New 20mph zone on the A205? Post Reply

[juliantenniscoach]

Hi there,

I drove through the A205 tonight and noticed new 20mph signs on the stretch alongside Clapham Common Westside.  I presume the speed camera has been adjusted accordingly.  It doesn't make any sense to me as it's one of the busiest roads in London, not adjacent to housing, hospitals or schools, and just makes journeys unnecessarily slower.  It seems Khan doesn't really care for tradespeople or those who need their cars for work.

 

[onthecommon]

Yeah it’s really important that drivers can go quicker there so they can get to the back of the traffic jam ahead of them as quick as possible……..
It is adjacent to the common where people enjoy their leisure time, exercise, walk their dogs, teach their kids to ride bikes, and guess what children, dogs occasionally stray onto the road.

Do you know the difference in damage to a person of a car driving at 30mph versus 20mph.

Wow just wow but hey it may add a minute to someone’s journey or save a life - you decide.
 

[chorister]

This is obviously a completely life changing catastrophe - I don’t know exactly, but if the distance is 1.5 miles (which I think is about right, but happy to be corrected) then at an average of 35mph it takes 2.025 minutes and at 20 mph it’s 1.500 minutes.

[muddyboots]

Julien,

Yes it’s annoying and whilst 20mph is reasonable in residential street , it’s actually a nuisance on main roads!

20mph means people brake more as hard to flow in traffic which causes more pollution!

Also, more particles are let out at lower speed apparently .

The argument of London average speed doenst hold for me as if you have an empty stretch but forced to go 20mph it’s slowing down your journey wven further.

The local community are served with both pelican and zebra crossings all over to access the common and are not affected by 20 vs 30 mph.

The issue with enforced 20 mph is also that when at night and no traffic you are supposed to crawl along which is ridiculous.

I think 25mph is the perfect compromise as takes you just to the acceleration speed and yoy don’t need to break non stop if being careful !

On roads where speed cameras people have has a ticket and 3 points for 22!
This is all to raise money and get cash !
Nothing else !
TFL are aiming to implement as many opportunities to raise cash like this .

[onthecommon]

Muddyboots - absolute nonsense and the opposite of what all studies say about 20mph versus 30 mph driving on pollution.  You obviously don’t care about facts or science.  I’ll point you at London Gov uk, TFL and University College of London studies but I doubt you’ll accept their findings - experts are a nuisance when they prove you wrong.  25mph whataboutery nonsense probably best sums up your argument. 

Just simply read the difference in safety between 20mph and 30 mph and then please come onto a site for young families to explain why a road, running along our largest green space, needs to be 30mph when a move to a considerably safer speed will have negligible impact on journey times but will save lives and injuries and reduce accidents.

You can take a horse to water etc etc 

 

[muddyboots]

The common is well served with safe access points all over. The safety of pedestrians is not compromised, totally irrelevant when discussing a main road as in this example.

Or do you let your children play along the very edge of the extension ?,
For example, take avenue along from Broomwood road to Battersea rise , pedestrians are not really near the road at any point apart from safe crossing s.

Regarding the 20 vs 30 pollution point, I did not fact check but have heard it mentioned in discussion on tv and also from articles when Wales went 20mph. So, fair enough.

However, do note that any data from TFL should be taken wirh a pinch of salt .
For example for the ULEZ expansion a single scientist who “independently peer reviewed” a paper used to justify the Ulez expansion is a member of a group that has received funding from the Mayor’s office. Read that : funded . Hmm interesting .! You can Google it, Dr Gary Fuller served as the sole reviewer of ‘landmark’ study hailed by Sadiq Khan.
A peer reviewed paper requires ideally more than ONE person and also no financial conflict of interest and impartiality.

Also, the London economy requires London to be moving and not ground to a halt .

The Streatham wells LTN just got scrapped as a 3 mile bus journey took 3 hrs !! Is this what you want for London ??

And I’m happy for 20 mph in residential areas, in fact I drive much slower often around local roads and I’m always careful around cyclists and stop fully to let them pass. Always mindful especially on our double parked roads in case a child runs out etc
However, when on a MAIN road I expect to not crawl at 20 mph.
This hatred towards motorists is ridiculous.

[juliantenniscoach]

"And I’m happy for 20 mph in residential areas, in fact I drive much slower often around local roads and I’m always careful around cyclists and stop fully to let them pass. Always mindful especially on our double parked roads in case a child runs out etc
However, when on a MAIN road I expect to not crawl at 20 mph.
This hatred towards motorists is ridiculous."

Exactly.

[onthecommon]

What hatred to motorists are you talking about?

You’ve both lost me. I drive and all adults I know drive and no one hates anyone because they drive when they need to, so please explain what you mean.

My guess, and that is all it is, is that you’ve made that up in order to create an argument as you are unable to contradict that driving alongside a common at 20mph is the best for safety and pollution, and has almost zero impact on the times of your journey. If you can make a good, scientific, evidence based argument against that then all may listen.

So please Julien and muddy boots explain who hates all of us for driving? Over to you for evidence based argument rather than making up stuff up like hate or increased pollution.

[juliantenniscoach]

Firstly I didn't "make stuff up", I expressed an opinion on both the 20mph and Khan's attitude to tradespeople.  By your rationale, why stop at 20mph?  Why not 15, or 10mph or have a person walking in front waving a flag?  Ridiculous I know, but that's the level of the debate right now across the City.  Since the introduction of competition for the Post Office, the explosion in online shopping which was accelerated during Covid, there is a significant increase in business traffic.  So, in my opinion, unnecessary slowing of traffic across the City, creates delays and business costs.  This can be highlighted by the changing of virtually all bus lanes from peak hours to 24/7 during Covid.  I don't remember that being in Khan's manifesto or being consulted on that, though happy to be corrected.

