Richmond 20mph
Discussion
Blanket 20 zone across the whole borough proposed for next year. Consultation now open until December 21st.
Scheme excludes S Circular and A316 but covers every other road from Barnes to Hampton.
Www.richmond.gov.uk/20mph
Scheme excludes S Circular and A316 but covers every other road from Barnes to Hampton.
Www.richmond.gov.uk/20mph
When I moved in in 2009 the Lib Dems were in, my parking permit cost £450 iirc. Mk 1 TT with CO2emissions of 226 g/km, threshold was 225!
The MP was voted out in 2010/11 in favour of Conservative eco-warrior Goldsmith and that year the permits were a more palatable £90. Then they lost the seat to the liberals by a margin of 50 or something, on the back of Brexit rebellion in the 2016 GE.
Nothing will change except for letters from the local speedwatch groups for doing 30 mph on the arterial routes e.g. A3xx.
The MP was voted out in 2010/11 in favour of Conservative eco-warrior Goldsmith and that year the permits were a more palatable £90. Then they lost the seat to the liberals by a margin of 50 or something, on the back of Brexit rebellion in the 2016 GE.
Nothing will change except for letters from the local speedwatch groups for doing 30 mph on the arterial routes e.g. A3xx.
Worthing is a safe Tory seat. Looking at the recent voting history the closest it came was in 2010, 8-6 Conservative-Liberal. Richmond is 50-50 Con-Lib and swings wildly between them depending on voter sentiment at the time. Liberal last time, Brexit protest vote, less about the actual local manifestos.
I sat in on the first of 6 or so public consultations at York House this evening. Some observations:
1. About 100 attended. No signage for the event, I wasn't entirely sure where to go;
2. Room was about 70/30 in favour of the new limits with applause for those speaking in favour, less so for those making arguments against. Mix of old and young, I'd say average age late 40s;
3. 20 mph was buried in among other local issues, the reason given by the chairman was that it was always a mixed agenda evening but there had clearly been a 'misunderstanding' over the format of the evening;
4. Those speaking against had their concerns answered but then swiftly moved on to the next question. One guy at the start commenced what seemed like a considered piece on the various reasons why the scheme was a poor idea, but was closed down by the chair pretty sharpish;
One lady asked what confidence we could have that the council would abide by the outcome of the consultation, as it felt like a done deal already. The answer given (Cllr Ehmann, Lib Dem and Cllr for transport etc) was that the council was elected on a manifesto including 20 mph and that is the mandate, so in fact they don't have to consult at all. At which point I zoned out a bit.
1. About 100 attended. No signage for the event, I wasn't entirely sure where to go;
2. Room was about 70/30 in favour of the new limits with applause for those speaking in favour, less so for those making arguments against. Mix of old and young, I'd say average age late 40s;
3. 20 mph was buried in among other local issues, the reason given by the chairman was that it was always a mixed agenda evening but there had clearly been a 'misunderstanding' over the format of the evening;
4. Those speaking against had their concerns answered but then swiftly moved on to the next question. One guy at the start commenced what seemed like a considered piece on the various reasons why the scheme was a poor idea, but was closed down by the chair pretty sharpish;
One lady asked what confidence we could have that the council would abide by the outcome of the consultation, as it felt like a done deal already. The answer given (Cllr Ehmann, Lib Dem and Cllr for transport etc) was that the council was elected on a manifesto including 20 mph and that is the mandate, so in fact they don't have to consult at all. At which point I zoned out a bit.
I've been sad enough to have a bit more of a look at the accident figures over the last couple of weeks, since the Cllrs stated they could debunk the Portsmouth and Bath results as they're not London.
Take a close look at the DfT data download table called RAS30043 which I think is casualty rate set out by local borough and road user type for the whole country, including all the London boroughs. Then take a look at the count points data, i.e. vehicle miles in each borough. You can normalize the KSI and total casualty numbers for cyclists by dividing by the miles covered by cycle (i.e. cyclist casualties per 1000 miles cycled), then plot on year. Do this for the various boroughs with blanket 20 limits and see what it looks like. In most cases you see the normalized casualty rate increasing despite 20s being brought in. Interestingly, even where cycle casualties fall, there is still a general rise in casualties. Pedestrians are almost universally flat (no pun), so the rise in casualties must be amongst motorists. Why? Perhaps this is an increase in collisions due to tailgating and desperate overtakes (speculation).
In 2017 for some reason the casualty rate rocketed across the board, I haven't started looking into why this might be yet. Any ideas there gratefully received.
