Loughborough Junction public space improvements - consultation begins

[irf520]

Loads of drivers ignore 20mph signs it is like crawling along can cycle faster ...

I guess that's the idea ... oh wait, could be straying into conspiracy territory here ...

... cyclists meant to obey speed rules or are they haha

Actually cyclists are exempt from speed limits. They don't have a speedometer, so they don't know how fast they are going.

 

[concerned1]

Not against it but we will see how much trafiic will snarl up

 

[irf520]

Yes they are and largely will.

So, to be clear: it seems you're against the 20mph limit as well as the road closures?

20mph is fine for small residential streets. But you can't seriously tell me it's dangerous to do 30mph along Denmark Hill (has 20mph limit now along entire length).

 

[bimble]

I'm in technological awe of you. I think 20mph limit for cars might not be part of an evil cyclo-nazi agenda though. Not sure if having cars trundling along at your side is preferable to having them zip past you. Don't know.

 

[irf520]

I think 20mph limit for cars might not be an evil cyclo-nazi agenda though. Not sure if having cars trundling along at your side is preferable to having them zip past you. Don't know.

Well, from the horse's mouth (Lambeth Goes 20mph - guide | Lambeth Council) :

"Main benefits of the roll out include:

• Health- More people are encouraged to walk and cycle Road safety- Reducing speed reduces the number of severe casualties on the road"

What impact will 20mph limits have on air pollution?
The greatest environmental benefit from the change will come from unlocking the potential for walking or cycling short distances instead of driving.

How does reducing the speed limit achieve this? I'll leave that to your imagination lest I be accused of paranoia.

 

[Gramsci]

Islington already has 20mph limit except for a few roads.

20mph has been shown to reduce accidents.

Brake believes 20mph is the most appropriate speed limit for built up areas, as it gives drivers the chance to stop in time in an emergency, such as if someone suddenly steps into the road. If a child runs into the road three car lengths ahead, a driver travelling at 30mph (48km/h) will not be able to stop in time, and will still be travelling at 28mph (45km/h) when they hit the child. A driver travelling at 20mph should just be able to stop in time, providing they are paying attention, have well-maintained brakes, and are driving in dry conditions.

Lowering traffic speeds, and lowering limits to 20mph specifically, is known to reduce casualties and create a safer road environment, especially for people on foot and bicycle. A trial of 20mph limits in Warrington, Cheshire, found pedestrian and cyclist casualties dropped 36% [6]. Analysis of 75 20pmh limit sites in Scotland found casualties dropped 42% [7]. Analysis of traffic casualties in London from 1986-2006 showed that 20mph zones, introduced with traffic calming measures such as speed humps and chicanes, reduced deaths and serious injuries by 42% [8]. 20mph or 30km/h limits are recommended by the World Health Organisation as a key measure to improve pedestrian safety and save lives [9].

and on encouraging cycling and walking

Fear of fast traffic is a significant factor in people’s decisions to walk or cycle. A Brake and Churchill survey found nine in ten UK parents (90%) say fast traffic poses a danger to families and children in their community, and three in four (74%) say their family would walk more if the safety of nearby roads was improved [1]. A Brake and webuyanycar.com survey found three in four schoolchildren (76%) would like to walk and cycle more, but more than half (56%) worry they might be run over when walking or cycling on roads [2]. The average number of walking trips per person has decreased by 27% since 1995 in Britain, and less than a quarter (22%) of journeys and just 3% of miles travelled in Britain are now on foot [3].

Similarly, cycling still only accounts for a very small proportion of journeys in Britain, and road safety is a major factor in putting many people off. Just 2% of journeys and 1% of miles travelled are made by bike [4]. A Brake and Direct Line survey found that one in three non-cyclists would be persuaded to cycle if routes were safer.

 

[CH1]

Southwark have done it all over the place already - not just Denmark Hill. They are simply street ahead!

 

[irf520]

Southwark have done it all over the place already - not just Denmark Hill. They are simply street ahead!

Yes, I know. I was just using Denmark Hill as a particularly egregious example.

 

[bimble]

What impact will 20mph limits have on air pollution?

