Are any other drivers out there struggling with the new 20mph roads?
It seems that most roads are now 20mph although some aren't so one of the issues I have is the confusion. I try really hard to stick to the speed limits on any toad I use but going at 20mph on main roads is extremely hard, especially when it seems that nobody else is sticking to the speed limit. I am assuming the limit is for all road users. I've lost count of how many times I've been overtaken by cyclists and I don't see any buses sticking to the limit.
I understand that rates of survival are better if someone is hit by a car at 20mph instead of 30mph. What I don't understand is why it is now 20mph on nearly every road, even in areas where there have been no accidents. I agree about lower speed limits near schools and accident hotspots (as a result of speeding) but really don't see the point otherwise.
Any other thoughts?
Lewisham wide 20mph roads
-
shibbycribby
- Posts: 8
- Joined: 29 Apr 2015 14:03
- Location: London
Re: Lewisham wide 20mph roads
Not a fan at all, like you said very impractical and most probably introduced by do gooders with little understanding of driving. Some small percentage of roads warrant it but in most places they're ridiculous especially when any small touch of the accelerator sends you above 20.
-
robbieduncan
- Posts: 384
- Joined: 28 Oct 2013 17:10
- Location: Trewsbury Road
Re: Lewisham wide 20mph roads
Are they even enforcable? I see no signs on both sides of the road where the limit changes...
Re: Lewisham wide 20mph roads
When you pass into Bromley it goes up to 30 mph. Driving in the Borough of Lewisham is pretty bad, some people take silly chances and driving seems incredibly aggressive. 3 cars crashed in Lower Sydenham over the weekend. The new 20mph zone on some roads seems to encourage silly behaviour.
It will take some time to adjust to driving slowly and of course driving slowly means pedestrians are less likely to get injured or hit.
Having someone drive inches away from your boot when you have your child in the car because you are sticking to the speed limit is intimidating and surely it's only a matter of time before, some some roads, accidents will happen?
Like they did at the weekend.
It will take some time to adjust to driving slowly and of course driving slowly means pedestrians are less likely to get injured or hit.
Having someone drive inches away from your boot when you have your child in the car because you are sticking to the speed limit is intimidating and surely it's only a matter of time before, some some roads, accidents will happen?
Like they did at the weekend.
Re: Lewisham wide 20mph roads
Anything to reduce speeds on our roads is very welcome.
I do accept not enough Police to enforce so perhaps many more cameras.
If one can get 20 miles in an hour across London , say Sydenham to Ruislip , you have done very well.
I do accept not enough Police to enforce so perhaps many more cameras.
If one can get 20 miles in an hour across London , say Sydenham to Ruislip , you have done very well.
Re: Lewisham wide 20mph roads
The roads have gone from bad to worse. My car just will not drive smoothly at 20mph unless I have it in 2nd or rarely 3rd.
Take Dulwich Wood Park for example. It used to have a 40mph dual carriageway. Now it is single track and set at 20mph. Does anyone actually drive on that road at 20mph? - I stick my neck out here and confess. I generally keep up with the car in front or if nobody is about, I do about 35-40. Obviously if a speed trap or marked police car was about, I'd slow down.
Where Schools are concerned, I think a 20mph limit is a good idea and I will always slow down in those areas.
What needs to be done is widen the roads where possible, not narrow them with oversized pavements, bollards or bumps.
It seems at every road junction we have a lane for turning right or left only which is empty during signal phases. Or a bus overtaking another bus which is stationary on the bus lane.
It's a pity the people who make decisions about our speed limits have little common sense in the real world.
Jim
Take Dulwich Wood Park for example. It used to have a 40mph dual carriageway. Now it is single track and set at 20mph. Does anyone actually drive on that road at 20mph? - I stick my neck out here and confess. I generally keep up with the car in front or if nobody is about, I do about 35-40. Obviously if a speed trap or marked police car was about, I'd slow down.
Where Schools are concerned, I think a 20mph limit is a good idea and I will always slow down in those areas.
What needs to be done is widen the roads where possible, not narrow them with oversized pavements, bollards or bumps.
It seems at every road junction we have a lane for turning right or left only which is empty during signal phases. Or a bus overtaking another bus which is stationary on the bus lane.
It's a pity the people who make decisions about our speed limits have little common sense in the real world.
Jim
Re: Lewisham wide 20mph roads
In theory 45% over the limit risks an instant ban ie 51 mph in a 30 mph zone.
So 29mph in a 20mph zone - ie sort of pretending the 30mph limit still applies, should eventually be treated as firmly.
However enforcing this will be tricky as drivers will not accept speed cameras - probably because they work.
And the police cannot afford to police any more.
It feels weird but 20 mph limits in cities are becoming common - it really isn't that radical and is being implemented for a good reason. In time, opinions will change.