Take a close look at the DfT data download table called RAS30043 which I think is casualty rate set out by local borough and road user type for the whole country, including all the London boroughs. Then take a look at the count points data, i.e. vehicle miles in each borough. You can normalize the KSI and total casualty numbers for cyclists by dividing by the miles covered by cycle (i.e. cyclist casualties per 1000 miles cycled), then plot on year. Do this for the various boroughs with blanket 20 limits and see what it looks like. In most cases you see the normalized casualty rate increasing despite 20s being brought in. Interestingly, even where cycle casualties fall, there is still a general rise in casualties. Pedestrians are almost universally flat (no pun), so the rise in casualties must be amongst motorists. Why? Perhaps this is an increase in collisions due to tailgating and desperate overtakes (speculation).
In 2017 for some reason the casualty rate rocketed across the board, I haven't started looking into why this might be yet. Any ideas there gratefully received.
Here are those plots.
First I wondered if the amount of traffic has any bearing, so this is a plot of the cycle casualty risk (casualties per mile cycled) against miles covered by all motor vehicles (cars, motorbikes, vans, buses, HGV etc). All borough, all years 2013-2017.
R^2 couldn't be much lower, so safe to conclude no trend. Seems that cycling casualty risk isn't related to traffic volumes, or the spread of traffic volume isn't big enough to show a trend. It spans an order of magnitude which seems enough to me, but I'm not a traffic statistician, just a lowly engineer.
The following plots are of KSI and all casualties across various modes, normalized for miles covered by that mode. There isn't any data that I can find for pedestrian mileage, so on the assumption that pedestrians are injured by collisions with vehicles (including cycles) and not with other pedestrians, I've normalized that data against vehicle miles instead.
Camden - went 20 mph borough wide in 2014. I need to pull out more 'before' points to build a clearer picture of the underlying trend but it looks at first glance like 20 was successful in year 1, then it has been either up or flat.
Islington - went 20 mph in 2013. Again, I need to pull more 'before' points in. 2012-2013 would be interesting to see but after full introduction, KSI and total casualties flat across the board.
Lambeth - 20 mph in April 2016. I'm cautious about this data as there seems to be a big increase in 2017 in every borough that might be skewing the data. However on the basis if 3 quarters at 20 mph in 2016, there is a distinct rise in that year from 2015.
Lewisham - 20 mph in September 2016. Doesn't appear to have had any effect at all on prevailing rates except for cycles, but this might also be because of uptake on a new cycle route (quietway 1) into Waterloo on quieter roads. I don't know on that one.
Southwark - 20 mph in 2015. Pretty much flat, minimal improvement over the underlying trend for cycles.
Greenwich - this is a funny one as it hasn't gone 20 in one go but has had extensive areas rolled out year on year from about 2015 onwards. Nevertheless, throughout the roll out the pedestrian risk rates are flat, motors are up, and cycles are all over the place - not a conclusive picture. It appears 20 mph isn't the only game in town.
Hackney - 20 mph in 2015. It's been up, up and up ever since and the cycle figures, while dropping, show a weakening of the improvement that was evident beforehand.
Haringey - 20 mph in 2015. They evidently liked Hackney's roll out so much they thought they'd try to emulate and build on their results!
Said I'd been a bit of a sad b
d. 
The councils are being driven by city hall and Khan, who are putting up the cash for these schemes. The financial case is based on a cost of X for minor accidents and Y for fatals, so any reduction multiplied up will deliver a return on investment eventually, which is a hard case to argue against. It all appears to hinge on whether or not there is a real reduction in casualties. I haven't massaged the data much to bring these results out. It looks real enough to me.
But ultimately the questions have to be 1. If the consultation comes out against, will you honour it, and 2. If this is brought in and casualties go up, who is accountable and who pays.
First I wondered if the amount of traffic has any bearing, so this is a plot of the cycle casualty risk (casualties per mile cycled) against miles covered by all motor vehicles (cars, motorbikes, vans, buses, HGV etc). All borough, all years 2013-2017.
R^2 couldn't be much lower, so safe to conclude no trend. Seems that cycling casualty risk isn't related to traffic volumes, or the spread of traffic volume isn't big enough to show a trend. It spans an order of magnitude which seems enough to me, but I'm not a traffic statistician, just a lowly engineer.
The following plots are of KSI and all casualties across various modes, normalized for miles covered by that mode. There isn't any data that I can find for pedestrian mileage, so on the assumption that pedestrians are injured by collisions with vehicles (including cycles) and not with other pedestrians, I've normalized that data against vehicle miles instead.