This question I don't have a clue.
Better or worse than shutting a main road completely & forcing everything onto the adjoining one that most walking people use ? I'd guess better.
But if we're getting 20mph on CHL plus the closure of Loughborough road..then I imagine that's really bad news for breathing pedestrians, if you add it up.

 

[Gramsci]

This question I don't have a clue.
Better or worse than shutting a main road completely & forcing everything onto the adjoining one that most walking people use ? I'd guess better.
But if we're getting 20mph on CHL plus the closure of Loughborough road..then I imagine that's really bad news for breathing pedestrians, if you add it up.

Pollution

 

[bimble]

Pollution

A curious cornucopia of bits and pieces thank you.

Including this:
"A report from Belgium[4] concluded "It is unlikely that imposing strict speed limits in urban areas has a significant influence on emissions of NOx or CO2."
So.. I don't feel very much wiser about 20mph and air quality yet.
Still quite sure that I (pedestrian, occasional cyclist, frequent 345 bus user) would really like to see what would happen with just 20mph, and not that combined with the shambolic road closures we have going on at the moment)

 

[concerned1]

Pollution will increase obviously as traffic congest on certain roads due to the slower speed.
Not exactly rocket science!
Look at Coldharbour Lane thanks to stupid road closures.
People will in places totally ignore the 20mp. Travel along Albany Road and you soon see people doing about 40mph when they get a gap.

 

[bimble]

People will in places totally ignore the 20mp.

Unless there's a budget left over for some speed cameras ( after the £700,000 going on signs) . In which case everyone's a winner surely, including the skint council .

 

[teuchter]

A curious cornucopia of bits and pieces thank you.

Including this:
"A report from Belgium[4] concluded "It is unlikely that imposing strict speed limits in urban areas has a significant influence on emissions of NOx or CO2."
So.. I don't feel very much wiser about 20mph and air quality yet.
Still quite sure that I (pedestrian, occasional cyclist, frequent 345 bus user) would really like to see what would happen with just 20mph, and not that combined with the shambolic road closures we have going on at the moment)

That's emissions per vehicle-km.
The emissions per vehicle seem neither to rise or fall significantly as a result of reducing speed limits to 20mph.
The point is that the lower speed limits encourage modal shift, and each person who walks or cycles instead of driving eliminates pollution which otherwise would have occured.

 

[critical1]

I guess that's the idea ... oh wait, could be straying into conspiracy territory here ...

Actually cyclists are exempt from speed limits. They don't have a speedometer, so they don't know how fast they are going.

Sections 28 & 29 Road Traffic Act 1988 may be used to report dangerous and careless cycling respectively. These offences closely mirror the provisions (sections 2 & 3) for motor vehicles.

 

[ricbake]

20 MPH restrictions are about reducing the level of mortality and injury to pedestrians and cyclists. Making the roads safer mean that more people feel encouraged to walk or cycle therefore they don't need to take the car and fewer car journeys take place so there is less pollution.

 

[teuchter]

Pollution will increase obviously as traffic congest on certain roads due to the slower speed.
Not exactly rocket science!
Look at Coldharbour Lane thanks to stupid road closures.
People will in places totally ignore the 20mp. Travel along Albany Road and you soon see people doing about 40mph when they get a gap.

So you are saying that congestion will increase, because people will be observing a slower speed limit which they will be simultaneously ignoring. Now that's rocket science.

 

[Beasley]

Ok Bimble it was your post re removing motor traffic from across London. You were right about my arrogant remark at the last LJAG meeting re emergency services.That said as Emergency Services are a statutory consultee my understanding is that the Highway Authority, in this instance Lambeth, have to take note of them.

A total delight following this thread. Particular thanks for the records of last night's meeting.

We London Cycling Campaign transport planning and infrastructure headbangers, talk about cells. That is where you can walk and cycle and take buses through an area, so strictly speaking roads aren't closed, and drive in and out, but through motor traffic is filtered out. It is what, I understand, the Dutch do.

The cell I have gone on about at LJAG meetings and elsewhere for years, is bounded by the TLRN (Transport for London Road Network) in this area, Denmark Hill, Herne Hill, Dulwich Rd, Effra Rd, Brixton Rd, Camberwell New Rd. Yes filtering out through motor traffic from CHL, not buses. I think people here get motor traffic evaporation via modal shift, and get the tiny number of have to motor vehicle journeys, as opposed to the want to ones. A plug for Wheels for Wellbeing on the Brixton Rd, whose CEO is a wheelchair using cyclist.

Some years ago Lambeth consulted on types of reducing speed measures in the LJ area South of CHL. Filtering wasn't in the mix. The long Bromley to centre of town rat run has a route via Poplar Walk onto Hinton, and speeds of over 50 mph have been recorded. People on this thread have got the potential filters apart from the one on Lyham Rd between the two Poplars. The group of us campaigning for filtering out through motor traffic from the LJ area South of CHL didn't quite get the votes 48% from memory. For people interested in hyper local politics, that was supported by Herne Hill Forum. From my experience of the campaign against taking part of Brockwell Park when Railton Rd was closed at Herne Hill Junction, Herne Hill Forum is a different animal from the Herne Hill Society.

Bimble I can't remember which meeting, it was at Blue Star House, on a scheme for the crossroads, that the idea for filtering out through motor traffic from Loughborough Rd first hardened. I do remember I was late and I do remember someone saying to me I thought you would be pleased and me saying I was in shock, probably because, unconsciously, I knew what was coming in terms of opposition.

After the last LJAG meeting I followed the rat runs noted, that from your notes, Lady V, were raised again last night, and emailed Lambeth. The estate one could be dealt with, it would need the Ok of LEMB as it is an estate rd, similarly the one through Angell Town could be dealt with. The Angell Town rat run would need a new Traffic Order which could add more trial time.

Historically there are a number of local filters and other measures that have been retrospectively installed, to prevent East West through motor traffic in the LJ area and borders , North of CHL. On Angell Rd, the junction of Peckford Place and Brixton Rd and the no entry in the area, with a recent except cycling installed. (She bows). Makes a great EW CHL avoiding route for those of us who use sustainable modes.

Similarly, historically, Angell Town seems to have been redeveloped on Secure by Design principles removing through motor traffic. It is my NS alternative to Loughborough Rd, though not at present. ....

Ok back to my emails to and fro with Rosendale Rd area residents, following a loud, apparently 300 strong, meeting.

Clare

Rather surprised by Clare's post last Friday (above). The discussion has been going on here for a year but as far as I know this is her first appearance on the forum.
She was one of the key proponents of the scheme and I really think she should have been able to explain it a bit better.

 

[bimble]

20 MPH restrictions are about reducing the level of mortality and injury to pedestrians and cyclists. Making the roads safer mean that more people feel encouraged to walk or cycle therefore they don't need to take the car and fewer car journeys take place so there is less pollution.

I'm totally modal shifted, always have been. Is why I'm up for 20mph as an idea.
Still totally confounded by the current road closure experiment though.
It's made me feel deeply discouraged as a pedestrian cyclist & bus user .

 

[irf520]

Sections 28 & 29 Road Traffic Act 1988 may be used to report dangerous and careless cycling respectively. These offences closely mirror the provisions (sections 2 & 3) for motor vehicles.

But a cyclist can't be prosecuted purely on the basis that they exceeded the posted speed limit, whereas a motorist can be.
How likely do you think it is that a cyclist would actually be prosecuted for dangerous cycling? I can't see it myself, unless possibly they clattered a pedestrian at high speed and caused injury.

 

[bimble]

Rather surprised by Clare's post last Friday (above). The discussion has been going on here for a year but as far as I know this is her first appearance on the forum.
She was one of the key proponents of the scheme and I really think she should have been able to explain it a bit better.

I think it's great she's been following the thread and has made an entrance.
Thought it was interesting how extremely reserved she seemed as well, in terms of this particular scheme: She nowhere says that she's a fan of it - even if her own activism largely led to the famous figure of "68% in favour".

See how she says in that post,
"I can't remember which meeting, it was at Blue Star House, on a scheme for the crossroads, that the idea for filtering out through motor traffic from Loughborough Rd first hardened. I do remember I was late and I do remember someone saying to me I thought you would be pleased and me saying I was in shock, probably because, unconsciously, I knew what was coming in terms of opposition."

