a sweeping statement?  Firstly it is collisions not accidents.  Secondly this statement does not break down the types of collision, speed and harm.  Motorised vehicle on motorised vehicle; vehicle/fixed object; vehicle/pedestrian; vehicle/two wheeler, and vice-versa (I once walked into a car as a teenager that stopped suddenly in slow moving traffic in my local high street (ouch).

3.  Haven't got a clue what the flawed argument is by Southwark.  In England speed limits are set according to the road, local authorities have powers to set lower speed limits, as many do (not just in London).  One third of the population of the UK live in local authority areas with 20mph zones https://www.20splenty.org/20mph_places  

The Mayors' commitment to zero KSIs by 2041 starts with 20mph in all of the congestion charging zone, which I expect has been achieved.  Law of physics is that with every 2 mph over 20mph there is 10% greater impact if a vehicle hits a pedestrian and an even greater impact on stopping distance

4.  South Circular.  You failed to address my earlier point that virtually all of the South Circular all the way from Waterloo plumbing in Catford to Kew Bridge is a series of minor roads with shops, schools, houses, many junctions, pedestrian crossings.  It's not a dual carriage arterial like the A40, A4, A2, A20, A3, A21 after Bromley etc etc.  20mph is an appropriate speed limit.

Thanks heavens less and less of the next generation will own cars and regularly drive in the inner boroughs, and will make more and more use of the transport options available.

Worth looking at the update on Mayor's plans and Met Police work on supporting this: https://www.london.gov.uk/motions/vision-zero-targets

 

 

[Earl Aelfheah]

Rockets, who’s argued for 20mph speed limits when people are travelling by bicycle (which would involve a whole new system of registration and licensing and changes to primary legislation), is against those same speed limits for cars? 🤔 

Yeh, nothing ideological there.

20mph has saved lives. It makes almost no discernible difference to overall journey times. So what exactly is the argument against?

Edited Thursday at 10:17 by Earl Aelfheah

[Rockets]

On 17/10/2025 at 19:26, Rockets said:

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".

@snowy maybe go back and re-read what I posted…..you have conveniently ignored what happened in 2021….why might that be? 
 

 

3 hours ago, malumbu said:

1.  Pollution.  Cars accelerating and braking between cameras.  This is poor driving.  I don't drive like that as I am an excellent driver who has had additional training.  Anticipate the road ahead, light touch on the accelerate and be prepared do stop when you see stationary traffic ahead, approach junctions and the like.  You can't excuse bad driving and blame it on 20mph zones.

 

I am sure you believe you are an excellent driver @malumbu but only if everyone drives that will does a reduction to 20mph has a positive impact on pollution levels (according to TFL and Imperial College). A lot of people do not so what does that do to claims made by Southwark that 20mph reduces pollution? Probably renders if meaningless…..

3 hours ago, malumbu said:

2.  "Most accidents occur at junctions".  Rather a sweeping statement? 

One backed up by data that shows that is indeed the case…it doesn’t take a genius to work out why.

3 hours ago, malumbu said:

3.  Haven't got a clue what the flawed argument is by Southwark.  In England speed limits are set according to the road, local authorities have powers to set lower speed limits, as many do (not just in London). 

Only few posts back you were claiming I was questioning your “expertise” because you said the police set the speed limit and I challenged you that they did not. I am glad you have acknowledged that your expertise didn’t quite extend to that fact and that it is the local traffic authority (TFL and Southwark where we live) sets the speed.

3 hours ago, malumbu said:

4.  South Circular.  You failed to address my earlier point that virtually all of the South Circular all the way from Waterloo plumbing in Catford to Kew Bridge is a series of minor roads with shops, schools, houses, many junctions, pedestrian crossings.  It's not a dual carriage arterial like the A40, A4, A2, A20, A3, A21 after Bromley etc etc.  20mph is an appropriate speed limit.

And you fail to address the point that by the definition within the Highway Code it is a 20mph road and it is one of London’s key arterial routes that was developed as such. There are many ruins where it is more than one lane in each direction. According to the Highway Code 30mph is an appropriate speed limit.

59 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

Rockets, who’s argued for 20mph speed limits when people are travelling by bicycle (which would involve a whole new system of registration and licensing and changes to primary legislation), is against those same speed limits for cars? 🤔 

Let’s back up a bit @Earl Aelfheah as you are doing your usual trick of putting words into people’s mouths again. Please try to get your facts right, I am, saying that a more pragmatic approach is needed rather than a blanket 20mph…..which no more than a few posts back you also seemed to agree with….

