20 MPH speed limit across london in three years
- Thread starter fredfelt
- Start date
I think introducing a default 20mph limit across London would probably be incompatible with the Traffic Management Act 2004 which requires highway authorities to ensure the "expeditious movement of traffic" or something similar.
There is a lot of movement towards reducing the speeds of motor vehicles and making streets a better, safer place for pedestrians and cyclists (eg in http://www.manualforstreets.org.uk/), but getting the balance right between the movement of people and the movement of goods and services, while improving the urban realm for everybody is the challenge for planners.
There is a lot of movement towards reducing the speeds of motor vehicles and making streets a better, safer place for pedestrians and cyclists (eg in http://www.manualforstreets.org.uk/), but getting the balance right between the movement of people and the movement of goods and services, while improving the urban realm for everybody is the challenge for planners.
lighterthief
Well-Known Member
20mph limit for the residential streets around me would be brilliant and I would heartily welcome it.
The other thing I would like would be for speed bumps to have a little 'slot' in them that I could cruise through on my bicycle.
The other thing I would like would be for speed bumps to have a little 'slot' in them that I could cruise through on my bicycle.
Janh
signs might be omens
I like the idea of slower sometimes because it takes the edge off my pointless rushing about. It can also be dangerous because I get bored and look around and think 'umm I never noticed that before', that could get me into trouble.
Today I noticed how travelling fast can really focus me I get in a groove and fast motorway cruising is a blast.
Overall I prefer the option of personal choice on this. 20mph makes sense in a place like the City of London, in high streets and around schools.
Today I noticed how travelling fast can really focus me I get in a groove and fast motorway cruising is a blast.
Overall I prefer the option of personal choice on this. 20mph makes sense in a place like the City of London, in high streets and around schools.
citydreams
on the road again
The 20 mph limit was agreed by all mayoral candates at the last election. As it says in the article, 20mph is the default not the upper limit.
I campaigned for bringing in 20mph on the bridges in London a few years ago but was told that it was unenforceable. Since then the success of the 20mph zones in reducing the number of killed and seriously injured has strengthened the argument for more control.
I'm all for going as fast as possible, just not while risking other people's safety.
I campaigned for bringing in 20mph on the bridges in London a few years ago but was told that it was unenforceable. Since then the success of the 20mph zones in reducing the number of killed and seriously injured has strengthened the argument for more control.
I'm all for going as fast as possible, just not while risking other people's safety.
They make a huge amount of sense. Even discretion in enforcement of fixed speed limits makes sense. (i.e. cameras set at 5mph over the limit at busy times, 10mph at night or something like that).UTJF said:
But they won't do anything at the moment because the entire fucking world is stuck in the "(Only) Speed Kills" rut ...
The variable speed limits on the M25 (west side) and M42 ARE enforceable by the way. There are cameras on both, GATSOs on the M25 (in the gantrys) and GATSOs and average speed limit CCTV/ANPR cameras on the M42.
fredfelt
Mostly unknown member
detective-boy said:
I don't think your right about the "(only) speed kills" rut. I'm sure most people understand that its just one of the things we can easily do something about.
The issue is not just saftey, it is how pleasnt it is for people to use a street and if a street should be dominated by vehicles or if they should be shared with all road users and residents.
More rediclous I think is the the car loby, headed by the Association Britiish Drivers who go for the arguments that speed limits kill and you need to drive fast in order to be able to pay attention to the road. If you are unable to drive without letting the car go faster than the limit you need to think twice about your driving skills, rather than say that the limits are wrong.
To me it seems simple, the faster you go the less time you have to react to a situation. Leave trunk roads as they are but streets are much more pleasnt for people when traffic travels at 20 or less rather than 30.
Also in built up areas it does not make sence to me to have variable limits, the unexpected can happen at 3 in the morning just as much than at during peak times.
citydreams
on the road again
beeboo said:
It came about as a result of the death of a cyclist on Blackfriars Bridge - ok, I know that the layout of the bus lane played a part
But my own personal experience is that car drivers treat London Bridges as a chance to put their foot down due to the wide surface area, and don't pay due regard to the possibilities of cyclists 'wobbling' as they go over the hump.
But they can't happen "just as much" can they?BigPhil said:
There is FAR more chance of unexpected things happening when the streets are full of other vehicles, when pavements are teeming with pedestrians, when kids are rushing in and out of school ...Your comment is exactly the sort of wolly-thinking bollocks which infects the speed issue.
fredfelt
Mostly unknown member
detective-boy said:But they can't happen "just as much" can they?
Your comment is exactly the sort of wolly-thinking bollocks which infects the speed issue.
My main point was:
"The issue is not just saftey, it is how pleasnt it is for people to use a street and if a street should be dominated by vehicles or if they should be shared with all road users and residents."
Is it infecting the speed issue with wooly thinking by expanding it from one of just saftey to one of useability and access for all road users?
To address your point yes, there is far greater chance of the unxepcted happening when the roads are busy, but as a proportion of road users to accidents I expect at 2am there would be a greater accident risk. I thought your thought processes were tight enough for me not to have to explain this.
Perhaps I should also expand upon the concept of sharing the road with all road users by lowering limits to 20. Regardless of what time it is slower traffic is more manageable for other road users. An example is the potential cyclist who stays of the road because of the percieved risk of traffic. It is much more pleasnt to be on a bike in traffic going at 20 than 30. That applies to 9am and 3am.
