# Speeding and general dangerous driving in and around Brixton



## teuchter (Aug 30, 2017)

I've mentioned this in other threads but it's my feeling that speeding - particularly what I think of as "aggressive speeding" - has become worse relatively recently. I'm not sure if it's just because I've started noticing it more since the 20mph limit was brought in - which is widely ignored and doesn't seem to be enforced at all.

Am I alone in this observation?

Do we have to wait for several pedestrians to be killed before the problem is taken seriously?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 30, 2017)

teuchter said:


> I've mentioned this in other threads but it's my feeling that speeding - particularly what I think of as "aggressive speeding" - has become worse relatively recently. I'm not sure if it's just because I've started noticing it more since the 20mph limit was brought in - which is widely ignored and doesn't seem to be enforced at all.
> 
> Am I alone in this observation?
> 
> Do we have to wait for several pedestrians to be killed before the problem is taken seriously?



I've had several people state to me independently - we're looking into better traffic control on my estate - that people are driving faster since the 20mph limit, almost with a "catch me if you can" contemptuousness.
I'm not sure it will be prioritised UNTIL a death occurs.  Safer Neighbourhood teams are operating on half (or less) of the personnel they had 3 years ago, and speed cameras are not being maintained with anywhere near the regularity that used to occur.  I've seen twats actually *racing* on sports motorbikes along Upper Tulse Hill using both sides of the road in the middle of the day.  I tried to get the plate numbers to report to the OB, but guess what?  No number plates.


----------



## Sirena (Aug 30, 2017)

I'm sorry but I must disagree.

I remember, back in the mid-80s day, when roads like Acre Lane were insane: when cars would do absolutely anything and everything at any speed from zero to light.  Cars racing at breakneck speeds would suddenly jerk to a stop because the driver had seen a friend or a pretty girl...  Traffic lights meant nothing

The car, in the hands of young men, was a statement or an attitude, rather than a means of transportation.

Much as I hate what a lot of Brixton has become, I think driving standards are better.


----------



## spanglechick (Aug 30, 2017)

I don't have specific brixton experience, but the blanket 20 limits are completely ridiculous.  It should have been introduced on residential streets only.  By putting it on wide, congestion-free A-roads, where there was no need, it invites disregard... and when you see even police cars driving at 30+ on those roads as a matter of course, it sends a message about the 20 limits as a whole.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 30, 2017)

ViolentPanda said:


> I've had several people state to me independently - we're looking into better traffic control on my estate - that people are driving faster since the 20mph limit, almost with a "catch me if you can" contemptuousness.
> I'm not sure it will be prioritised UNTIL a death occurs.  Safer Neighbourhood teams are operating on half (or less) of the personnel they had 3 years ago, and speed cameras are not being maintained with anywhere near the regularity that used to occur.  I've seen twats actually *racing* on sports motorbikes along Upper Tulse Hill using both sides of the road in the middle of the day.  I tried to get the plate numbers to report to the OB, but guess what?  No number plates.


Not sure snts anything to do with roads policing which would, I think, more the traffick remit - the cops with t on their shoulders.


----------



## SheilaNaGig (Aug 30, 2017)

I lived on Mervan Road for about twenty years, right up to about four years ago.

People would really barrel down that road, especially the cops, who seemed to use it as a cut through. They late put speed bumps in, which helped a bit, but not much.

Not as bad as Saltoun Road though, which was always a speedy road.

So no, I don't think it's just a recent thing.


----------



## friendofdorothy (Aug 30, 2017)

I thought things had improved since 20mph limit and other traffic calming measures, I thought there seemed to be fewer boy racers near us I - but crash on Railton Road recently maybe suggests not



Jonti said:


> View attachment 114564
> This was the scene at the crossroads of Railton Road and Shakespeare Road yesterday tea time.  The street's much better since extensive traffic calming measures, but it can still be hazardous.


----------



## T & P (Aug 30, 2017)

spanglechick said:


> I don't have specific brixton experience, but the blanket 20 limits are completely ridiculous.  It should have been introduced on residential streets only.  By putting it on wide, congestion-free A-roads, where there was no need, it invites disregard... and when you see even police cars driving at 30+ on those roads as a matter of course, it sends a message about the 20 limits as a whole.


Spot on. Not just police either. London buses, council vehicles, off-duty ambulances...

Undiscriminating Borough-wide speed limits of 20 mph are daft and doomed to be disregarded, at least on the main thoroughfares. A 25 mph limit might have stood a more realistic chance of being observed.

IME the overall speed and behaviour has not got worse over the years. In fact I'd say it's improved, and the overall average speed might have decreased. But the number of antisocial dickheads has increased. Young men in scooters behaving like fuckwits appear to be legion these days.


----------



## teuchter (Aug 30, 2017)

spanglechick said:


> I don't have specific brixton experience, but the blanket 20 limits are completely ridiculous.  It should have been introduced on residential streets only.  By putting it on wide, congestion-free A-roads, *where there was no need*, it invites disregard... and when you see even police cars driving at 30+ on those roads as a matter of course, it sends a message about the 20 limits as a whole.



So it doesn't matter so much if pedestrians get killed on "wide, congestion free A-roads" roads as it does when they get killed on residential roads? Virtually every road in south london is part of regular walking routes for local residents. There is a reason for the 20mph limit. If police cars are breaking the limit, they should be taken to task, not used as an excuse.


----------



## teuchter (Aug 30, 2017)

Sirena said:


> I'm sorry but I must disagree.
> 
> I remember, back in the mid-80s day, when roads like Acre Lane were insane: when cars would do absolutely anything and everything at any speed from zero to light.  Cars racing at breakneck speeds would suddenly jerk to a stop because the driver had seen a friend or a pretty girl...  Traffic lights meant nothing
> 
> ...



I'm talking about a change in the last 3-4 years.


----------



## Winot (Aug 30, 2017)

A good reason for a borough-wide limit is that it is unambiguous and you know where you stand (TFL roads aside).


----------



## teuchter (Aug 30, 2017)

ViolentPanda said:


> I've seen twats actually *racing* on sports motorbikes along Upper Tulse Hill using both sides of the road in the middle of the day.  I tried to get the plate numbers to report to the OB, but guess what?  No number plates.



Sometimes the bottom end of Herne Hill Road is used by motorcyclists as some kind of test track. The other day, there was a guy going up and down, doing wheelies and the like, with folk standing on the pavement videoing him. I guess it is now on youtube somewhere.


----------



## Winot (Aug 30, 2017)

teuchter said:


> I'm talking about a change in the last 3-4 years.



What has changed in that period is significant cuts to police resources, and some forces deciding not to prioritise enforcement of road traffic laws.


----------



## spanglechick (Aug 30, 2017)

teuchter said:


> So it doesn't matter so much if pedestrians get killed on "wide, congestion free A-roads" roads as it does when they get killed on residential roads? Virtually every road in south london is part of regular walking routes for local residents. There is a reason for the 20mph limit. If police cars are breaking the limit, they should be taken to task, not used as an excuse.


These are roads which pedestrians rarely cross, four carriageways wide, no parked cars.  Have never been in need of traffic calming measures.  Some roads just aren't a natural fit for 20mph limits.


----------



## Gramsci (Aug 31, 2017)

T & P said:


> Spot on. Not just police either. London buses, council vehicles, off-duty ambulances...
> 
> Undiscriminating Borough-wide speed limits of 20 mph are daft and doomed to be disregarded, at least on the main thoroughfares. A 25 mph limit might have stood a more realistic chance of being observed.
> 
> IME the overall speed and behaviour has not got worse over the years. In fact I'd say it's improved, and the overall average speed might have decreased. But the number of antisocial dickheads has increased. Young men in scooters behaving like fuckwits appear to be legion these days.



Can you explain why they are daft? Is it because they don't make roads safer? Or that they will be so widely disregarded that it's daft to try and make people keep to them?


----------



## Gramsci (Aug 31, 2017)

spanglechick said:


> These are roads which pedestrians rarely cross, four carriageways wide, no parked cars.  Have never been in need of traffic calming measures.  Some roads just aren't a natural fit for 20mph limits.



That would be motorways. Which are separate from bulk of road network.

Which roads in Lambeth/ Brixton are u thinking of?


----------



## Gramsci (Aug 31, 2017)

I'm on Coldharbour Lane. Near LJ. I do find , particularly in evenings, that cars drive fast through LJ. LJ will be having ,at the CHL / Loughborough road junction,some traffic calming measures soon. So will see how effective this is.

This is happening despite the best efforts of the car lobby in LJ to water them down. Spurred on by there victory over the road closures they have been opposing any traffic calming proposal.

If the car lobby had there way there wouldn't be any 20mph speed limit.


----------



## T & P (Aug 31, 2017)

Gramsci said:


> Can you explain why they are daft? Is it because they don't make roads safer? Or that they will be so widely disregarded that it's daft to try and make people keep to them?


Going to bed now but I will reply in full tomorrow. Please remind me if I don't.


----------



## Gramsci (Aug 31, 2017)

teuchter said:


> So it doesn't matter so much if pedestrians get killed on "wide, congestion free A-roads" roads as it does when they get killed on residential roads? Virtually every road in south london is part of regular walking routes for local residents. There is a reason for the 20mph limit. If police cars are breaking the limit, they should be taken to task, not used as an excuse.



To backup at u say police keep to limits. Unless on emergency call. Im in the roads a lot and seen it. Take Islington. I was saying to someone a while back that police seem to drive slowly in Islington. Didn't know that Islington was first borough to do 20mph blanket speed limit.


----------



## Gramsci (Aug 31, 2017)

In London a 20mph limit is hardly imo an onerous condition on driving.

Driving on motorways between cities is a different matter.

My only problem with it is that delivery firms often expect there drivers to get jobs done quickly. There is a lot of pressure on drivers to turn the jobs around. Same with food deliveries. Though all these companies would deny it. Which is why see some mopeds take risks.

Most of the speeding traffic I see in LJ on Coldharbour Lane is private cars and motorcycles. They see a clear street of road and put their foot down.


----------



## teuchter (Aug 31, 2017)

I'm open to any evidence that suggests the contrary but it seems to me that in London the main things that affect how fast you get somewhere on the roads are traffic lights and congestion. Anyone who cycles will be familiar with the scenario where a car overtakes you only for you to catch it up at the next lights, and the same thing happens in between there and the next set of lights. Those who want 30mph instead of 20 on main roads - why? Because you think your journey will take less time?

In a sensible world we'd simply require vehicles to be fitted with speed limiters. This would remove the issue of impatience and frustration leading to speeding and erratic driving  - or the same things resulting from pressure from employers to get deliveries done quickly.


----------



## spanglechick (Aug 31, 2017)

Gramsci said:


> That would be motorways. Which are separate from bulk of road network.
> 
> Which roads in Lambeth/ Brixton are u thinking of?


Top of college road up to the junction with Crystal Palace parade.


----------



## teuchter (Aug 31, 2017)

spanglechick said:


> Top of college road up to the junction with Crystal Palace parade.


I've just looked on streetview. There are houses along each side of that road. It's also a very short stretch of dual carriageway with "normal" road at each end. Do you want to be able to go faster than 20mph just for that distance? How many seconds will it save you?


----------



## Ms T (Aug 31, 2017)

I often see utter twats speeding down Railton Rd. The speed calming measures mean they have to slow down then speed up again. I am also overtaken all the time while driving at 20 mph.


----------



## Winot (Aug 31, 2017)

Ms T said:


> I often see utter twats speeding down Railton Rd. The speed calming measures mean they have to slow down then speed up again. I am also overtaken all the time while driving at 20 mph.



I was once overtaken by a bus when I was trying to stick to the 20mph limit. It can be pretty intimidating.

My mum insists it's hard to stick to 20 in modern cars. That's nonsense of course, but I do think that it's a matter of habit and practice. I don't drive that often in a London but can tell without looking at the speedometer that my car is doing 30 and so it's easy to stick to that. I can't tell that I'm doing 20 and have to keep checking. I'm guessing that'll change over time.


----------



## spanglechick (Aug 31, 2017)

teuchter said:


> I've just looked on streetview. There are houses along each side of that road. It's also a very short stretch of dual carriageway with "normal" road at each end. Do you want to be able to go faster than 20mph just for that distance? How many seconds will it save you?


I'm not sure what you're looking at.  There are no houses on either side. On one side is woods and on the other is a drop down into a housing estate which is accessed further down.   Its about 400m long, at a guess? It's an example.  My route to work is only about a mile and a half so all my examples are going to be short.


----------



## lefteri (Aug 31, 2017)

teuchter said:


> I'm open to any evidence that suggests the contrary but it seems to me that in London the main things that affect how fast you get somewhere on the roads are traffic lights and congestion.



This is true and i assume is the reason google maps gives such uncannily accurate timings for routes in advance - there is rarely a deviation of more than a few minutes in reality and that is usually the journey taking a bit longer because of a heavy traffic patch which it could not have foreseeen


----------



## Winot (Aug 31, 2017)

spanglechick said:


> I'm not sure what you're looking at.  There are no houses on either side. On one side is woods and on the other is a drop down into a housing estate which is accessed further down.   Its about 400m long, at a guess? It's an example.  My route to work is only about a mile and a half so all my examples are going to be short.



If my maths is right you save about 15 seconds going at 30mph over 400m compared to going at 20mph.

Edit to add - and if your commute is only 1.5 miles then even if you have a clear unimpeded run you would only get there 90 seconds faster doing 30mph than doing 20mph. In other words, it's not the speed limit that's slowing you down.


----------



## spanglechick (Aug 31, 2017)

Winot said:


> If my maths is right you save about 15 seconds going at 30mph over 400m compared to going at 20mph.


It's not about getting there quicker.  It's about slowing right down to pootle along a wide, safe road with a load of pissed off vehicles behind you.  And no one does it.  My point was, that having stupid sections like that, encourages some people to ignore the 20 limit further down the road where it is needed.


----------



## Winot (Aug 31, 2017)

spanglechick said:


> It's not about getting there quicker.  It's about slowing right down to pootle along a wide, safe road with a load of pissed off vehicles behind you.  And no one does it.  My point was, that having stupid sections like that, encourages some people to ignore the 20 limit further down the road where it is needed.



This is why enforcement is needed, to bring about a change in what's acceptable. 20 years ago cars routinely drove in the bus lane on Brixton Rd in the morning. Now hardly any do, because there are bus lane cameras and they know they'll get fined.


----------



## Metroman (Aug 31, 2017)

Yes, things has definatly become worse and bus drivers seem to be more aggressive now!
On two occassions, while trying to stick to the 20 limit, they have come very close behind me and one even overtook me, swerved infront and slammed on his brakes


----------



## mauvais (Aug 31, 2017)

Winot said:


> This is why enforcement is needed, to bring about a change in what's acceptable. 20 years ago cars routinely drove in the bus lane on Brixton Rd in the morning. Now hardly any do, because there are bus lane cameras and they know they'll get fined.


There will never be routine or even significant enforcement of 20 limits, because of exactly what EG points out - the blanket approach breaches the relationship between authority and the 'reasonable' driver. If it were less of a blunt instrument and applied far more discriminately then there might have been a chance.


----------



## teuchter (Aug 31, 2017)

spanglechick said:


> I'm not sure what you're looking at.  There are no houses on either side. On one side is woods and on the other is a drop down into a housing estate which is accessed further down.   Its about 400m long, at a guess? It's an example.  My route to work is only about a mile and a half so all my examples are going to be short.


  

In the top image there's a bus stop on one side and access to houses on both sides.
In the bottom image there's access to houses on the left and a junction beyond to the right (which gives access to houses).
In both instances pedestrians will want to get from the things on one side of the road to the other. And it's on a curve, meaning sighting distances are reduced. The speed of vehicles therefore becomes particularly important. A 20mph limit makes this section of road safer than if it had a higher limit. The benefit to motorists of a higher limit would be very very marginal.


----------



## BigTom (Aug 31, 2017)

mauvais said:


> There will never be routine or even significant enforcement of 20 limits, because of exactly what EG points out - the blanket approach breaches the relationship between authority and the 'reasonable' driver. If it were less of a blunt instrument and applied far more discriminately then there might have been a chance.



Why do you say this? I don't understand why blanket rather than specific limits would change the attitude of the police?
In Birmingham and Manchester the 20mph limits are on specific roads (or probably more accurate to say in Birmingham that all residential areas are having 20mph limits put on them, with specific roads being left at 30mph). In Brum the west mids police are out more or less every day doing speed checks (yesterday caught someone at 53mph on a 20mph limit near my house!) whilst in Manchester iirc the police have said the limits are pointless as no-one obeys them and they won't enforce.