59 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

20mph has saved lives. It makes almost no discernible difference to overall journey distances.

Hang on, no more than few posts ago @Sue was claiming 30mph is 50% faster than 20mph….yet you claim it has no discernible difference to journey times. Which one is it?

Edited Sunday at 20:21 by Rockets

[Earl Aelfheah]

@rockets 20mph has saved lives. It makes almost no discernible difference to overall journey times. So what exactly is the argument against?

And why did you have no issue with it when you were arguing for the same rules to apply to people using a pedal bicycle?

It wouldn’t be ‘ideological’ would it?

Edited Sunday at 20:26 by Earl Aelfheah

[Rockets]

14 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

makes almost no discernible difference to overall journey times.

How come then that the Welsh government’s own impact assessment/research suggested that the blanket 20mph across Wales would cost the Welsh economy £4.5bn over 30 years…..? Has anyone done a similar piece of research for London?

14 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

And why did you have no issue with it when you were arguing for the same rules to apply to people using a pedal bicycle?

I think you are confused as I have been calling for bicycles to adhere to the rules of the road and the fact that it is ludicrous that the speed limits do not apply to cyclists and when a cyclist killed a pedestrian whilst he was doing around 28mph he faced no legal recourse by claiming the speed limit did not apply to him. 

Edited Sunday at 20:41 by Rockets

[malumbu]

1.  Comparing the whole of Wales with it's much lower population density with central London and the inner boroughs is ludicrous

2.  There are already powers to prosecute cyclists who endanger life.  It's up to the CPS and courts to decide whether to take further action and they, in the small number of cases, have decided not to.  Wanton and furious driving under the Offences Against the Person Act 1861, with a maximum penalty of two years imprisonment. Gross negligence manslaughter in extreme cases.

3.  Have you ever been on the South Circ from Catford to Kew Bridge.  Awful much of the time.  As it has been for tens of years.

4.  The police enforce, government and local authorities set speed limits.  My apologies, I sometimes don't read your posts fully as they often say similar things. I was assuming that you were going on about enforcement being a cash cow for local authorities.  Which comes up fairly frequently on many threads.  I've added square brackets to my earlier posts to clarify.  

[Earl Aelfheah]

On 19/10/2025 at 21:39, Rockets said:

How come then that the Welsh government’s own impact assessment/research suggested that the blanket 20mph across Wales would cost the Welsh economy £4.5bn over 30 years…..? Has anyone done a similar piece of research for London?

I think you are confused as I have been calling for bicycles to adhere to the rules of the road and the fact that it is ludicrous that the speed limits do not apply to cyclists and when a cyclist killed a pedestrian whilst he was doing around 28mph he faced no legal recourse by claiming the speed limit did not apply to him. 

As Malumbu says, the comparison between densely populated London and Wales is obviously ridiculous. But worth noting that even in the Welsh government’s initial impact assessment, those figures you quote were based on the average journey being one minute longer. The method for monetising these small delays is under some debate. The large savings from significant reduction in serious injuries and deaths, less so.

In central and inner London, moving slightly more quickly towards a line of vehicles / set of lights, makes little to no difference to overall journey times.

It is untrue that a cyclist who has caused a death through collision cannot face legal recourse because of the existing legislative framework.

And you were explicitly arguing for 20mph limits on those travelling by bicycle. Now you’re arguing against 20mph limits for those travelling by car, van or HGV.

…whilst accusing people of being ‘ideologically driven’.

Edited Thursday at 08:59 by Earl Aelfheah

[Penguin68]

12 hours ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

@rockets 20mph has saved lives. It makes almost no discernible difference to overall journey times. So what exactly is the argument against?

But over which roads? - no one, I believe, is disagreeing that a 20mph limit on residential roads (in London by far the largest mileage of roads) makes safety sense, and will and probably has, substantially reduced the impact effect of accidents, and these figures go into your statistics - you need to demonstrate that the speed limit reduction on A roads has had a significant impact as well. 

[malumbu]

Lordship Lane is an A road.  So are you suggesting 30 is appropriate. The only road I know within the circulars that could be described as a Trunk road is the West Way.  Maybe Great West Road at a push.

[Earl Aelfheah]

2 hours ago, Penguin68 said:

But over which roads? - no one, I believe, is disagreeing that a 20mph limit on residential roads (in London by far the largest mileage of roads) makes safety sense, and will and probably has, substantially reduced the impact effect of accidents, and these figures go into your statistics - you need to demonstrate that the speed limit reduction on A roads has had a significant impact as well. 

