London SE1 community website

20 mile an hour zone

Join in these discussions today! Log in or register.
Pages:  Previous1 2 3 Next
Current: 2 of 3
Friday 10 November 2006 3.35pm
Davies wrote:
It is not thought out

There was a 52 page report and extensive consultation - how much more thinking was required? You're perfectly entitled to think it's the wrong course of action but I think it's unfair (and wrong) to say that it wasn't thought out.

Davies wrote:
30mph is fine

As reported in the Safety Plan - there's a 45% chance of a pedestrian dying if struck at 30mph. I personally think that's an unnacceptable risk in a small, built-up area like Southwark (where accidents will be more common and where the benefit of being able to travel at 30mph compared to 20mph is limited) - I accept it's a matter of judgement on the risks / benefits though.


Davies wrote:
It seems to me that Neil works for Southwark.

I don't work for Southwark.

Davies wrote:
You seem to know a lot about a plan I've only just heard of although I live in the middle of it.

There has been extensive consultation and press coverage of the Road Safety Plan.
Friday 10 November 2006 3.35pm
Jerry is quite right. They ignore us anyway even when they bother to "consult " us.
I have ploughed through the document Neil quotes and there is nothing about persuading people (Other than schoolchildren) to look both ways before crossing the road which is the single biggest road safety factor for avoiding collisions with pedestrians.
Friday 10 November 2006 4.14pm
Neill wrote:
As reported in the Safety Plan - there's a 45% chance of a pedestrian dying if struck at 30mph.
There's also a 100% chance of survival if you never leave your home! I believe 20mph is great for protecting kids or residents in smaller side streets. On roads meant for greater traffic use there should be crossing places for pedestrians and they should respect cars and all other road users by using the designated crossings. How many of the 45% dead pedestrians were killed as a result of something they did, more statistics needed as I'm sure I've read that many of those fatalities were drunk/drugged up when they were knocked over. Perhaps it's sometimes Darwin's law and the dumber ones suffer, sadly I know this is not always true when it is the motorists fault.
Anonymous User
Friday 10 November 2006 5.06pm
Neil wrote:
As reported in the Safety Plan - there's a 45% chance of a pedestrian dying if struck at 30mph.

This realy bugs me, there is a far far higher chance of not being hit by a moving car if you stay on the pavement and cross at proper crossings.

How long before 20mph is considered too fast?

Legislation replacing individual responsibility is becoming more and more common. In my opinion this is no a good thing.

The only reason for lowering speed limits is to ease policing, it is very easy to catch someone breaking this law. Policing dangerous driving would be far better but you cannot do this cheaply with a gatso camera so it isn't done.

This site is quite interesting on the matter of spped vs dangerous driving
Friday 10 November 2006 5.28pm
There is a danger here of possibly confusing two separate arguments. Lowering speed may or may not be an argument for a reduced incidence of car crashes, but it is certainly an argument for greatly reduced severity of injuries.

Given that we will always have a fair number of accidents on crowded roads, I would be in favour of 20mph in most if not all SE1 roads. Plus, I think that Neil is right when he says that this is not an either/or - you can implement lower limits and a programme of pedestrian education as well.

Would you like to go with me?
Where?
Wherever I'm going
Are you *really* asking?
Is that your *real* answer?
Friday 10 November 2006 5.52pm
I dont think changing the speed limit alters the Balance between legislation and individual responsibility. We already accept the principle of speed limits and hence the need for legislation - the only issue is what the level should be to optimise costs / benefits to us all.

The speed limit in built-up areas is already lower than elsewhere because of the higher risk of collisions. The benefit of the even lower limit is reducing the fatality rate for pedestrians by 40% (and reducing the number of collisions in the first place). The cost is the inconveniance for drivers who might want to be drive 10mph faster (if they can .. this is Southwark!). To me the 10mph reduction seems well worth it on balance. I can understand people who disagree.

But it's not a hugely ideological thing - it's not about pedestrians V motorists or who's to blame for accidents or anything like that (and I certainly don't think it's about raising more money from motorists) - it's just trying to decide what the appropriate speed limit to Balance the utility of driving faster with community safety is.
Friday 10 November 2006 6.19pm
I find that pedestrians are forced to make dangerous crossings due to lack of appropriate facilities do it safely. For instance, they may have to go through unsafe subways like at the Elephant, or there are railings, or there is no green man like at the junctions on Southwark Bridge Road with Borough Road or Great Suffolk Street where traffic does not stop at all for pedestrians. But then again, there are also stupid people who are either too busy or can't be bothered to walk 50 meters and take the risk of being hit.
Friday 10 November 2006 7.15pm
Would anyone settle for 25mph?
Friday 10 November 2006 7.54pm
Davies wrote:
More congestion

Talk me through how this limit leads to more congestion?
Saturday 11 November 2006 5.49pm
Dear Neil, as I live bang in the middle of the affected area how come it's the first time I, or any of my neighbours who are affected, have heard about it?
Whom did they consult then?
Why weren't we informed earlier so we could be part of this consultation process?
Not everyone can spend all their time scouring the internet on the off chance of discovering a "Consultation" that might affect affect them before it's too late.

I really want to know who was consulted, when where and why weren't the people affected by it IE me and my neighbours, told?
Pages:  Previous1 2 3 Next
Current: 2 of 3

To post a message, please log in or register..
We are part of
Independent Community News Network
Email newsletter

For the latest local news and events direct to your inbox every Monday, you need our weekly email newsletter SE1 Direct.

7,000+ locals read it every week. Can you afford to miss out?

Read the latest issue before signing up

Also on the forum
Views expressed in this discussion forum are those of the contributors and may not reflect the editorial policy of this website. Please read our terms and conditions