Richmond 20mph
Discussion
I moved back to London at the beginning of the year and the amount of 20mph roads that have cropped up are shocking and annoying.
But now I'm instatutionalised and when I'm allowed to do 30mph it feels really dangerous, especially in residential areas
I do see cameras on 20mph sections and the idea of getting done for speeding at say 25mph is shameful.
But now I'm instatutionalised and when I'm allowed to do 30mph it feels really dangerous, especially in residential areas
I do see cameras on 20mph sections and the idea of getting done for speeding at say 25mph is shameful.
2gins said:
Hoofy said:
Thanks for the update.
Simply that the new 20 mph limit is proposed to apply to stretches of road that are currently 40 mph as well as 30 mph, which most notably is the section mentioned above. Excludes A316 and A205.2gins said:
Scheme will cover existing 40mph roads (Kingston bridge to Hampton Ct)
Sorry, what do you mean by this?Hoofy said:
Everyone fill this in: https://haveyoursay.citizenspace.com/richmondecs/2...
Good idea and it only takes a few minutes.
Type R Tom said:
Just to add there has been a change in KSI reporting recently so there has been a jump in report collisions and injuries. I believe DFT/TfL are coming up with an method of normalizing the data as otherwise it will be very hard to compare year on year.
Yes, and noted in a previous post. Latest I have is the effect is to bias the 2017 figures upwards by about 20%.For those that are interested, Kew village meeting this evening. My other local event.
Similar turnout, age a bit lower than the others so far, probably came out around late 40s. A few 30 somethings in. They must be doing better than me if they can afford to live in Kew village.
First question was about effectiveness. A guy asked if the council had taken consideration of those accidents that would not have been substantially effected by a 20 mph speed limit; the councilor responded they hadn't looked at those numbers.
A young lady stated she didn't see any benefit in it if it wasn't enforced. Counciller had said previously it was for the Police to enforce it, as they do the current limit. She said she hadn't seen a Policeman for ages. She also said 20 mph would not her any more or less likely to cycle.
A few questions later another guy presented some data from TfL 2015 greater London casualties report. Conflict analysis showed the top 5 casualty collision types for cycles and motor cycles were all concerned with junctions, fail to give way, cutting up while in/out of junction, car-dooring etc. Councillor seized on the pedestrian figures, arguing 20 has a role there - yes but the pedestrian casualty rates in inner London 20 boroughs are flat as a pancake, he said. Someone had done their homework. Councillor didn't have that analysis either. He seemed a bit irritable at that point. I guess it wasn't going well.
Next question someone had a go at the cost benefit case. The figures were stated to be entirely hypothetical with practically none of the claimed 'cost of an accident' - they mean to say 'value' - being real costs, so they can't be claimed as a cost saving. This caused some anger. Moral objections aside, the fact remained stated that the costs are not true costs and the capital payback case is wrong.
The rest of the questions were more of that same already reported. Clarity on emissions, a few people speaking in favour, one person talking about being overtaken by cycles - fine, but shouldn't we all be judged to the same standard; one person asking if speed bumps would be removed.
Good thing is the councilor seemed a bit rattled this time and was on the back foot more than the front when it came down to facts and figures.
One resident spoke in favour of the guy with the numbers and made the point that it was a very well researched view and the council needs to listen and note these objections if it is to be a proper consultation.
Similar turnout, age a bit lower than the others so far, probably came out around late 40s. A few 30 somethings in. They must be doing better than me if they can afford to live in Kew village.
First question was about effectiveness. A guy asked if the council had taken consideration of those accidents that would not have been substantially effected by a 20 mph speed limit; the councilor responded they hadn't looked at those numbers.
A young lady stated she didn't see any benefit in it if it wasn't enforced. Counciller had said previously it was for the Police to enforce it, as they do the current limit. She said she hadn't seen a Policeman for ages. She also said 20 mph would not her any more or less likely to cycle.
A few questions later another guy presented some data from TfL 2015 greater London casualties report. Conflict analysis showed the top 5 casualty collision types for cycles and motor cycles were all concerned with junctions, fail to give way, cutting up while in/out of junction, car-dooring etc. Councillor seized on the pedestrian figures, arguing 20 has a role there - yes but the pedestrian casualty rates in inner London 20 boroughs are flat as a pancake, he said. Someone had done their homework. Councillor didn't have that analysis either. He seemed a bit irritable at that point. I guess it wasn't going well.
