Speeding ticket - near Piemont Green

[Penguin68]

2 hours ago, Rockets said:

150 20mph zones implemented between 1989 and 2013

None of these would have been on the A205 - by that date - or on any of the real cross-London through routes - but clearly on residential and non-through routes (with some 'rat runs' excepted - inadvertent through-routes) from which diversion or slowing of traffic would always have been beneficial. Or precisely the sort of road which I have argued a 20mph limit was entirely appropriate. And where I would have expected there to be a significant impact on pedestrian casualties.

[beansprout]

Well most of the time there are road works via  one conpany or another which causes jams all over the place . Not little  ones buy huge  c ones when eg doing works near South Circular or somewhere along Barry Road, Peckham Rye, Lordship Lane etc so one would be lucky to get up to 3/5 miles let alone higher! Same in the city..

But, yup have done a speed awareness course and did register the impact a mile or to above speed limit does to an individual.

Admire anyone who rides a bike in London period - doesn’t matter which borrow.. White vans, lorries, buses, cars, etc .. certainly not for me - rather walk….

 

[Earl Aelfheah]

TfL included a cost/benefit analysis showing positive returns in their Strategic Business case for what’s called the ‘Lowering Speed Limits programme’. I believe the benefit / cost ratio was 7.63:1.

There’s plenty of post implementation monitoring data and analysis also.

But does it matter? I’ve never once seen you honestly engage with a piece of road safety data or research. We all know the standard pattern. You lazily state something as true providing no evidence at all and when the data is signposted, you’ll just ignore nearly all of it, to cherry pick anything that tenuously aligns with what you want to believe.

And again, the 20mph limit wasn't designed as a money saving measure, but as an investment in road safety. It’s been extremely successful, saving many lives.

If you want to argue that it’s a poor investment, then it’s really up to you to firstly explain how much you think it is worth spending to save a life, show your ‘alternative’ cost benefit calculation, and then explain what a better, more cost effective intervention would be. 

I have never heard you do anything but argue against every proven road safety measure that’s been implemented in London- so genuinely interested if you have anything constructive to add?

Edited 17 hours ago by Earl Aelfheah