So 29mph in a 20mph zone - ie sort of pretending the 30mph limit still applies, should eventually be treated as firmly.
However enforcing this will be tricky as drivers will not accept speed cameras - probably because they work.
And the police cannot afford to police any more.
It feels weird but 20 mph limits in cities are becoming common - it really isn't that radical and is being implemented for a good reason. In time, opinions will change.
Re: Lewisham wide 20mph roads
I agree Perryman and Perry Vale and Perry Hill to classic examples of why the new limit should be observed.
More cameras are required to stop criminals breaking the law.
More cameras are required to stop criminals breaking the law.
-
broken_shaman
- Posts: 170
- Joined: 20 Nov 2013 21:08
- Location: United Kingdom
Re: Lewisham wide 20mph roads
"Slower cars should mean fewer accidents and less serious injuries – but some studies show 20mph limits only reduce car speeds by an average of 1mph"
https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2015 ... n-brighton
https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2015 ... n-brighton
Re: Lewisham wide 20mph roads
Isn't it interesting it refers to non-specified and presumably non-peered studies whilst ignoring completely the keystone study which was the basis for the 20 plenty campaign?
Just ignoring the potential of reducing KSIs by 40% - by simply saying 20mph is awkward to drive at - or I know a man with an anecdote - and that people who are trying to introduce it "have no common sense" or "just a tick item" without reading and be able to critique the evidence are as dangerous as almost any criminal.
I include the normally sensible Vicar of St Barts who wrote an alarmingly ill informed lead article in Sydenham Life: http://www.stbartschurchsydenham.org/su ... ctober.pdf
The critical factor which the original study showed in getting speeds reduced from an average of 27 to 17 mph was enforcement. In the study that was achieved by passive means. Do we really want to putting sleeping policeman every few yards on every road in Lewisham? I don't think any of us want that. So do we just simply give up and let the carnage of vulnerable road users continue unabated?
That's the question and what answer do you want?
I've said before that just 20% of drivers choosing to drive within the limit will slow down many more. With that it will begin to normalise driving at a safer speed. The Vicar of St Barts should be reminding his flock its their christian duty to protect the vulnerable and not only drive legally but make it a social expectation of friends, family and colleagues to drive within the limit.
Over the last 40 years it has become a social expectation that you don't drink and drive. Any host or hostess of a party or meal will usually make provision for the drivers to have soft drinks. That didn't happen overnight and now not all of us restrict our intake because of the law - but we just know it is dangerous. This could be a similar road to comparative success.
As for police enforcement - that ought to be another thread as it is a national problem that the police claim they do not have the resources whilst disproportionately diverting resources to much lower risks to life and limb. That is also where we should be applying pressure which in our case is with the Mayor of London.
Stuart
Just ignoring the potential of reducing KSIs by 40% - by simply saying 20mph is awkward to drive at - or I know a man with an anecdote - and that people who are trying to introduce it "have no common sense" or "just a tick item" without reading and be able to critique the evidence are as dangerous as almost any criminal.
I include the normally sensible Vicar of St Barts who wrote an alarmingly ill informed lead article in Sydenham Life: http://www.stbartschurchsydenham.org/su ... ctober.pdf
The critical factor which the original study showed in getting speeds reduced from an average of 27 to 17 mph was enforcement. In the study that was achieved by passive means. Do we really want to putting sleeping policeman every few yards on every road in Lewisham? I don't think any of us want that. So do we just simply give up and let the carnage of vulnerable road users continue unabated?
That's the question and what answer do you want?
I've said before that just 20% of drivers choosing to drive within the limit will slow down many more. With that it will begin to normalise driving at a safer speed. The Vicar of St Barts should be reminding his flock its their christian duty to protect the vulnerable and not only drive legally but make it a social expectation of friends, family and colleagues to drive within the limit.
Over the last 40 years it has become a social expectation that you don't drink and drive. Any host or hostess of a party or meal will usually make provision for the drivers to have soft drinks. That didn't happen overnight and now not all of us restrict our intake because of the law - but we just know it is dangerous. This could be a similar road to comparative success.
As for police enforcement - that ought to be another thread as it is a national problem that the police claim they do not have the resources whilst disproportionately diverting resources to much lower risks to life and limb. That is also where we should be applying pressure which in our case is with the Mayor of London.
Stuart
Re: Lewisham wide 20mph roads
Really interesting replies, thanks. Having just re read my post I am surprised there weren't any quips about me being a "toad" user!
Re: Lewisham wide 20mph roads
It is tricky to drive as slow as 20, some stupid people drive too close behind either don't know its 20, or don't care. Also confusing is red route still being 30, and where there used to be a 20 zone, the entry signs still up, making you think you are leaving a 30 zone. And of course this isn't London wide so not all boroughs the same.