Next question someone had a go at the cost benefit case. The figures were stated to be entirely hypothetical with practically none of the claimed 'cost of an accident' - they mean to say 'value' - being real costs, so they can't be claimed as a cost saving. This caused some anger. Moral objections aside, the fact remained stated that the costs are not true costs and the capital payback case is wrong.
The rest of the questions were more of that same already reported. Clarity on emissions, a few people speaking in favour, one person talking about being overtaken by cycles - fine, but shouldn't we all be judged to the same standard; one person asking if speed bumps would be removed.
Good thing is the councilor seemed a bit rattled this time and was on the back foot more than the front when it came down to facts and figures.
One resident spoke in favour of the guy with the numbers and made the point that it was a very well researched view and the council needs to listen and note these objections if it is to be a proper consultation.
Thanks for the update.
If they just rely on the police to enforce, then they're (the council) are just a joke. Pick any area in SW London with a 20 zone (that's typically unenforced) and you'll see people driving at the usual speed down it. I drive around Kingston and Surbiton a lot and this area has 20 zones; as I like my licence and am mildly paranoid, I always get tailgate by pissed off drivers as I watch the car in front of me disappear off into the distance.
When I do 30 between Hampton Wick and Twickenham outside of rush hour, I routinely see the car in front of me disappear into the distance.
If they just rely on the police to enforce, then they're (the council) are just a joke. Pick any area in SW London with a 20 zone (that's typically unenforced) and you'll see people driving at the usual speed down it. I drive around Kingston and Surbiton a lot and this area has 20 zones; as I like my licence and am mildly paranoid, I always get tailgate by pissed off drivers as I watch the car in front of me disappear off into the distance.
When I do 30 between Hampton Wick and Twickenham outside of rush hour, I routinely see the car in front of me disappear into the distance.
I have to wonder what anyone anywhere has ever done to educate pedestrians. I am surprised so many or not involved in accidents, it seems quite common to see people (mainly women), head down walking playing with their bloody phones.
Just easier to load it all on car drivers. Mini rant over.
Just easier to load it all on car drivers. Mini rant over.
Not "trolling", honest I'm not, but...
...are the drivers moaning about the introduction of blanket 20 mph speed limits the same mob who are constantly moaning about "all the nasty cyclists who ride faster than the speed limit" through Richmond Park? Apparently those cyclists "are a menace" and "something ought to be done about them". Yet outside of that park, around 172 bajillion percent of motorists (including me on occasion) regularly ignore the posted speed limit.
For clarity, I'm definitely NOT in favour of 20 mph limits anywhere except outside schools/hospitals/care homes, as it can be exceedingly frustrating sticking to lowered limits when higher ones were previously accepted to be generally safe for sensible road users actually paying attention to their surroundings. Sadly, though, there are too many thicko drivers who won't moderate their speed for themselves based on road conditions, but instead see limits as targets. If people cared about how they drove, and considered how the manner of their driving affected other road users and people in their roadside homes, then we wouldn't need all these consultations and rule changes.
Also, and I accept that it's entirely anecdotal, and based on a small survey sample, but I think a lot of speeding, and anti-social driving, tends to be perpetrated by local drivers. I know that I'm more likely to pay closer attention to speed limits in an unfamiliar area, because I don't know where the speed cameras are (or even if there are any). Whereas closer to home I know the spots where the SCP/plod will monitor speeding, and so pay less attention to the precise number on my speedo, and maybe wander up beyond the limit if road conditions permit it. My point? I reckon if the LA/(some) residents start pushing for lower speed limits, it's often a case of (some) local residents having brought it upon themselves by failing to "play nice with others" and lacking respect for their fellow man.
My suggested solution? If you don't like the idea of 20 mph speed limits, perhaps you ought to start obeying the current 30 mph ones a bit more closely, and then fewer busy-bodies will moan about speeding, meaning campaigns for lower limits will be more difficult to float as an idea. After all, why would you seek a solution if you didn't have a problem in the first place?
...are the drivers moaning about the introduction of blanket 20 mph speed limits the same mob who are constantly moaning about "all the nasty cyclists who ride faster than the speed limit" through Richmond Park? Apparently those cyclists "are a menace" and "something ought to be done about them". Yet outside of that park, around 172 bajillion percent of motorists (including me on occasion) regularly ignore the posted speed limit.
