20 MPH London

Author
Discussion

megaphone

Original Poster:

10,692 posts

250 months

Monday 24th February 2020
quotequote all
Our car loving friend, Mr Khan, is introducing a blanket 20MPH limit on central TFL roads. Knife and gun crime continues to rise.

https://tfl.gov.uk/corporate/safety-and-security/r...

'From Monday 2 March, TfL roads in central London will be changing their speed limit to 20mph.

This is to improve safety for all road users, as if someone is hit at 30mph, they're five times more likely to die than if they are hit at 20mph. This is part of the Mayor's commitment to Vision Zero to ensure there are zero deaths and serious injuries on London's roads by 2041.'

Edited by megaphone on Monday 24th February 12:14


Edited by megaphone on Monday 24th February 12:15

Eyersey1234

2,895 posts

78 months

Monday 24th February 2020
quotequote all
In my experience very little moves at more than a few mph in Central London anyway.

Mr Moley

527 posts

189 months

Monday 24th February 2020
quotequote all
Eyersey1234 said:
In my experience very little moves at more than a few mph in Central London anyway.
Yes, also thanks to our friends Mr Kahn and TfL - roadworks every 500 yards, the same roads being dug up over and over again, nobody working on site etc etc

adam.

407 posts

210 months

Monday 24th February 2020
quotequote all
Won't stop the 1st gear Lambo heroes from charging up and down Sloane Street, will it.

oyster

12,577 posts

247 months

Monday 24th February 2020
quotequote all
megaphone said:
Our car loving friend, Mr Khan, is introducing a blanket 20MPH limit on central TFL roads. Knife and gun crime continues to rise.

https://tfl.gov.uk/corporate/safety-and-security/r...

'From Monday 2 March, TfL roads in central London will be changing their speed limit to 20mph.

This is to improve safety for all road users, as if someone is hit at 30mph, they're five times more likely to die than if they are hit at 20mph. This is part of the Mayor's commitment to Vision Zero to ensure there are zero deaths and serious injuries on London's roads by 2041.'

Edited by megaphone on Monday 24th February 12:14


Edited by megaphone on Monday 24th February 12:15
Why is knife and gun crime of any relevance?

Vickers_VC10

6,759 posts

204 months

Monday 24th February 2020
quotequote all
oyster said:
Why is knife and gun crime of any relevance?
Dying is st?

markyb_lcy

9,904 posts

61 months

Monday 24th February 2020
quotequote all
What has knife and gun crime got to do with it?

Should the whole of the region’s projects not related to knife and gun crime completely stop dead until knife and gun crime isn’t going up?

donkmeister

7,995 posts

99 months

Monday 24th February 2020
quotequote all
I go for nights out in Marylebone frequently and find that I get tailgated at 30mph, and if I drop my friends off in Hampstead (20mph pretty much everywhere already, away from the main roads) I end up with Uber drivers going apoplectic behind me as the roads are narrow.

I predict I will be the subject of a lot of dodgy overtakes when I'm doing 20...

I don't think a blanket 20mph is a wise move, but despite thinking Khan is a bit of a tt (but not the worst mayor London has had!) I don't subscribe to the view that he shouldn't do anything until he's got the stabbiness factor down to zero... Surely that's a job for Cressida Dick, anyway?

PisstNBroke

1,079 posts

223 months

Monday 24th February 2020
quotequote all
To be honest I'm finding a lot of inside M25 having 20mph zones just north of Croydon, across to Bromley and upto Woolwich.
It's a shame as alot of these roads were 30 if not 40mph zones 10 years ago. Also alot of speed humps being put in, which only increases pollution and causes higher risk of accidents...

Edited by PisstNBroke on Monday 24th February 12:47

viggyp

1,917 posts

134 months

Monday 24th February 2020
quotequote all
It's because the motorist is the Government's bcensoredh and when driving a fraction over the limit, the motorist gets done. It's easy money.

Where I live (N London), one main-ish road literally has temporary lights a minimum of 8 times a year and because this caused congestion (no scensored Sherlock), the locals were blamed and the parking permit prices went up close to 50%!

Now don't own a car but will be looking for a runaround when I leave this awful crapital chitty.

Smiljan

10,772 posts

196 months

Monday 24th February 2020
quotequote all
There's more to it than just road deaths, it's using a sledgehammer give the perception of moving to achieve the Mayor's goals.

Mayor's Transport Strategy said:
? Physical activity: every Londoner to walk or cycle for 20 minutes a day by 2041.
? Mode shift: 80% of trips to be made by walking, cycling and public transport by
2041, compared to 64% now.
? Car use restriction: 3 million fewer private car trips by 2041.
? Vision Zero: deaths and serious injuries from collisions to be eliminated from
London’s streets by 2041
Taken individually they are all noble goals that any dweller of a large city like London would applaud.

History shows, these goals will probably lead to the plebs (us) being herded like cattle into public transport while the rich and politically powerful swan about in cars still on those lovely empty roads. The congestion charge zone hasn't worked precisely because the wealthy don't care about a piffling charge to use it.

It's a tricky problem to solve, switch barely enforced 30 zones to barely enforced 20 zones isn't likely to make any difference other than spunking loads of tax payers money on the changes and scoring easy political points among those with simple minds.

The article linked by the OP shows this is just the first stage, next they are moving on to inner and outer London roads. 50 to 40, 40 to 30 and 30 to 20 changes being the favored band-aid for all the road problems.

I can't argue that things need to change, I just don't really see this announcement changing much in the real world.

Edited by Smiljan on Monday 24th February 13:00

Graveworm

8,476 posts

70 months

Monday 24th February 2020
quotequote all
megaphone said:
This is to improve safety for all road users, as if someone is hit at 30mph, they're five times more likely to die than if they are hit at 20mph. This is part of the Mayor's commitment to Vision Zero to ensure there are zero deaths and serious injuries on London's roads by 2041.'
Which is of course the ongoing message which is laudable - the problem is they have to say this as they are not allowed to say it about 20mph limits. Apart from the pilot 20mph limits haven't helped with KSIs. So then we are down to does it get people out of cars and does it help the environment (The slower speeds despite being worse for the environment in themselves, may still help if there is less stop start) but the jury's out. There is the acknowledged financial cost of longer journey times and the implementation and less wealth does mean more deaths. If it's about that then say it this spin is disingenuous and a sign of the new politics.

The fewer people die when hit at 20 is emotive, accurate and hard hitting but shouldn't necessarily be part of this conversation unless it's fewer people die in 20 limits.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/nov/23/litt...
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/12/17/20mph-...
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/road-and-r...


Edited by Graveworm on Monday 24th February 13:05

Smiljan

10,772 posts

196 months

Monday 24th February 2020
quotequote all
Good point - the research link in the OP's link by Imperial College is full of ifs, buts and maybe about an emissions benefits too.

Mr_Megalomaniac

852 posts

65 months

Monday 24th February 2020
quotequote all
viggyp said:
Now don't own a car but will be looking for a runaround when I leave this awful crapital chitty.
And this is the most common result. Assessing most global cities, the policies drive people out. You can see the same in the US where Californian lefties are all moving to deep Red Texas because of the nut jobs who have run Cali into the ground with regard to communities, cost, and living standards.
Indeed, just over a year ago I moved into Kent (by a factor of 100meters) partly due to cost of buying and largely due to not wanting to live under the 'part & parcel' wkjob's yolk anymore.

Smiljan said:
History shows, these goals will probably lead to the plebs (us) being herded like cattle into public transport while the rich and politically powerful swan about in cars still on those lovely empty roads. The congestion charge zone hasn't worked precisely because the wealthy don't care about a piffling charge to use it.


Edited by Smiljan on Monday 24th February 13:00
Exactly - the living standards continue to deteriorate and then they'll start moaning about why people are moving their offices to Reading and Guildford, etc. Then surely they'll made some ghastly "community" art project around a derelict area and waste more taxpayer money and failing to address any real social issues (like crime!).

anonymous-user

53 months

Monday 24th February 2020
quotequote all
megaphone said:
Knife and gun crime continues to rise.
Given we know that

1. Policing numbers are down due to cuts
2. The bulk of MetPol funding comes from central government
3. Speed enforcement is automated
4. Both the MoL and the Home Secretary are responsible for the Met

What is it you propose be done by "car hating" Kahn about knife and gun crime in London?

Edited by anonymous-user on Monday 24th February 15:59

WJNB

2,637 posts

160 months

Monday 24th February 2020
quotequote all
Bit daft at 3am otherwise no problem AND it will apply to ALL inner cities eventually so get over it.. Given the congestion & inability to rarely do more than 30mph what's the problem?

QuadCamCapri

259 posts

150 months

Tuesday 25th February 2020
quotequote all
For miles around me in Middlesex it's now 20mph, and just round the corner from me is a Driving Test Centre.
So is it now possible to learn and pass your driving test having never done more than 20mph ?

Jimmy Recard

17,540 posts

178 months

Tuesday 25th February 2020
quotequote all
markyb_lcy said:
What has knife and gun crime got to do with it?

Should the whole of the region’s projects not related to knife and gun crime completely stop dead until knife and gun crime isn’t going up?
A guy at work was done for speeding and used the classic line "It must mean they've solved all the other crimes."

As if no new crimes should be investigated if there are any outstanding ones. It's an extraordinary point of view

Psycho Warren

3,087 posts

112 months

Tuesday 25th February 2020
quotequote all
The biggest problem with this is it will be copied by most other big cities and towns meaning we are all crawling at pathetic lame speeds just because retarded pedestrians don't look before they cross.

2gins

2,839 posts

161 months

Tuesday 25th February 2020
quotequote all
The problem is there doesn't seem to be any published tolerability of risk model for road deaths. This is basically a model framework that helps people in decision making roles to determine whether it is worth spending money on risk reduction projects, or other things. Its most used in industry where capital is tight because it brings some objectivity and credibility to spending decisions rather than prioritising projects on whim and fancy.

As you strive to get ever closer to zero incidents, the cost required to make further gains goes up until you reach the point that you can decide that the cost in terms of time, money and effort outweighs the benefits of further risk reduction. The TOR model defines where this point is. How often are we prepared to tolerate a slight injury? How often are we prepared to tolerate a major injury? A near miss? A fatality? Multiple fatailies? You plot severity against frequency and you end up with a curve that defines where you stop investing money to reach a level of risk that you have collectively determined to be broadly acceptable or as low as reasonably practicable.

It can be defined on a coproate level, and on a nation-state or cultural level. TOR is higher in Asia than it is in Europe, for example. This doesn't apear to exist for European road safety proejcts. As things stand the European transport strategy group (name wrong?) is pushing Vision Zero but it is an unachievable red herring - without massive costs in terms of public investment and societal effects, e.g. increasingly inequality and displacement of people.

Meanwhile, the money being spent on reducing speed limits could be spent on other things like community and youth projects, which might have more benefit to society. Without a TOR model its hard to say, but let's speculate a moment about what that might look like, perhaps?

Death and injury rate in young males declines
Communities are generally safer
More people feel more inclined to.... maybe use some active travel
People develop some useful skills
People get jobs - tax take is up, benefit payments are down
Rebuilding broken communities
Places appear cleaner, nicer streetscene etc

Of course, it isn't really about safety at all which is why none of these sort of arguments ever cut any ice.