Maybe we need more wooly thinking so that we can look at the big picture rather than getting lost in details.
Yet more wooliness.BigPhil said:
Even if there are more accidents pro rata at night than during the day (and I have no idea whether there are or not, nor, I suspect, do you) that is irrelevant to the speed limit issue unless the accidents can be attributed to speed.
detective-boy said:
The accident doesn't have to be attributed to speed though.
The main anti- argument seems to me to be that driving faster doesn't make you a less safe driver, or necessarily any more likely to be involved in an accident.
But if you ARE involved in an accident, if you're travelling faster at the point of impact, then it is more likely someone is going to be seriously injured or killed.
Regardless of how good a driver you are, you can't elliminate the risk of a cyclist falling into a pot hole, or someone stepping out between two parked cars, or another motorist doing something idiotic, etc etc.
I don't miss it. I have no issue with it. But blanket, unthinking enforcement of ever more ridiculous and inflexible speed limits is not the way to achieve it.BigPhil said:
You ARE Tony Bliar's Nanny State Consultant and I claim my £5 ...beeboo said:
If you are cyclist, you are more likely to die if you don't wear a helmet. Why are they not compulsory?
If you put up cheapo crash barriers they are far more likely to rip a motorcyclist limb from limb. Why are they not replaced?
If you don't put up street lights, it is more likely that there will be an accident at night and someone will be killed or seriously injured. Why do we still have unlit roads? Even unlit motorways?
As a pedestrian you are more likely to be distracted and walk out and cause an accident if you are listening to an i-Pod. Why are they not banned?
If planes take off they are far more likely to crash and kill people. Why are they allowed to?
If you drink alcohol you are far more likely to impact adversely on someone else's world. Why is alcohol not banned?
Etc., etc., etc. ad nauseum
CLUE: Reasonableness
goldenecitrone
post tenebras lux
What pisses me off most is drivers who try to drive over speed bumps by rearing over to their right and coming straight at me at full pelt. Fucking arseholes.
The A4 is a "residential street". The South Circular is a "residential street".editor said:
Do you REALLY think that our economy would wear the cost of the blanket limit you espouse?
Or huge increases in the cost of everything to recoup the 50% (at least) increase in time taken to move stuff about?
Do you really want every bus journey to take about 50% longer than it does now?
And do you really think it would be observed by anyone when it was nowhere near reasonable?
The options are not simply (a) 20mph everywhere or (b) everyone "racing" through all residential streets at 30-40mph all the time. The sensible option is a flexible application of reasonable MAXIMUM limits and increased emphasis on driver skill in recognising, and driving appropriately for, the hazards that constantly come and go as you drive along.
citydreams
on the road again
detective-boy said:
Of course it would. In a reasonable society where lives matter more than cheap goods. Christ, how much is the city going to suffer because a plumber takes an extra 20 minutes to get from one job to the next? Or how much extra on a loaf of bread?
No-one is suggesting 20mph everywhere are they?!
That was the sensible option. Shame it doesn't work though as Beboo pointed out.
citydreams
on the road again
detective-boy said:
The jury is still out. Do you want them to be compulsory? I hate them personally, as I find cars tend to drive closer to me.
Why don't motorcyclists slow down?
Er, the expense is disproportionate to the benefits. What's your point?
citydreams
on the road again
dp
editor
hiraethified
I've no idea where you're getting these figures from (some pro-motoring organisation, I assume), but as a resident of this city, I don't want cars racing down residential streets at 40mph.detective-boy said:
And I'd be obliged if you stopped trying to project your - or someone's else's - definition of a 'residential street' onto me. And since when was most residential traffic business related?
detective-boy said:
I don't know the exact details of the proposal but if the South Circular and A4 are considered a 'residential street' in this context I'd eat my hat. I would suspect there might be some limited sections which would warrant a lower 20mph limit.
It's clearly NOT going to take anything LIKE 50% longer to undertake a bus journey (or a car, van, whatever journey) because:
a) that assumes you're travelling at an even 30mph which is reduced to an even 20mph which is clearly not the case, as the average speed is much lower due to congestion, junctions, traffic lights etc etc. As I stated earlier I've even seen suggestions that journey times at peak times could DECREASE if people adherred to a 20mph limit due to a reduction in the 'pulsing' affect as people speed off from traffic lights at 30mph etc only to hit a queue 100 yards down the road.
b) it's already been stated that main roads with bus lanes etc aren't likely to be included in any 20mph limit.
Unfortunately the debate tends to get characterised as "bring back red flags" vs. "speedophiles" with very little sensible discussion going on.
I'm very much in favour of variable speed limits on some roads to allow a higher limit at certain times of day whilst restricting it at others.
As I understand it, that is pretty much exactly what they're suggesting - editor certainly is in relation to "residential roads".citydreams said:
Just that all those examples - and dozens more - could be justified on the same basis as the "everyone should drive at 20mph cos if you go any faster people will get hurt if you crash" argument which was being espoused.citydreams said:
I believe that reasonable limits on all sorts of activity should be set and that people should then be responsible for their own actions. And that if that means there are some "acceptable casualties" then so be it. A riskless society would be fucking boring.
Similar threads