Camden - went 20 mph borough wide in 2014. I need to pull out more 'before' points to build a clearer picture of the underlying trend but it looks at first glance like 20 was successful in year 1, then it has been either up or flat.
Islington - went 20 mph in 2013. Again, I need to pull more 'before' points in. 2012-2013 would be interesting to see but after full introduction, KSI and total casualties flat across the board.
Lambeth - 20 mph in April 2016. I'm cautious about this data as there seems to be a big increase in 2017 in every borough that might be skewing the data. However on the basis if 3 quarters at 20 mph in 2016, there is a distinct rise in that year from 2015.
Lewisham - 20 mph in September 2016. Doesn't appear to have had any effect at all on prevailing rates except for cycles, but this might also be because of uptake on a new cycle route (quietway 1) into Waterloo on quieter roads. I don't know on that one.
Southwark - 20 mph in 2015. Pretty much flat, minimal improvement over the underlying trend for cycles.
Greenwich - this is a funny one as it hasn't gone 20 in one go but has had extensive areas rolled out year on year from about 2015 onwards. Nevertheless, throughout the roll out the pedestrian risk rates are flat, motors are up, and cycles are all over the place - not a conclusive picture. It appears 20 mph isn't the only game in town.
Hackney - 20 mph in 2015. It's been up, up and up ever since and the cycle figures, while dropping, show a weakening of the improvement that was evident beforehand.
Haringey - 20 mph in 2015. They evidently liked Hackney's roll out so much they thought they'd try to emulate and build on their results!
Said I'd been a bit of a sad b
d. The councils are being driven by city hall and Khan, who are putting up the cash for these schemes. The financial case is based on a cost of X for minor accidents and Y for fatals, so any reduction multiplied up will deliver a return on investment eventually, which is a hard case to argue against. It all appears to hinge on whether or not there is a real reduction in casualties. I haven't massaged the data much to bring these results out. It looks real enough to me.
But ultimately the questions have to be 1. If the consultation comes out against, will you honour it, and 2. If this is brought in and casualties go up, who is accountable and who pays.
Edited for spellings by 2gins on Tuesday 23 October 16:30
Edited by 2gins on Tuesday 23 October 16:35
The Met introduced online self reporting for accidents in 2017, which is given as the reason for the spikes in 2017 data in this TFL publication.
https://tfl.gov.uk/info-for/media/press-releases/2...
2017 data should be treated with caution. It is said in the above that self reporting led to 20% extra reporting of all casualties. However I don't think this applies to KSI data because these cases would presumably all have gone through the emergency services and been accurately recorded in the first place.
https://tfl.gov.uk/info-for/media/press-releases/2...
2017 data should be treated with caution. It is said in the above that self reporting led to 20% extra reporting of all casualties. However I don't think this applies to KSI data because these cases would presumably all have gone through the emergency services and been accurately recorded in the first place.
50% actually but the council wonks believe this will be offset by savings in idling time at junctions, because the queues will be shorter. There is a degree of trade off inevitably but the environmental claims have never been proved either way as far as I can tell. In any event, most of the Borough lies underneath final approach into LHR so the devil will be in separating all the CO2 from traffic from that from aviation.
Wizward said:
If other PistonHeaders think the inclusion of major A & B roads in the proposed 20mph 'blanket' speed limit in Richmond is daft and would like to do something about it then I would urge them to sign the burgeoning petition at Change.Org - here is the easy link https://chn.ge/2JdEPqD and it takes seconds to sign the petition.
Thanks guys!
I'm in two minds.Thanks guys!
Haringey have retained their limits and spent an extra £500k on traffic calming. Lewisham are now consulting on introducing traffic calming measures. They say humps are too expensive and either ineffective (cushions) or impede buses and emergency vehicles (full width humps), their preferred option is borough wide average speed cameras. I'm yet to look at the other councils. So, be careful what you wish for.
Cllr Ehmann also said that this is the trajectory (20 mph by default in urban areas) and the motivation for going the whole hog in one go is that it will be cheaper in the long run. I think it's all or nothing. We do 20 mph in full and live with the consequences, which are becoming clearer as each passing year adds more weight to the statistics; or we retain the current sensible and proportionate case of adding targeted 20 zones with calming measures where there is a specific problem.
Bit late on this one but here is a brief synopsis of the tone and discussion at the Richmond meeting a couple of weeks back.
Meeting was generally better organised than the first one at York House and no-one was told to stop talking now and sit down. Progress!
Councillor gave a presentation about the scheme up front containing some facts and figures, the usual RosPA / Brake stuff about e.g. survival rates at 20 vs 30, 40 and results from other cities - including Bath.
About 100 or so again, average age probably not much shy of 50. Room was sceptical but not hostile.
Data presented by the Council was challenged by a number of people including 1 statistician (not me) - e.g. statistics on KSI included those that took place in Richmond Park - 20 mph
Scheme will cover existing 40mph roads (Kingston bridge to Hampton Ct)
2 cyclists put up arguments against 20mph and were politely disregarded. One of these was me. I'd rather traffic minimised the TED and got past me, frankly. One lady was typing minutes for a local cycling club, she seemed to think the idea of wanting cars to pass seemed a bit mad. Says it all really.
One guy made a point that as we'll all be doing 20 does this mean the speed bumps will be removed.... er, no.
Some alternative ideas were put to the council including better enforcement of the standard we already have. The councillor said this was for the Met, essentially, 'yes but not out problem' - bit of a cop out (no pun)
No statement on what they will do when they have a compliance problem in a years' time - we'll wait and see, he said. What aren't you telling us, O enlightened one?
Tellingly, a lady asked if the majority voted against 20mph would they respect this. They will give no such undertaking but would consider the public view when it goes to vote. That'll be a no, then.
I've not been to any more but next week is Kew, my local one and then Whitton which might be worth a laugh as I believe Whitton is pretty anti-20 and being the working class end of the Borough I expect they won't pull their punches.
Meeting was generally better organised than the first one at York House and no-one was told to stop talking now and sit down. Progress!
Councillor gave a presentation about the scheme up front containing some facts and figures, the usual RosPA / Brake stuff about e.g. survival rates at 20 vs 30, 40 and results from other cities - including Bath.
About 100 or so again, average age probably not much shy of 50. Room was sceptical but not hostile.
Data presented by the Council was challenged by a number of people including 1 statistician (not me) - e.g. statistics on KSI included those that took place in Richmond Park - 20 mph
Scheme will cover existing 40mph roads (Kingston bridge to Hampton Ct)
2 cyclists put up arguments against 20mph and were politely disregarded. One of these was me. I'd rather traffic minimised the TED and got past me, frankly. One lady was typing minutes for a local cycling club, she seemed to think the idea of wanting cars to pass seemed a bit mad. Says it all really.
One guy made a point that as we'll all be doing 20 does this mean the speed bumps will be removed.... er, no.
Some alternative ideas were put to the council including better enforcement of the standard we already have. The councillor said this was for the Met, essentially, 'yes but not out problem' - bit of a cop out (no pun)
No statement on what they will do when they have a compliance problem in a years' time - we'll wait and see, he said. What aren't you telling us, O enlightened one?
Tellingly, a lady asked if the majority voted against 20mph would they respect this. They will give no such undertaking but would consider the public view when it goes to vote. That'll be a no, then.
I've not been to any more but next week is Kew, my local one and then Whitton which might be worth a laugh as I believe Whitton is pretty anti-20 and being the working class end of the Borough I expect they won't pull their punches.
pewe said:
I stand to be corrected but I was recently told by someone in the know that 20mph limits are unenforceable.
Central Govt. allows Councils to put them into place providing they are NOT enforced.
In order to have enforceable limits requires an Act of Parliament.
It answered the question I posed to him as to why you never see speed traps etc. on 20mph roads.
Certainly around Reading these limits seem to be widely ignored so it seems to be a total waste of money RBC paying for signage.
Don't get me wrong I think urban speed limits are a good thing given the mix of road traffic, cyclists, pedestrians etc. but surely there's a better way than current - more 30mph cameras on urban roads?
Cheers, Pewe
Cheers Pewe but I think differently, Islington set the precedent in 2014 with targeted enforcement and I know there have been threads in other SPL or the Bikers' section about people being NIP'd in 20s, so I reckon the word's out on that one. Central Govt. allows Councils to put them into place providing they are NOT enforced.
In order to have enforceable limits requires an Act of Parliament.
It answered the question I posed to him as to why you never see speed traps etc. on 20mph roads.
Certainly around Reading these limits seem to be widely ignored so it seems to be a total waste of money RBC paying for signage.
Don't get me wrong I think urban speed limits are a good thing given the mix of road traffic, cyclists, pedestrians etc. but surely there's a better way than current - more 30mph cameras on urban roads?
Cheers, Pewe
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?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.
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.
Gassing Station | Thames Valley & Surrey | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff