So many expensive decisions made on the basis of bad science. Five minutes ago, diesel cars were good, this week they’re bad, who knows what next week will bring?
Has anyone measured the extra noise and air pollution caused by the 20 MPH limit?
Personally I would favour 25 MPH, as most cars are geared to manage a constant 25 in 3rd gear.
I suspect so, but isn’t this a separate issue to 20mph? In my view, roads should be designed in such a way that makes them intuitive to drive (and walk and cycle) on at the appropriate speed without even thinking about it. This takes time, money, foresight and will to implement.
Just to use one example, for all its bad press, the way one drives down Exhibition Road would have completely changed since it has been redesigned compared with before (i.e. much more carefully), without featuring any of the above, and probably even without a speed limit. It is not a one-size-fits-all solution, but other measures may be suitable elsewhere. Raised tables might be a more targeted solution than speed humps, cameras should be less visible (why should anyone care seeing them, it’s for them to see you), carriageways shouldn’t be any wider than necessary (because of perceived speed), and sight lines are really important. In fact, parked cars are one of the key risks, but we can’t do away with parking. When planners get the chance, they can come up with cracking solutions to transform road space to the better. 20mph was always only going to be a quick fix that is comparatively cheap, has immediate effect (at least in theory) and treats all parts of the borough the same way.
It cost £1.23M (of our money) and will take four years in total to implement.
It never was our money, it always belonged to the borough. And it is probably still cheaper and quicker than doing a Dartmouth Road type upgrade of at least every single shopping parade in the borough. That doesn’t mean that the way of spending shouldn’t be scrutinised, but I suspect that there have been similar expenditures in the past that had less of an impact.
9 posts were split to a new topic: Whose Money is the Borough’s Money?
To see general politics discussion on SE23.life, please join our “General Politics” group.
A post in response to @Forethugel’s suggestion of road management was merged into an existing topic: Proposal: Part-Pedestrianise Perry Vale
And improvements in medicine too.
Suspect that your suggestion of car design is th bigger one though. Car drivers and passengers now walk away from accidents that would have caused major injuries 30 years ago. Cars have better crumple zones and protection. They also feel safer to drive faster.
Speeding is a strange crime. Most crimes are around abnormal behaviours where the action generally is always right or wrong (e.g. assault)
We expect drivers to be competent at various speeds so it’s hardly surprising that we feel just as comfortable driving at 30 than 20 or 50 than 40. We just rebel that our judgement of conditions is better than some faceless bureaucrat however expert they claim to be. Speeding is seen as victim-less until something goes drastically wrong - at which point it’s unlikely to be the only factor. It feels similar to how drink driving used to be perceived . Although excessive speeding is seen like excessive drinking now, there are still discussions about what limits should be in both camps
@applespider very balanced and reasonable post.
The one thing I would say about comparisons to drink driving - many cars and vans want to drive at the standard urban limit (30mph) not for the thrill of it, but because they have economic functions to perform (ie tradesmen, delivery vans etc). A 20mph limit would, in theory, increase their journey time significantly, with knock on effects to their business, and to the rest of us who use those businesses.
This would surely only be the case if they avoided arterial routes (which are TfL-controlled red routes in most cases) and tried to stick to the secondary roads which would be limited. Nobody’s proposing making every road in the borough subject to a 20 limit, so those tradesmen wouldn’t see significant impact.
This is close to being an argument in favour of 20 limits since there would be more of an incentive to stay on the main roads (saving time). And therefore more of an incentive to keep those main roads moving (reducing pollution).
If the average speed is currently 13 mph, that’s below the 20mph limit, so on average, you’ll be going at the same speed, lower than the limit. it’s only at odd times of day (3am) when the roads are empty, where the limit would make a difference.
And here we have from last week a positive report from Bristol following a UWE study of over 36m vehicle journeys over 2.5 years.
Key findings include:
The study estimates that between four and five people every year who would otherwise have been killed are still alive today, because the 20mph was brought in.
The report estimates the total number of in juries avoided across the city each year is 4.54 fatal, 11.3 serious injuries and 159.3 slight injuries.
The average speed has reduced on 100 of 106 roads. This includes a statistically significant reduction of 2.7mph on average.
This has brought an estimated savings to the local authority of £15,256,309 every year.year is 4.53 fatal, 11.3 serious injuries and 159.3 slight injuries.
https://www.bristolpost.co.uk/news/bristol-news/bristols-20mph-saved-lives-should-1205025
Full report here.
Bristol will shortly undertake their own study and it will be interesting to hear of its results.
I can’t see any sign that this was a controlled experiment? That is, comparing the fall in accidents in 30mph zones with the fall in accidents in 20mph zones in the same city over the same time window?
It’s interesting how much has been made of this report in the media, given that the report itself qualifies its own findings as follows:
…
… so their extrapolated casualty reduction figures seem overstated.
And here is a key side-effect of the 20mph zone, whose negative consequences may be evident outside of the zone:
Has the 20mph zone encouraged people to ditch their cars, as the council hoped? Nope.
Sorry to any “20’s Plenty” lobbyists that I remain a voice of skepticism - but IMO it’s always good to explore both sides of an argument.
And 20mph zones have plenty of practical drawbacks that must be weighed against any potential safety benefits.
You all keep banging on about the 20 mph limit, it may be right, it may be wrong but I still dont understand how it is going to be effectively enforced.
You know, I should be flagging this, as you would, but it really is not worth it
Ditto! Starman, as you helpfully pointed out there was a solution, I believe you referred to a photo of Chris with a speed gun. That’s your solution. Really!
If you want to have a debate then do so but accusing me of “stirring” when all I have done is ask how the 20 mph limit will be enforced is stretching it. Why, when I pose a question am I “stirring” but anyone else who poses the same question is merely “expressing an opinion”? What do you hope to gain? I thought you were better than that.
In light of your response I will immediately withdraw the post with my apology…
I interpreted your post as being light-hearted and there was absolutely no intention to be accusatorial.
Thank you for that.
My post, and the original, are not light hearted. Apart from Chris with a speed gun, how do you enforce it. Fixed cameras and mobile cameras are an option but costly. The police have bigger fish to fry so what do we do. Be it 30 mph or 20 mph there are still the 1% of the population that do not care and will drive as they like. How do you legislate and enforce them?
I was of the same opinion. I thought this was a rare moment of levity in an often over-heated discussion. I’ll adjust my reply appropriately.
I didn’t.
A pragmatic view is that for the majority of times when speed in London is at an average of circa 13mph it is de facto self-policing.
Where I live on Perry Hill there is a bend at which vehicles travelling over 25mph in non-rush-hour traffic frequently get into trouble and spin-out - peppering parked cars and garden walls with collision damage.
A side effect of the intro of the 20mph limit has seen a reduction to virtually zero incidents.
Why people chose to argue how is 20 mph to be policed when there was minimum to zero policing of the 30 mph is specious. The old regime was related to very occasional multi-purpose camera vans and even rarer speed traps ergo why is that regime somehow deemed unsatisfactory for the new 20 mph restriction.
And yes, volunteers being asked to man speed guns…
Do you have a source for that statistic, please? Or is it just anecdotal?