 

[critical1]

That's a new one on me. Speed limits will attract drug dealers. You couldn't make it up. You really couldn't.

That's absolutely right teuchter you could not make it up...

Man arrested after slow two-hour police car chase

"Ride tells you to slow the car down for the purpose of a drive-by, which requires ... Selling weight or moving weight, means to sell narcotics on the street."

 

[irf520]

Rather surprised by Clare's post last Friday (above). The discussion has been going on here for a year but as far as I know this is her first appearance on the forum.
She was one of the key proponents of the scheme and I really think she should have been able to explain it a bit better.

The explanation seems clear enough to me. The current LJ road closures are just the beginning. The ultimate objective would be to close all through routes through the interior of the region bounded by Brixton Road, Effra Road, Dulwich Road, Herne Hill, Denmark Hill and Camberwell New Road. That perimeter is 5 miles long and encloses an area of around 2 square miles. Now in order to achieve this it must be the case that for every point in the interior of that region there is a corresponding edge of the perimeter such that all journeys by motor vehicle to a point exterior to the region must proceed via that edge. If you want to go in a different direction, you must first proceed to your assigned edge and then follow the perimeter until you reach an available road which heads towards your destination. So if you want to go in the opposite direction you will have to go half way round the perimeter, which means an extra 2.5 miles along some heavily congested roads.

Even better, if you wanted to drive from, say, Fiveways to Milkwood Road, you would have to go via the perimeter of the region, so probably out to Brixton Road, through central Brixton and along Effra Rd/Dulwich Rd to Herne Hill then back up Milkwood Road. Yes, I know you could walk or cycle, but what if you have to carry a lot of stuff or if you're taking your car for an MOT or ...

I'm sure someone will be along soon to explain how that will reduce pollution ...

 

[critical1]

I

I think it's great she's been following the thread and has made an entrance.
Thought it was interesting how extremely reserved she seemed as well, in terms of this particular scheme: She nowhere says that she's a fan of it - even if her own activism largely led to the famous figure of "68% in favour".

See how she says in that post,
"I can't remember which meeting, it was at Blue Star House, on a scheme for the crossroads, that the idea for filtering out through motor traffic from Loughborough Rd first hardened. I do remember I was late and I do remember someone saying to me I thought you would be pleased and me saying I was in shock, probably because, unconsciously, I knew what was coming in terms of opposition."

I believe this is the same Clare Neely who is up for Cyclist Campaigner of the Year!!!
2015 Campaigner Awards Nominees announced!

 

[bimble]

Man arrested after slow two-hour police car chase

How very odd. God bless america.

 

[bimble]

I believe this is the same Clare Neely who is up for Cyclist Campaigner of the Year!!!
2015 Campaigner Awards Nominees announced!

That's the one.
Which is why I think it's so interesting that Haya87 seems kind of unsure about this particular scheme, now it's in.

I know she's the queen of lambeth cycle lobby & campaigned for cyclists to get involved thereby massively swaying the results of 'the consultation'.
But she does not wholeheartedly defend it anywhere far as I can see. She seems to be saying that other alternatives should have been considered first.

 

[concerned1]

She is definitely a fan of it or should I say an Activist in support of it?
I was informed she was leafletting cyclists to support it on several occasions

 

[bimble]

She is definitely a fan of it or should I say an Activist in support of it?
I was informed she was leafletting cyclists to support it on several occasions

I know she had a major part in skewing the results of the consultation. But still she seems (possibly )to be saying in her posts here that she is not totally convinced by this experiment now it's happening, and definitely to be saying that she would have chosen other plans if they were on offer.

 

[bimble]

I mean .. what if @Haya87 decided, after having a proper look at everything, including CHL, to add her name to the stop the closures petition, wouldn't that be a coup.

 

[irf520]

I mean .. what if @Haya87 decided, after having a proper look at everything, including CHL, to add her name to the stop the closures petition, wouldn't that be a coup.

Unless I've completely misunderstood, any misgivings she has are because the scheme doesn't go far enough, not because it goes too far.