For clarity, I'm definitely NOT in favour of 20 mph limits anywhere except outside schools/hospitals/care homes, as it can be exceedingly frustrating sticking to lowered limits when higher ones were previously accepted to be generally safe for sensible road users actually paying attention to their surroundings. Sadly, though, there are too many thicko drivers who won't moderate their speed for themselves based on road conditions, but instead see limits as targets. If people cared about how they drove, and considered how the manner of their driving affected other road users and people in their roadside homes, then we wouldn't need all these consultations and rule changes.
Also, and I accept that it's entirely anecdotal, and based on a small survey sample, but I think a lot of speeding, and anti-social driving, tends to be perpetrated by local drivers. I know that I'm more likely to pay closer attention to speed limits in an unfamiliar area, because I don't know where the speed cameras are (or even if there are any). Whereas closer to home I know the spots where the SCP/plod will monitor speeding, and so pay less attention to the precise number on my speedo, and maybe wander up beyond the limit if road conditions permit it. My point? I reckon if the LA/(some) residents start pushing for lower speed limits, it's often a case of (some) local residents having brought it upon themselves by failing to "play nice with others" and lacking respect for their fellow man.
My suggested solution? If you don't like the idea of 20 mph speed limits, perhaps you ought to start obeying the current 30 mph ones a bit more closely, and then fewer busy-bodies will moan about speeding, meaning campaigns for lower limits will be more difficult to float as an idea. After all, why would you seek a solution if you didn't have a problem in the first place?
yellowjack said:
Not "trolling", honest I'm not, but...
...are the drivers moaning about the introduction of blanket 20 mph speed limits the same mob who are constantly moaning about "all the nasty cyclists who ride faster than the speed limit" through Richmond Park?
perhaps you ought to start obeying the current 30 mph ones a bit more closely,
No. Hint: I am often overtaken in Richmond Park....are the drivers moaning about the introduction of blanket 20 mph speed limits the same mob who are constantly moaning about "all the nasty cyclists who ride faster than the speed limit" through Richmond Park?
perhaps you ought to start obeying the current 30 mph ones a bit more closely,
I do.
Edited by Hoofy on Tuesday 20th November 11:06
yellowjack said:
My suggested solution? If you don't like the idea of 20 mph speed limits, perhaps you ought to start obeying the current 30 mph ones a bit more closely, and then fewer busy-bodies will moan about speeding, meaning campaigns for lower limits will be more difficult to float as an idea. After all, why would you seek a solution if you didn't have a problem in the first place?
I agree with that 100%. That, and the general selfishness of all of us when we're out and about whatever mode we choose, is why we have accidents (in part) and why we are where we are.I don't think it will make the creep of 20 mph any better but it will make the arguments against easier to win.
OK, Whitton meeting last week.
There isn't a great deal more to report to be honest. Some familiar questions were asked; the councillor claimed to be ready for anyone with DfT facts and figures but no-one obliged. The transparency question keeps on coming out, i.e. if its a 'no' from the public, will you listen and act accordingly or just plough in regardless? They're softening their line on this one as the events go by. Whether they are actually softening their position or just providing politician's answers... They have said they will be looking at the quality of the objections / comments rather than the quantity so I doubt even a 90% against will sway them if it comes across as people just howling at the moon.
The full minutes and video of the discussions to date can be found here:
https://www.richmond.gov.uk/council/have_your_say/...
The presentation is about 10-15 mins then there's about 45 mins of questions from the floor. Some meetings have written minutes but these seem to be slow coming out.
Couple of things have come out of the last couple of meetings.
(1) City of London are 'looking' - whatever that means - at 10 mph
(2) If left to the borough they would be looking at including the A316 and A205 South Circular in the 20 mph proposals, and TfL have the ambition of 'all roads' in London being 20 eventually.
I'm done with the local meetings now, it's a busy time and I have family stuff to see to, a bathroom to refurb and a car in bits. I'll catch up with the videos and update here if anything remarkable happens.
The consultation is open until December 21st.
There isn't a great deal more to report to be honest. Some familiar questions were asked; the councillor claimed to be ready for anyone with DfT facts and figures but no-one obliged. The transparency question keeps on coming out, i.e. if its a 'no' from the public, will you listen and act accordingly or just plough in regardless? They're softening their line on this one as the events go by. Whether they are actually softening their position or just providing politician's answers... They have said they will be looking at the quality of the objections / comments rather than the quantity so I doubt even a 90% against will sway them if it comes across as people just howling at the moon.
The full minutes and video of the discussions to date can be found here:
https://www.richmond.gov.uk/council/have_your_say/...
The presentation is about 10-15 mins then there's about 45 mins of questions from the floor. Some meetings have written minutes but these seem to be slow coming out.
Couple of things have come out of the last couple of meetings.
(1) City of London are 'looking' - whatever that means - at 10 mph
(2) If left to the borough they would be looking at including the A316 and A205 South Circular in the 20 mph proposals, and TfL have the ambition of 'all roads' in London being 20 eventually.
I'm done with the local meetings now, it's a busy time and I have family stuff to see to, a bathroom to refurb and a car in bits. I'll catch up with the videos and update here if anything remarkable happens.
The consultation is open until December 21st.
Mental. I just drove through Kingston and where it was appropriate, 30 was just fine. Nobody died.
Earlier, during the rush hour through Kingston (I think the max speed was about 15-20), there was a bell end tailgating people around the one way system and yet getting no further than me.
Earlier, during the rush hour through Kingston (I think the max speed was about 15-20), there was a bell end tailgating people around the one way system and yet getting no further than me.
Democracy in LB Richmond ignored!
https://www.richmondandtwickenhamtimes.co.uk/news/...
[quote]Almost 10,000 people responded to the 12-week consultation and opinion was split. In its original form, 47.9 per cent of people favoured the proposals, while 49.7 per cent of people were against it.
[/quote]
So 47.9% said yes, 49.7% said no, but they're going to do it anyway, because apparently people who are either young or old so probably don't drive, their views matter more it seems.
So the consultation was a waste of time, just like all the 20mph signs they spend out on will be as well.
https://www.richmondandtwickenhamtimes.co.uk/news/...
[quote]Almost 10,000 people responded to the 12-week consultation and opinion was split. In its original form, 47.9 per cent of people favoured the proposals, while 49.7 per cent of people were against it.
[/quote]
So 47.9% said yes, 49.7% said no, but they're going to do it anyway, because apparently people who are either young or old so probably don't drive, their views matter more it seems.
So the consultation was a waste of time, just like all the 20mph signs they spend out on will be as well.
2gins said:
FFS. Are you sure?Yeah. Yet bizarrely the other exemption is the A305 from Apex corner to Twickenham town centre, which remains 30 i.e. the same limit. It has:
Plenty of side roads
Several schools
Narrow in places
Pedestrian crossings
Pubs, bars, restaurants
https://goo.gl/maps/bDLffqDbSCP2
It is crossed by the Sixth Cross Road, which will be 20 mph; this has no schools, twice the width and is built up on only one side.
https://goo.gl/maps/MgLAEvGFTkS2
I can only conclude the councilors have gone utterly mad!
Edit - from the councils' own report:
4.29
During the consultation the Council became aware of London Councils’
attempts to request speeding enforcement powers. This was not part of the
Council’s thinking prior to consultation. However, in light of the concerns
expressed about enforcement and achieving higher levels of compliance, the
Council will actively support this call and should such powers transfer, will
consult residents on any potential usage of these powers. The Council will
also consider any other innovations and approaches that may aid greater
compliance and enforcement – given the strong views from respondents on
the matter.
So, councils want to both set and enforce the limit. Can't see anything wrong with that at all!
Jesus wept.
Plenty of side roads
Several schools
Narrow in places
Pedestrian crossings
Pubs, bars, restaurants
https://goo.gl/maps/bDLffqDbSCP2
It is crossed by the Sixth Cross Road, which will be 20 mph; this has no schools, twice the width and is built up on only one side.
https://goo.gl/maps/MgLAEvGFTkS2
I can only conclude the councilors have gone utterly mad!
Edit - from the councils' own report:
4.29
During the consultation the Council became aware of London Councils’
attempts to request speeding enforcement powers. This was not part of the
Council’s thinking prior to consultation. However, in light of the concerns
expressed about enforcement and achieving higher levels of compliance, the
Council will actively support this call and should such powers transfer, will
consult residents on any potential usage of these powers. The Council will
also consider any other innovations and approaches that may aid greater
compliance and enforcement – given the strong views from respondents on
the matter.
So, councils want to both set and enforce the limit. Can't see anything wrong with that at all!
Jesus wept.
Edited by 2gins on Thursday 14th February 12:56
Gassing Station | Thames Valley & Surrey | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff