why have we got a 20mph zone?

[Umertron]

If there is agreement that the 20mph should be enforced what is the best way of putting this across to the council?

[Charles Notice]

How do you know people want this 20mph apart from the usual people on this forum.

Have the vast Southwark public been asked?

[rodneybewes]

rabbitears Wrote:

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

> Is it really that confusing?

The 20mph bit isn't confusing at all. People are just confused as to whether or not it's going to be enforced i.e. if they ignore it how likely are they going to be to get away with it?

[rch]

Enforcing 20mph will be nearly impossible because of the way the legislation is set up and because police resources are being decimated.

We have one local ward PC based in Camberwell and she walks the ward once a day. So, even if she saw someone speeding fast enough to take action, she wouldn't be able to catch up with them. Most traffic units are based in areas where there are measured problems and our stats down here are too low to make enforcement viable.

The most accepted way to "control" speed issues is by creating obstacles in the road, but then it gets to the point where these measures don't really address the problem and then new problems are created, such as displacement or drivers being distracted and spending more time watching their speedometers instead of the road in front of them.

The problem from my perspective is political, with people making decisions about things they simply aren't trained to understand.

Ironically, I think the police totally get it, but they are fighting politicians on other fronts.

On a positive note, someone said something at a recent police meeting I attended, which I think is spot-on...

They said that when the speed limits are set at 30mph, most cars travel at 35mph... but where the 20mph limits are set, most drivers drive at around 25mph.

In other words, the general mindset has changed, which is pretty much the best I think that we will achieve.

[rodneybewes]

rch Wrote:

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

>

> They said that when the speed limits are set at

> 30mph, most cars travel at 35mph... but where the

> 20mph limits are set, most drivers drive at around

> 25mph.

>

> In other words, the general mindset has changed,

> which is pretty much the best I think that we will

> achieve.

I think this is exactly right. The mindset is key here - 30 years ago drinking and driving was a bit frowned upon but a lot of people did it. Now it's nearly universally reviled - but a lot of campaigning went into changing the way people thought about it and the change didn't happen overnight. And let's face it, they don't enforce 30 or 40 at the moment either do they?

Which is why I also think those lit up signs giving indications of speed and reminding people of pedestrians are a good idea - it goes to the core of why speeding needs to be reduced.

[Bluerevolution]

You are all missing the point of this ideology, if everybody travels at the same speed, congestion and bottle necks are significantly reduced. Person 1 leaves his/her home at 0830 and drives at 20 mph, then person 2 leaves at 0826 and drives at 30 mph and then person 3 leaves at 0830 at 40mph you get tailgaiting, congestion and bottlenecking. Is it that hard to figure out ? 20 people can leave at the same time and ALL drive at 20 mph and a standard space would be maintained.

[DulwichFox]

Bluerevolution Wrote:

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

> You are all missing the point of this ideology, if

> everybody travels at the same speed, congestion

> and bottle necks are significantly reduced. Person

> 1 leaves his/her home at 0830 and drives at 20

> mph, then person 2 leaves at 0826 and drives at 30

> mph and then person 3 leaves at 0830 at 40mph you

> get tailgaiting, congestion and bottlenecking. Is

> it that hard to figure out ? 20 people can leave

> at the same time and ALL drive at 20 mph and a

> standard space would be maintained.

The slower people drive the closer together they drive and pollution becomes more concentrated.

Add to that the problem by more traffic controls cars are at a standstill with lights at red for up to 2 mins.

Then pulling away with a 20 mph limit congestion builds up..

Cars also create more pollution at 20 mph with higher revs and being in lower gear. and an increase in noise..

DulwichFox

[rodneybewes]

Bluerevolution Wrote:

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

> You are all missing the point of this ideology, if

> everybody travels at the same speed, congestion

> and bottle necks are significantly reduced. Person

> 1 leaves his/her home at 0830 and drives at 20

> mph, then person 2 leaves at 0826 and drives at 30

> mph and then person 3 leaves at 0830 at 40mph you

> get tailgaiting, congestion and bottlenecking. Is

> it that hard to figure out ? 20 people can leave

> at the same time and ALL drive at 20 mph and a

> standard space would be maintained.

I thought the main point was that they can prove it saves lives and injuries?

[rodneybewes]

DulwichFox Wrote:

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

> The slower people drive the closer together they

> drive and pollution becomes more concentrated.

> Add to that the problem by more traffic controls

> cars are at a standstill with lights at red for up

> to 2 mins.

> Then pulling away with a 20 mph limit congestion

> builds up..

>

> Cars also create more pollution at 20 mph with

> higher revs and being in lower gear. and an

> increase in noise..

>

> DulwichFox

You've got no evidence to back that up - it just "sounds" a bit plausible. You can cut that kind of conversation any way you want - same as those people who argue exactly the opposite.

[Curmudgeon]

first mate Wrote:

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

> Umerton,

>

> The police were consulted. They objected to it and

> thought it was a stupid idea, in that it would

> create confusion,probably leading to more reckless

> driving. How right they are. I also think the

> police indicated they would not enforce.

>

> s'wark Labour launched this with the bonkers idea

> that it would be self-enforcing.

>

> I try hard to stick to the limit but find it very

> hard to do when cars accelerate and suddenly pull

> out to overtake or when they tailgate and falsh

> their lights in an attempt to force you to go

> faster. Cyclists also regularly whizz past down th

> hill and weavw in and out. I too am increasingly

> resentful at being made to endure this.

I agree with the police

It's a stupid idea

It appears to make roads more dangerous not less

Arbitrary speed limits not in line with national speed limits is...well arbitrary

[rabbitears]

The National Speed Limit is 60mph or 70mph.

http://m.askthe.police.uk/content/Q594.htm?viewsinglecontentelementid=35858

[Bluerevolution]

Save lives ? Really, no just to keep traffic flowing

[rodneybewes]

Only way to do that in London is to have less of it.

[Curmudgeon]

rabbitears Wrote:

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

> The National Speed Limit is 60mph or 70mph.

> http://m.askthe.police.uk/content/Q594.htm?viewsin

> glecontentelementid=35858

you see many dual carriageways and motorways in southwark?

I was clearly not referring to The National Speed Limit, but to speed limits across the nation that are commonly enforced in urban areas

I apologise that I wasn't suitably clear in my phrasing to appease the pedantic

Edit for typo

[Penguin68]

Impact on pedestrians at 20mph is less likely to cause death or serious injury than at 30mph. Imposing such a limit on streets which are functionally residential (where children are most likely to be out and about, playing etc., and where parked cars obscure sight-lines etc.) or where there are shops which would mean many pedestrians, need to cross roads and so on, makes sense.

However there a numbers of roads now covered by the Southwark fiat which are not, in that sense, residential, nor where there are 'shopping' populations. Sydenham Hill is a good case in point - much less parking, wider pavements, very little signs of true 'residential/ domestic' style use of the street.

A sensible policy (rather than the knee jerk 'one size fits all' response of our elected authority) would have applied some sort of rule of sense to road speed designations to take actual usage habits into account. And would then have ensured that there was funding and support to police the decision properly. 'We'll impose nonsense rules and then not actually apply them' is, frankly, stupid and insulting, leaving idiots (like me) who do follow them and then get tailgated in areas where they don't make sense frustrated and angry.

Oh, and many cars in the UK are tuned/ optimised to support a 30mph low speed 'norm' - so cars do struggle to maintain a steady 20mph, at a cost of fuel, pollution and engine wear.

[macutd]

Well said Penguin68

[Huggers]

I've just been camera flashed driving alongside Nunhead Cemetery driving I think at 25 mph. I had no idea it was a 20mph zone. I came from East Dulwich Road and turned right up a very small road to then meet Linden Grove, so if there was a sign I didn't see it. It may have been flashing a car coming the other way, but if it was me, is that a points off my licence scenario?

[ruffers]

Bluerevolution Wrote:

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

> Save lives ? Really, no just to keep traffic

> flowing

I understand the technicalities of the traffic flow argument (although I'm not sure how valid it is when you consider how far it's possible to drive before reaching a traffic light in town vs on a motorway where it does work), but that's not why it's been introduced according to Southwark. Everything they say is about safety http://www.southwark.gov.uk/info/100011/transport_and_streets/3431/borough_wide_20mph_speed_limit

[first mate]

Huggers,

Afraid so. First offence is ?100 and 3 points.

I have got a suspicion that S'wark, whilst stating 20 mph is self enforcing, may sneak in the odd camera with a view to maximising revenue opportunities. Obviously, if they said it was going to be enforced everyone would be a lot more careful, but I suspect by deliberately creating confusion they hope to fine more people.

I wonder if it would be possible to get info on what cameras are operating and where? It seems unfair to me to state it is self enforcing if they plan to then enforce but without telling people. I have said before if safety really is the motive then tell us where it is being enforced. At least in those areas everyone will drive more carefully.

[kford]

Well, the one by Peckham Rye is still set for 30, because I drove through it doing that the other day (and so did everyone in front of me, including two buses and a police car).

[kford]

@huggers - I think there might be at least two 20mph cameras over in Nunhead, one on Linden and one on Brenchley Gardens, both 20mph roads long before the blanket 20mph zone was introduced. BTW, if the camera was facing your when it flashed, it's not you. And if it flashed once, it's just a glitch.

[kford]

@huggers - it's meant to be a 30mph camera

http://www.scdb.info/software/statistik_detail.php?sc_language_selector=fr&speedtraps_id=13038

[Azalea]

Isn't 20mph being put on all the road surfaces that apply? There needs to be consistency.

[Huggers]

yes Kford it was facing me- I hadn't passed it and I think only flashed once. I was still in second gear!

[kford]

@huggers - it was the other guy, probably. You're in the clear.