20mph zone proposed for 'Thorpes' area of Sydenham

[admin]

Residents living in and around the Thorpes area of Sydenham are being asked their views on proposals to introduce a 20mph zone.

The Thorpes is a mostly residential area to the north of Sydenham Road and west of Mayow Road, incorporating Bishopsthorpe Road, Dukesthorpe Road, Earlsthorpe Road, Kingsthorpe Road, Princethorpe Road and Queensthorpe Road. Lewisham Council has received a number of complaints about speeding in the area, and has obtained funding from Transport for London to look into the matter.

If the 20mph zone were to go ahead, ‘speed tables’ would need to be constructed along Bishopsthorpe Road. No other physical speed-calming measures are proposed.

Learn more and have your say: http://www.lewisham.gov.uk/news/Pages/2 ... -area.aspx

The closing date for comments is Monday 4 February.

[hdekretser]

I'm guessing I might be a lone voice here.

I am planning to tick the No box for the following reasons:

While I appreciate that physical traffic calming measures would very useful on Bishopsthorpe I do not want to see 24 new 20MPH repeater signs all over the Thorpes. I have been told that they will be the smallest size available (300mm diameter) by John Bishop from lewisham but still feel this is too much in this conservation area.

As the survey was done before the closure the bottom of Queensthorpe a new average speed survey should be done to see if it has made any improvements.

I also do think that repeater signs are unnecessary and only traffic calming measures and speed cameras are really effective to persistent speeders.

I would prefer to have signs at the entrance to the Thorpes (either side of Bishopsthorpe and one end of Earlsthorpe) and physical calming measures only on Bishopsthorpes.

So I will be ticking the No box and explaining in the notes my reasons. My hope is that the plans can be amended.

[sparticus]

I agree that the repeater signs are both unnecessary, especially as the speed survey revealed that on Prince, Kings and Dukesthorpe Roads the average speeds were around 20 mph already, and also unsightly in a conservation area, but it seems to be a small price to pay for introducing a measure which has been proved to significantly reduce deaths and serious injury to cyclists and pedestrians. I think ticking the "no" box s a bad tactic if what you want is to modify the plans rather than oppose them outright.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[ALIB]

i was under the impression that speed reduction/traffic calming measures were based on incidents and fatalities. This is the response i had from Lewisham when i raised issues regarding speed on Dartmouth Road (my former stomping ground).
Therefore, i am slightly uneasy that measures are being installed solely on the basis of "complaints from residents".
Certainly there is one road in Dulwich where measures were installed on a 'rat-run', where it subsequently came to light that a councillor lived.

**EDIT although i realise that preventative measures are better than reactive, the response i got from the council was they needed "incident figures" to justify expenditure

I have two main comments:
1) The Thorpes being a conservation area, signage of a new speed limit should be kept to a minimum/discreetly (without breaching traffic laws)
2) If traffic speed really is a problem (and we have no data on injuries or fatalities), then the only proven methodology to reduce speed is to physically stop people,....e.g. traffic calming measures/speed bumps
These proved most effective on Dartmouth Road, and we didn't have illuminated signage to enforce the point to drivers

[Fruitbat]

Yes. 20mph straightaway - no idea why there is even a 'consultation' anyway, waste of time. Should be same across London. Please bring it in on highclere and sunnydene too and let's have a few cameras as well while we're at it. And a pedestrian crossing at the entrance to mayow park. Tak.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[Eagle]

Well said Fruitbat.
20 mph should be universal in Lewisham.

[stuart]

Yes. 20mph straightaway - no idea why there is even a 'consultation' anyway,

INFORMED consultation is always good. This should be compulsory reading before commenting: http://www.bmj.com/content/320/7243/1160

Having done so I would really like to hear anyone's justification for objecting .

Stuart

[JRobinson]

I can see why you'd object to the individual repeater sign on Queensthorpe, especially since it is now a no through road, so anyone on it already has entered the zone elsewhere. I don't understand why anyone would want or need to be driving at more than 20 in a residential area anyway. Why can't Lewisham council issue a borough wide 20mph restriction on all residential roads? get a few highways inspectors out at random times with a radar speed gun, issueing fines, and people would soon get the idea. I really don't see how anyone could complain about being forced to drive at less than 20mph on residential streets - the amount of time spent on them per journey is sufficiently low to make any time saving on longer journeys almost negligible.

[michael]

If we leave aside Bishopsthorpe for a moment, and assume that speeds are now reduced on Queensthorpe, we find that 'the problem' is people driving an average of 22mph on Earlsthorpe and Dukesthorpe. Is it right to criminalise these people driving 2mph faster than the proposed speed limit?

How many injuries are expected to be reduced by this reduction in inconsiderate drivers going at 22mph?
Or is the problem the tiny number of drivers going just above 30mph on these small roads? Are these individuals (who are already breaking the law) going to be put off by a few signs that says 20mph without any real speed reduction measures?

Silverdale already has humps but will apparently be excluded from the 20mph zone. Why?

I happen to believe that speed tables on Bishopsthorpe are a good idea, although a few more on Mayow Road would be far better, as I suspect average speeds are above 30mph. I would prefer that road safety measures target roads where speeds are significantly higher than 30mph, rather than back roads where speeding is not really a problem.

I'm also not sure that the consultation document is acceptable. Yes and No are the only options. Anybody can fill out the word document in the consultation, they don't even need to provide an address, and there are no questions relating to equal opportunities as there should always be with any consultation from the council (see David's Road consultation from last year).

[stuart]

I'm confused by your post Michael.

The definitive paper (see my link above) shows that the original London 20mph zones which were mainly back roads/rat runs reduced KSIs by around 40% (and higher for the most vulnerable groups). It did this by ONLY using passive enforcement - it did point out police (other than the sleeping variety) did virtually no enforcement.

So if this proposal were to emulate the originals then we would expect the signs and passive enforcement to slow vehicles down by around 30% - this giving the result. No criminalisation is needed. Indeed if you want to do Bishopsthorpe or Queensthorpe at 22, 32 or 42 mph the only thing that you may suffer is your suspension.

On the other hand are you supporting people who do break speed limits put in, after deliberation and based on the best evidence, for the safety of others? Surely if it is well signposted we don't criminalise them - they freely criminalise themselves?

Stuart

[chrisj1948]

If we leave aside Bishopsthorpe for a moment, and assume that speeds are now reduced on Queensthorpe, we find that 'the problem' is people driving an average of 22mph on Earlsthorpe and Dukesthorpe. Is it right to criminalise these people driving 2mph faster than the proposed speed limit?

I think speeding is classified as a misdemeanour rather than a crime. I would also expect the normal '10% plus 2' rule to apply before a prosecution would be considered.

I would be in favour of an automatic 20mph limit in all residential areas other than on designated through roads.

Regards
Chris

[michael]

Stuart,
Can I also recommend reading the DfT report on the study, and another study that might be more useful in this case.

http://assets.dft.gov.uk/publications/t ... _9-991.pdf

TRL have also carried out a review of low speed-limit zones in this country and abroad, where physical measures have not been used extensively to influence speed, and reliance is placed primarily on signing. The results of this review are reported in TRL Report 363 - "Urban Speed Management Methods". The review has indicated that using 20 mph speed limit signs alone, without supporting traffic calming features, led to reductions in 'before' speeds, on average, of 1 mph.

In the case of the roads that will not have speed tables (all except Bishopsthorpe), an average reduction of 1mph may be likely. That seems quite likely since half the roads already have average speed below 20mph, and the others have average speeds of 22mph. So if we make an assumption that on half the road there will be no reduction, and on the other roads the reduction will be 2mph - down to 20mph, that is afterall what is called for on the proposed signs.

The study which found an accident rate reduced by 60% also found an average speed reduction of 9mph, something that is highly unlikely to be achieved from this scheme. I think it would be reasonable to conclude that a 20mph zone with no speed calming measures (other than the signs) will not reduce accidents by 60%. How large a reduction could be achieved is not quantified, nor are the number of accidents on the Thorpes.

I really have no problem with a 20mph zone in the Thorpes, but my view is that it will make very little difference to speeds (a 1mph average if you are lucky, except on Bishopsthorpe). I honestly believe there are better ways to spend money on road safety than 20mph signs all round the Thorpes, but I doubt there is much chance of this happening. Instead we get 20mph zones where there is only marginal benefit. But that's fine, I guess this is the best we can hope for, and how could anybody argue against a change that has the potential to reduce accidents.

[stuart]

I think we share the same quandry Michael.

I agree with the point I think you are making that speed limit signs are little better than chocolate teapots. You either have to enforce them with passive enforcement or real enforcement. Otherwise we have the great majority of motorists willing to indulge in criminally dangerous behaviour but not accepting it as such. And liable to vote down anybody who tries too hard to change this.

So with the government opting out of legal enforcement and cash capped councils unable to put in sufficient restraints we are in a bit of a pickle. Just doing nothing is surely not an option. Doing stuff (as in this case) which is inadequate is, as they say, less worse.

I think it marks progress that the '20s plenty' campaign has a growing level of support. The proposals would not have even made it to the consultation table not that long ago.

Stuart
(Sorry not had time to read your links. Maybe tomorrow)

[michael]

Glad we are almost in agreement on this issue.
What probably annoys me is that somebody in the council will be patting themselves on the back for a job well done when they have been doing stuff (as in this case) which is inadequate. I really would prefer the council to be tackling the places where pedestrians and cyclists feel in danger because of poor road design and absence of road safety measures.

It has taken ages to get any form of traffic calming on Kirkdale, crossing the road on Perry Vale (behind FH station) is more dangerous than it was before the pedestrian refuge was removed, there is no pedestrian phase on the traffic lights at the London Road/Honor Oak Road junction, and there are many main roads where cars continue to go well above 30mph.

What nobody has tried to explain is why Silverdale has been excluded from this 20mph zone. Because of the regular humps and the narrowness of the road, I would not recommend driving close to 30mph on this road for more than a few metres.

[stuart]

What nobody has tried to explain is why Silverdale has been excluded from this 20mph zone. Because of the regular humps and the narrowness of the road, I would not recommend driving close to 30mph on this road for more than a few metres.

Maybe its part of a controlled experiment measuring the effect of restraints and no signs against no restraints and signs?

I know what I'd put my money on

Stuart

[Eagle]

I am sure they narrowed Silverdale in the 60's or 70's when they built the new council properties. Not sure why as very narrow.

[LivesNearby]

My reading is that 20 MPH zones are self enforcing, with traffic calming measures. 20 MPH limits require repeaters every so often. Also of note is that the police rarely monitor speeds in 20 MPH Zones or limits.

I suspect that the funding available is insufficient to put speed humps in on each of the roads which is why a 20 MPH limit is being proposed.

[Syd_Stone]

1) The availability of funding is not a reason for action. I thought this whole "quick, we've got some cash so let's spend it" nonsense was being driven out of local government. I hope this is an aberration.
2) The data on speeds has been rendered laughable because it was conducted two months prior to the closure of Queensthorpe Road at the entrance to Sydenham Road. The lack of joined up thinking between departments here is just jaw dropping. What were they thinking?
3) The reasons listed for introducing the 20mph zone are as generic as all giddy-up and could easily be said of any road in any borough in any city. Why the Thorpes, why now? I'm not asking to be facetious, I want the genuine argument for why this should be happening specifically now, and specifically ahead of anywhere else in the borough, to be put forward. If it's a compelling case, it'll be clearly seen as such.
4) The immediate issue is surely Bishopsthorpe, where a speed table would clearly make sense. If some genuine data is conducted post-Queensthorpe/Sydenham Road closure, more than happy to take a look. Meanwhile, from a borough perspective this whole exercise is just embarrassing.

[perryman]

When a complete urban 20mph restriction is brought in, these 20mph signs will become as redundant as the no smoking signs that were plastered everywhere a few years back.

The sooner it happens the better.
And like most laws, people can chose to ignore them, but when they are caught, perhaps by being involved in a minor accident, they hopefully will lose their licence for a very long time.

[Eagle]

Perryman
I trust you are correct but you have more faith in the Judges than I do.

I agree all Lewisham should be 20 mph. How many of these drivers actually need a car.