With the possible exception of the south circular, I can’t personally think of a road in Southwark where a 30mph limit would make any difference to your overall journey time.

The thread btw, was about Peckham Rye, by piermont green, which has very visible speed cameras and a very clear and appropriate 20 speed limit.

Driving at 30 round here (which just means accelerating and breaking harder), is absolutely pointless, increases your stopping distance considerably, increases pollution, and makes it more likely you’ll hurt someone else. 

Edited Monday at 11:57 by Earl Aelfheah

[Pugwash]

For those who are concerned about speed in Barry Road - the police are doing a Road Watch on 31st October at 2.30 pm at the Etherow Street junction with Barry Road.  Last time we did a speed check on Barry was some years ago so will be interesting to see the results. Come along and participate  - last time we all took turns with the speed gun.

[Rockets]

7 hours ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

As Malumbu says, the comparison between densely populated London and Wales is obviously ridiculous. But worth noting that even in the Welsh government’s initial impact assessment, those figures you quote were based on the average journey being one minute longer.

Imagine the economic impact in a densely populated area....

Yes and every mile at 20mph rather than 30mph takes one minute longer.......makes you think....

7 hours ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

It is untrue that a cyclist who has caused a death through collision cannot face legal recourse because of existing legislative framework.

Well that's the defense the cyclist who killed the lady in Regent's Park offered during the hearing....

 

3 hours ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

With the possible exception of the south circular,

And for once we agree!

[Earl Aelfheah]

On 20/10/2025 at 16:15, Rockets said:

Imagine the economic impact in a densely populated area....

Yes and every mile at 20mph rather than 30mph takes one minute longer.......makes you think....

Clearly it’s not made you think. The impact on journey times in a densely populated area where the roads are not free flowing, is obviously, considerably less. In Wales (less densely populated) the average journey time was estimated to be less than one minute slower…Not one minute per mile, less than one minute in total.

In London the difference between travelling at a max of 20 and a max of 30 is mainly one of how hard you’re accelerating and breaking as you travel towards the back of the same line of traffic. On average, I would guess the difference to one’s overall journey time is close to zero* - Whilst the impact on stopping distances and on pollution is not.

*In fact there is some evidence that lower, more consistent speeds, may improve traffic flow in built up areas, reducing overall journey times (when adhered to). 

Edited Thursday at 10:20 by Earl Aelfheah

[Rockets]

But @Earl Aelfheah is the arterial road network throughout London not calibrated via traffic signals to keep it free-flowing as much as possible? It certainly used to be.

Maybe you ought to think...if the economic impact of the 20mph rules in, as you describe it as less-densely populate area like Wales, is £4.5bn then what would it be in a much more densely populated area like London where many more vehicular journeys are taking place in a much more densely populated area and where major arterial routes around the city like the A205 are subject to 20mph limits?   

If what @snowy says is true that only 39% of Welsh roads were subject to the 20mph limit and the Welsh government's own research showed the economic impact of that was £4.5bn what is the economic impact of 20mph across large swathes of London - surely TFL and the Major's office would have done that as part of an impact assessment before rolling the measures out - that is how the Welsh £4.5bn came to light as it was part of their impact assessment?

2 hours ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

On average, I would guess the difference to one’s overall journey time is close to zero* - Whilst the impact on stopping distances and on pollution is not.

*In fact there is some evidence that lower, more consistent speeds, may improve traffic flow in built up areas, reducing overall journey times (when adhered to). 

That's just a guess - the only thing we can definitively say is that for every mile at 20mph vs 30mph a journey takes one minute longer per mile. I think anyone who regularly drives, or is driven, around London can see that journey times have increased in line with the above (if not more so).

And this is where Imperial College were unable to show that 20mph led to more consistent speeds (or a definitive reduction in pollution)....they were hedging by saying that it MAY lead to a smoother driving style but they could not prove it would. 

[Earl Aelfheah]

How is it that you think traffic is slowed more by a 20mph limit in a built up area where there is congestion, than it is in a less densely populated area with higher average speeds? That’s just nonsensical.

There is actually some evidence that, since average speeds in London are well below 20mph owing to congestion and junctions, traffic can flow more freely at 20mph. This is due to reduced braking distances (enabling drivers to leave a smaller gap to the vehicle in front) and increased junction capacity (as drivers are able to pull into slower traffic more easily). 

