The Big '20mph Zone' Con

[make_some_sence]

what rubbish, you must be a cyclist.

[wulfhound]

There where seven objection against the 20mph blanket, which by the way slows down all traffic flowing through the borough. All where rejected by the council in favour of two supporters.

It was there in the Labour Party's election manifesto for anyone to read. They won the election. Seems democratic enough to me.

Bus journeys across the borough are now even slower so that few cyclists/pedestrians can take more risks on the road.

Every single last one of us is a pedestrian some of the time. And while *you* may *think* that "cyclist" is a word for a tribe of weird death-wish fitness enthusiasts with a rubber fetish, what it actually means is anybody, any time they decide to pick up a bicycle and use it to get from A to B. Which, for quite a lot of journeys, is actually rather pratical.

Vote these imbeciles out

It's your right to try and do so. Me personally, I'll be voting them back in.

[Townleygreen]

Totally agree with your views, Wulfhound. Well said.

[Heart108]

Thanks bawdy-nan for the detailed links. I am persuaded that reduction of accident death and injury is worth any extra pollution caused - if at all - by driving at 20mph.

I still would like to be persuaded that I am just being paranoid when I suspect speed cameras will be used as a cynical inflexible tool for generating revenue rather than contributing to a safer driving culture.

There has got to be open debate based on intelligent science behind choice of speed limits - whether urban roads or motorways.

bawdy-nan Wrote:

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

> Here's a few links which collate the evidence:

>

> http://www.rospa.com/about/currentcampaigns/public

> health/info/rs4-casestudy-20-mph-zones.pdf

>

> http://www.dannydorling.org/wp-content/files/danny

> dorling_publication_id3924.pdf

>

> http://www.tfl.gov.uk/cdn/static/cms/documents/res

> earch-summary-no2-20mph-zones.pdf

>

> from the tfl report above:

> Casualties

> The impact on casualties due to the

> introduction of 20 mph zones in London

> can be summarised as follows;

>

> ● Allowing for background changes in

> KSI casualty frequencies, the

> installation of 20 mph zones has

> reduced the frequency of road user

> casualties within the zones by about

> 45% and reduced the frequency of

> fatal or serious (KSI) casualties by

> about 57%.

>

> ● There were statistically significant

> reductions in the KSI casualty

> frequency for most classes of road

> user within the 20 mph zones.

>

> ● The KSI casualty frequency for

> children also fell significantly --

> by 60%.

>

> ● The severity ratio (the ratio of KSI

> casualties to all casualties) fell from

> 0.16 to 0.12 following zone

> installation ? indicating a reduced

> severity.

>

> ● The average annual reduction in fatal

> and serious (KSI) casualties per 20

> mph zone suggests an annual saving

> of about 66 KSI casualties across all

> of London?s current 20 mph zones.

> Using DfT figures this is equivalent to

> a current annual saving of at least

> ?8.8 million, at 2001 prices.

>

> Here's the 8 page thread where all of this was

> discussed last month

> http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?5

> ,1459395,page=1

[Lowlander]

I don't get the speed camera debate:

1. You get a warning side by the road a mile or so in advance

2. There's a great big yellow box at the site itself (usually with the word "GATSO" in big capital letters

3. There's lines in the road where you would be photographed if speeding

How on earth do you get caught in one?

[rodneybewes]

This isn't just Southwark by the way, aren't they all doing it/have done it already apart from Westminster?

[richard tudor]

wulfhound Wrote:

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

> > There where seven objection against the 20mph

> blanket, which by the way slows down all traffic

> flowing through the borough. All where rejected by

> the council in favour of two supporters.

>

>

> It was there in the Labour Party's election

> manifesto for anyone to read. They won the

> election. Seems democratic enough to me.

>

>

> Bus journeys across the borough are now even

> slower so that few cyclists/pedestrians can take

> more risks on the road.

>

>

> Every single last one of us is a pedestrian some

> of the time. And while *you* may *think* that

> "cyclist" is a word for a tribe of weird

> death-wish fitness enthusiasts with a rubber

> fetish, what it actually means is anybody, any

> time they decide to pick up a bicycle and use it

> to get from A to B. Which, for quite a lot of

> journeys, is actually rather pratical.

>

>

> Vote these imbeciles out

>

>

> It's your right to try and do so. Me personally,

> I'll be voting them back in.

I would think not to many people read their manifesto in southwark as most people know no matter what party it is the manifesto is fairy story.

Many people in Southwark would vote for the party gave them freebies as the turnout is always low it does not represent the true view.

Hence a very small number of people can push a party into power.

7 Against 2 for democracy says not passed.

[rodneybewes]

Well, more fool those who vote without knowing, or don't vote at all. That's possibly the worst excuse of the lot. They promised to do it and they're pushing it through. You don't hold a referendum on every decision especially any that are in your manifesto.

[richard tudor]

People who read and voted for Clegg on fees got shafted and call me Dave on inheritance tax got shafted.

What they put in apart from the headline grabbing political policy is what they push through which is what was always intended

Hence people cannot be asked now days.

30 mph on busy roads, 20 on residential roads and pedestrians on the pavement.

Common sense

[rodneybewes]

richard tudor Wrote:

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

> People who read and voted for Clegg on fees got

> shafted and call me Dave on inheritance tax got

> shafted.

>

> What they put in apart from the headline grabbing

> political policy is what they push through which

> is what was always intended

>

> Hence people cannot be asked now days.

>

> 30 mph on busy roads, 20 on residential roads and

> pedestrians on the pavement.

>

> Common sense

And hopefully no-one votes for them again. I still don't see your point. This lot said they would do it and they are. Surely you should be approving? I agree with the 20mph policy which is being implemented across nearly every Borough.

[richard tudor]

I don't agree with a blanket 20 through the borough. Unfortunately Tooley Street seems to think blanket idea fits all.

Should have asked local Housing offices for their local knowledge but many experienced officers have gone in the last reorganisation. Consultants is the thing now.

My point is this 20 mph idea was on page 7 out of 10 of the manifesto in a small paragraph which I doubt many people even made it to let alone read to vote on.

Real life experience on the ground is what is required not book theory.

You have your view I have mine.

[rodneybewes]

I'm happy with you not agreeing that 20mph will be a benefit, that's all up for debate. I don't understand your issue with Southwark carrying out their election promise. Seems to me we should be applauding that.

[Loz]

make_some_sence Wrote:

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

> Here is the S**t used by the overlords at

> southwark

> http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/ieDecisionDetails.aspx?ID=4728 .

The most interesting part of this is a that Southwark has quietly included cyclists in the 20mph limit. There's going to be a LOT of howling when the first few are presented with speeding fines.

[uncleglen]

How will they catch the cyclists? What about the increase in asthma attacks due to the increased pollution?

[mako]

Wulfhound. you must surely be a Wum and you have pulled me in with your ridiculous posts over the last couple of weeks on this matter. well done I applaud your efforts. Of course a political party can do what it likes if voted in. Although perhaps may i suggest that as the people of East Dulwich didn't vote them in, (I believe they were at best 3rd in both Village and East Dulwich ward) perhaps the people of this forum do afterall have some right to complain if the policies are misguided and financially based, even if they told us of this plan in advance. Perhaps the bright people of East Dulwich had all read the manifesto and explicitly voted against them for this very reason, so to say they have no right now to complain is simply moronic. but I guess you know that Wulf

[mako]

James Barber why do you think 7 of 9 groups consulted on this, including the police, voted against it? Presumably not all boy racers desperate to drive a bit faster?

[Penguin68]

Richard Tudor wrote 'People who read and voted for Clegg on fees got shafted and call me Dave on inheritance tax got shafted.'

Without any brief for either party quoted - the nature of a coalition government is that the full manifestos of the parties concerned will not be acted on - otherwise they would be the same party. Coalition requires compromise, hence manifesto pledges cannot all be delivered for both parties; if they were to insist on this they would never have any coalition in the first place. Simples.

[JohnL]

Penguin68 Wrote:

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

> Richard Tudor wrote 'People who read and voted for

> Clegg on fees got shafted and call me Dave on

> inheritance tax got shafted.'

>

> Without any brief for either party quoted - the

> nature of a coalition government is that the full

> manifestos of the parties concerned will not be

> acted on - otherwise they would be the same party.

> Coalition requires compromise, hence manifesto

> pledges cannot all be delivered for both parties;

> if they were to insist on this they would never

> have any coalition in the first place. Simples.

Hence why I think there will be no coalition this year.

Maybe a pact.

[JohnL]

Loz Wrote:

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

> make_some_sence Wrote:

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

> -----

> > Here is the S**t used by the overlords at

> > southwark

> >

> http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/ieDecisionDetail

> s.aspx?ID=4728 .

>

> The most interesting part of this is a that

> Southwark has quietly included cyclists in the

> 20mph limit. There's going to be a LOT of howling

> when the first few are presented with speeding

> fines.

Didn't they go back on that after legal advice ?

[Earl Aelfheah]

Loz Wrote:

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

> make_some_sence Wrote:

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

> -----

> > Here is the S**t used by the overlords at

> > southwark

> >

> http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/ieDecisionDetail

> s.aspx?ID=4728 .

>

> The most interesting part of this is a that

> Southwark has quietly included cyclists in the

> 20mph limit. There's going to be a LOT of howling

> when the first few are presented with speeding

> fines.

I can't find any reference to cyclists being included in this. Either way, it's entirely unenforcible.

[Loz]

rahrahrah Wrote:

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

> I can't find any reference to cyclists being

> included in this. Either way, it's entirely unenforcible.

It's in the objection/response to Objection 8 in the 'report' document. And, whilst not enforceable with unmanned cameras, it is entirely enforceable with hand-held speed cameras.

[henryb]

I don't know if the Met have a official tolerance for speed limits but I have read most police forces set it at 10% + 2. So anyone is unlikely to get a ticket if they are going under 24 - but that is going it some on a bike. When Bradley Wiggin's won the Tour de France he only averaged 24.8 mph. A cyclist going that fast should slow down imo.

[mako]

Bradley had to cycle 1000's of kilometers UP mountains! 24 mph is easily obtainable down sydenham hill without even pedalling so not really 'going some'.

[JohnL]

Loz Wrote:

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

> rahrahrah Wrote:

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

> -----

> > I can't find any reference to cyclists being

> > included in this. Either way, it's entirely

> unenforcible.

>

> It's in the objection/response to Objection 8 in

> the 'report' document. And, whilst not enforceable

> with unmanned cameras, it is entirely enforceable

> with hand-held speed cameras.

But what about this..

http://road.cc/content/news/124738-southwark-backs-down-20mph-cycling-limit

[Loz]

Waiting for the first motorist to try the "my engine was off and I was coasting downhill" defence!