Lack of signage if you're already in the Borough, and people not looking at/obeying road markings.
[edit to add] cyclists can't be done for speeding, but if they are speeding they can be done for things like dangerous driving, or driving without due care and attention.
Also most bus routes are long enough that they go through several boroughs, so speed limits will vary. Not an excuse though as bus drivers should be paying attention to the signs.
Hackney is also now a 20 borough, and I've been on buses going over 30 on some roads there.
Lack of signage if you're already in the Borough, and people not looking at/obeying road markings.
[edit to add] cyclists can't be done for speeding, but if they are speeding they can be done for things like dangerous driving, or driving without due care and attention.
Also most bus routes are long enough that they go through several boroughs, so speed limits will vary. Not an excuse though as bus drivers should be paying attention to the signs.
Hackney is also now a 20 borough, and I've been on buses going over 30 on some roads there.
Re: Lewisham wide 20mph roads
A number of posts seem to be how comfortable it is to drive rather than saving lives.
True enforcement is a joke , but that could be changed.
Surely protection of pedestrians , cyclists and other road users should be paramount.
Re not realising what the limit is that is up to the motorists to read all the signs. Not rocket science.
True enforcement is a joke , but that could be changed.
Surely protection of pedestrians , cyclists and other road users should be paramount.
Re not realising what the limit is that is up to the motorists to read all the signs. Not rocket science.
Re: Lewisham wide 20mph roads
The offence is "riding furiously". The Town Police Clauses Act of 1847, section 28, F18, states that penalties will be given to: "every person who rides or drives furiously any horse or carriage, or drives furiously any cattle".JRobinson wrote:cyclists can't be done for speeding, but if they are speeding they can be done for things like dangerous driving, or driving without due care and attention.
So be careful. Especially on the way to the milking parlour.
Stuart
-
broken_shaman
- Posts: 170
- Joined: 20 Nov 2013 21:08
- Location: United Kingdom
Re: Lewisham wide 20mph roads
I'm not clear if you are referring to the article I linked above your comment or not when talking about 'non-specified, presumably non-peered studies'. If so, the quote function helps.stuart wrote:Isn't it interesting it refers to non-specified and presumably non-peered studies whilst ignoring completely the keystone study which was the basis for the 20 plenty campaign?
But I'm interested to read the keystone study you mentioned. Got a link?
Re: Lewisham wide 20mph roads
The BBC News report here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/8406569.stmbroken_shaman wrote:But I'm interested to read the keystone study you mentioned. Got a link?
This summarises the full report here: http://www.bmj.com/content/339/bmj.b4469
Be sure to read the caveats in the study which the news report and some campaigners gloss over. Reducing the speed limit is one step, but the first important step in expecting any reduction of that magnitude. But surely a reduction worth campaigning for and supporting?
HTH
Stuart
Re: Lewisham wide 20mph roads
@ Eagle
I know there is research to show that if people are hit at 20mph there is a higher survival rate etc. If there had been dozens of pedestrians knocked over and hurt/injured on the roads I would understand it but there hasn't been. I am not against targeted speed reductions at particularly dangerous points but am against a total change to 20mph.
I know there is research to show that if people are hit at 20mph there is a higher survival rate etc. If there had been dozens of pedestrians knocked over and hurt/injured on the roads I would understand it but there hasn't been. I am not against targeted speed reductions at particularly dangerous points but am against a total change to 20mph.
Re: Lewisham wide 20mph roads
Sophie
I believe 20 mph will soon be de riguer in urban areas .
May annoy some motorists but surely safety and peace on urban streets is more important.
I believe 20 mph will soon be de riguer in urban areas .
May annoy some motorists but surely safety and peace on urban streets is more important.
Re: Lewisham wide 20mph roads
Eagle I think you're probably right 
-
broken_shaman
- Posts: 170
- Joined: 20 Nov 2013 21:08
- Location: United Kingdom
Re: Lewisham wide 20mph roads
Thanks.stuart wrote:The BBC News report here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/8406569.stmbroken_shaman wrote:But I'm interested to read the keystone study you mentioned. Got a link?
This summarises the full report here: http://www.bmj.com/content/339/bmj.b4469
Be sure to read the caveats in the study which the news report and some campaigners gloss over. Reducing the speed limit is one step, but the first important step in expecting any reduction of that magnitude. But surely a reduction worth campaigning for and supporting?
HTH
Stuart
I haven't had time to read it, but I note from the title, that it deals with zones, not limits. I would argue the data collected from limits might be more relevant, whether peer reviewed or whatever, because the two are different things. That data seems to suggest that limits only achieve a 1mph reduction in average speed.
I don't believe you will see the same sort of impact from limits compared to zones.