There is no evidence that I’ve seen that 20mph limits in London cost the economy anything. There is quite a lot that the significant reduction in collisions, injuries and deaths saves money. But regardless, the argument is more of an ethical one than an economic one. Why should more people give their lives so that a handful of individuals can accelerate and brake more aggressively toward the back of the same line of traffic?

Edited Thursday at 09:14 by Earl Aelfheah

[Rockets]

30 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

There is actually some evidence that, since average speeds in London are well below 20mph owing to congestion and junctions, traffic can flow more freely at 20mph.

Do you have a link to that?

30 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

There is no evidence that I’ve seen that 20mph limits in London cost the economy anything.

I suspect this may be because none has been done or it has not been released. I believe the Welsh economic impact figure came out due to an FOI as it was part of the impact assessment the Welsh government did before implementing it. One presumes TFL, the Mayor's office and local councils must have done one before rolling out the 20mph?

31 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

How is it that you think traffic is slowed more by a 20mph limit in a built up area where there is congestion, than it is in a less densely populated area with higher average speeds? That’s just nonsensical.

Because I am talking about economic impact and when talking about arterial routes like the A205 they used to flow at 30mph and traffic lights were phased to keep it moving as such.

Have you noticed how journeys are now taking longer in London - that has an economic impact.

 

[Earl Aelfheah]

So just to be clear; This thread is about the stretch of road running along Peckham Rye Park near Piermont green.

Neither the 20mph limits in London nor Wales were designed to save money (although they may do long term), but as investments in road safety.

If you want to argue that 20mph limits in London cost a lot of money, then you need to point to your evidence and ideally put a figure on it.

If you believe, having demonstrated that cost, it is a poor investment in terms of the number of lives saved, then you really ought to say how much each life is worth in your mind, and what a better, more cost effective intervention would be.

Edited Thursday at 10:23 by Earl Aelfheah

[malumbu]

I think there is selective memory here.  I don't drive often but I have driven in London for many years.  It has always been awful for most of the daylight hours.  You get measures such as the congestion zone, which overnight led to much less traffic, But my commutes in recent years (by bike) seemed just as bad as pre CC.  If early enough on the 185 and you could get down the bus lane before Sacred Heart school, it actual felt quicker getting into Pimlico than when I first came to London (and an electric bus too!)

Another thing that bothers me is that we are all 'experts'.  However government, both national and local, do employ analysts to look at the business case.  Now it may be that this is very much weighted to saving lives and cutting serious injuries. If so I am in favour.  So if you are angry about every measure designed to improve safety, reduce emissions and encourage us to get out of our cars, contact the powers that be and ask to see their business case.

Ultimately, as I have said soooooo many times, congestion is caused by road vehicles.  Congestion It is one thing that discourages driving, if you free up the roads and you will simply get more car journeys.  As a nation, particularly in London, many of us do not use our cars smartly.  It's habitual, a perceived convenience, and for some seen as  a right.  I managed to kick this bad habit years ago.  There were times pre CC that I would be on a work visit and I'd park at the meters in central London when they were still relatively affordable.  By the mid 90s I'd use the train and only if necessary hire a car at the other end.  I'd occasionally drive into London for a night out as there was so much free parking around Waterloo.  All gone now; good.

Yes there will be some people that need to drive or be driven due to mobility or other issues.  But not the vast majority.

It isn't perfect and I have my frustrations for example a car parked on the bus lane, or worse still when it has been clamped but left there for a few days.  And junctions which I feel could be better designed for all road users (I'm at a loss with both sides of Lambeth Bridge). But I can't do anything about it.

[Rockets]

1 hour ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

If you want to argue that 20mph limits in London cost a lot of money, then you need to point to your evidence and ideally put a figure on it.

If you believe, having demonstrated that cost, it is a poor investment in terms of the number of lives saved, then you really ought to say how much each life is worth in your mind, and what a better, more cost effective intervention would be.

But surely there must have been an impact assessment done by TFL, the Mayor's office and local authorities on what rolling out blanket 20mph would have in both positive and negative terms - clearly the Welsh government did it?

It's interesting because earlier this year TFL put out a press release entitled: Powerful new long-term TfL research shows 20mph speed limits save lives on London’s roads

Does anyone have a link to this particular piece of research as it is not linked on the TFL press release website? Interestingly the research was focused on 150 20mph zones implemented between 1989 and 2013 and I was interested in determining where those 20mph zones were. Interestingly the press release does call out other positive impacts on road safety during that period of time and says that 20mph was not the sole contributory factor and that this was factored into the research. Does anyone know where that report can be found, normally a link can be found on the press release website of TFL but there isn't one for this one and even AI cannot find it?