As for pollution, given all our cars are supposed to be ULEZ compliant, the difference between 20mph and 30mph in suitable areas, can't be significant.  Again, I have no problem with the 20mph in residential streets or outside schools, hospitals etc.  I support the school streets programme too.  I just don't see the argument on non residential roads where there are no obvious hazards.

So onto statistics.  I've searched for various links on road traffic accident data and causation. The first link shows a decrease in fatalities specifically pedal cyclists (good news for me as I cycle way more than I drive).  The big rise is in 'other road users' which is identified as e-scooters and e-bikes. Aside of that, not really revealing.  See:- Reported road casualties in Great Britain, provisional estimates: year ending June 2023 - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk)

Onto factors, another .gov.uk report opens with the headline "In the last 30 years Great Britain’s population has grown by 15 per cent (8.1 million people). Despite this growth in population, road fatalities have fallen by 68 per cent (3,655 deaths)".  Obviously the majority of time is way before ULEZ, 20mph and Congestion Charge and is probably due to the increase in vehicle safety features and the cultural change in drive driving.

The obvious risk groups that stand out are young people and recent licence holders and OAP's.  The conclusion is that better education can continue to drop RTA injuries and fatalities despite a rapidly growing population.
See:- Factors affecting reported road casualties (publishing.service.gov.uk)

The data around 20mph to 30mph is varied and more theoretical than factual.  According to the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents. One of the first studies of pedestrian injury and car impact speed3 found that at 20mph there was a 2.5% chance of being fatally injured, compared to a 20% chance at 30mph, although this study is now regarded as having overestimated the risks.  See:- 20 mph zones and speed limits factsheet Feb 2017 (rospa.com)

Hope this helps to shape opinions as to the merits and drawbacks of a blanket 20mph limit.  I would add, I might disagree with your opinion, but I respect your right to express it. 

 

[chorister]

I think the trouble you (juliantenniscoach) have obviously taken to check statistics should be respected, and I for one would not quarrel with them in general.  To me though (although I accept not to others) the issue is different - do we want our cities to be increasingly dominated by more and more larger and larger cars, and if not then how and when do we start reversing the trend?  The great physicist Carl Sagan once observed that an alien looking down on the earth would conclude that the car was the dominant life form - it's terraformed the earth with long straight lines to allow it to move easily, there are regular feeding stations, there are areas for cars to congregate, presumably to socialise, like many alpha species they seem to spend most of their time doing nothing, and finally there are these little creatures that they have obviously tamed to serve them, which keep scurrying around caring for them.

At some point we will have to face these issues, just like we will have to face the fact that more and more flying is pouring GHGs directly into the upper atmosphere, helping all the climate statistics to continue in the wrong direction.  It's not easy if no-one is willing to make sacrifices.

[juliantenniscoach]

Oh I think there's a significant difference in the weight of argument between private and business use.  I think there's an economic argument between keeping a private car (here in NV) and renting one when required.  It's certainly one I'll look at again, when my circumstances change.

[CyclingLondon]

Balham today.

I know that we need cars/lorries/vans but when it goes wrong it goes really wrong.

 

[Laws of phyiscs]

So Julian your entire point seems to be because the roads are busier drivers should be permitted to go faster?
You do know it doesn't actually work like that?.
That's some sort of Top Gear watchers fantasy. Actual traffic flow in urban environments is way more complicated than that, (and slower can often better to keep traffic flowing)

As for your apparently commendable attempt to find statistics?
No not really, well not without commenting on them with your own unevidenced opinions
1. You wrote
"given all our cars are supposed to be ULEZ compliant, the difference between 20mph and 30mph in suitable areas, can't be significant"
What are you saying here?
You seem to be agreeing the point that 20mph will cause less pollution but adding your own conjecture that the difference probably is small.
2. You then quote the RoSPA report that was good enough to be the basis of a national campaign etc but again add your own vague dismissive 'colour'
"20mph there was a 2.5% chance of being fatally injured, compared to a 20% chance at 30mph, although this study is now regarded as having overestimated the risks".
Now 'regarded' by who exactly?
I literally cannot believe as someone who cycles you are trash-talking he 30 Vs 20 speed safety difference.
If you recall your high school physics the energy of an object increases in proportion to the square of its speed, so a car travelling at 30 has 2.25 times the energy as the same car driven at 20, but sure you have a grumble about those pesky laws of physics!!

[juliantenniscoach]

"So Julian your entire point seems to be because the roads are busier drivers should be permitted to go faster?" -
No, where the roads allow, the speed should be 30mph.  Please read my comments about the 20mph in build up residential etc.  We have variable speed limits throughout the country as it is.  Otherwise, why isn't 20mph the national speed limit?

""20mph there was a 2.5% chance of being fatally injured, compared to a 20% chance at 30mph, although this study is now regarded as having overestimated the risks". Now 'regarded' by who exactly?"  -  
I don't know.  I copied that directly from the report without edit.  I looked but I couldn't find any further information on that.

As for "unevidenced opinions", well one can look at the data, plus your own anecdotal experience and form a conclusion or opinion.  That's what I've done, as have you.  We differ in our outcomes, but that's ok, we can politely debate further if we choose.

[Golden Oldie]

My son lives in Clapham. The journey when he first lived there took us 35 minutes. Now, although there is little traffic, it takes us an hour and a half, because of all the 20 m.p.h. zones and traffic calming measures. As a result we seldom see our grandson. Going by public transport is even slower. It is only a 16 mile journey by road!