Surely down to the attitude of the MET police (or local branches) rather than whether the limits were applied blanket or specific?


----------



## teuchter (Aug 31, 2017)

mauvais said:


> the 'reasonable' driver



What does this actually mean?


----------



## Crispy (Aug 31, 2017)

I regularly see cars doing ridiculous speeds in the roads around my house (top of Brixton/Tulse Hill). While on my bike, I have been overtaken many times on the "wrong" side of the traffic islands on Upper Tulse Hill, one time coming *this* close to being a nasty head-on collision. It is almost all young men but not exclusively that gender and age. It is the single biggest fear I have for my kids.

I cannot wait for autonomous cars to price private cars off the road. People (all people, myself included) are terrible drivers.


----------



## Winot (Aug 31, 2017)

mauvais said:


> There will never be routine or even significant enforcement of 20 limits, because of exactly what EG points out - the blanket approach breaches the relationship between authority and the 'reasonable' driver. If it were less of a blunt instrument and applied far more discriminately then there might have been a chance.



Why is it any different to the previous blanket approach of a 30mph limit? Or 70mph on motorways?


----------



## mauvais (Aug 31, 2017)

teuchter said:


> What does this actually mean?


I'm sure this in itself is obvious, but nonetheless - in any context, there's a speed at which you can drive that is obviously, to any reasonable person, unsafe - the risk of something going wrong (e.g. a pedestrian stepping out and you being unable to stop) is too high. Conversely there's a speed at which a normal person would judge it to be safe. It's then possible for the authority to enforce a speed some way below that, which feels unnecessarily restrictive, and damages the trust relationship that compliance is dependent on.


----------



## mauvais (Aug 31, 2017)

Winot said:


> Why is it any different to the previous blanket approach of a 30mph limit? Or 70mph on motorways?


There weren't generally that many 30s where 30 felt inappropriately slow, especially when limits were set based around average speed of existing traffic. Where there were, compliance was probably poor. As regards 70 limits, compliance with this is itself often limited where traffic density permits. Enforcement is also lax.


----------



## Winot (Aug 31, 2017)

mauvais said:


> There weren't generally that many 30s where 30 felt inappropriately slow, especially when limits were set based around average speed of existing traffic. Where there were, compliance was probably poor. As regards 70 limits, compliance with this is itself often limited where traffic density permits. Enforcement is also lax.



I'd rather we had a legal system which was evidence based rather than based on the 'feeling' of the 'reasonable driver'. And the overwhelming evidence is that (a) cars travelling at 20 kill and seriously injure far fewer people than when travelling at 30 and (b) journeys are not significantly slower (in London at least) when travelling at 20 rather than 30.

So yes you are correct that there is and will be resistance (people like to speed as you have admitted) but this can and should be changed in the same way that attitudes to drink driving and wearing seatbelts have been changed.


----------



## teuchter (Aug 31, 2017)

mauvais said:


> I'm sure this in itself is obvious, but nonetheless - in any context, there's a speed at which you can drive that is obviously, to any reasonable person, unsafe - the risk of something going wrong (e.g. a pedestrian stepping out and you being unable to stop) is too high. Conversely there's a speed at which a normal person would judge it to be safe. It's then possible for the authority to enforce a speed some way below that, which feels unnecessarily restrictive, and damages the trust relationship that compliance is dependent on.


I don't understand what this "trust relationship" is. Who is trusting who? I don't trust any driver (including myself) to make good decisions about safety, because all drivers are humans, and placing a human in a car gives them a distorted view of risk. Or do you mean drivers trusting the authorities not to do them for speeding in situations where they, as a fallible human, made an assessment that breaking the speed limit was "safe"?


----------



## mauvais (Aug 31, 2017)

Winot said:


> I'd rather we had a legal system which was evidence based rather than based on the 'feeling' of the 'reasonable driver'. And the overwhelming evidence is that (a) cars travelling at 20 kill and seriously injure far fewer people than when travelling at 30 and (b) journeys are not significantly slower (in London at least) when travelling at 20 rather than 30.
> 
> So yes you are correct that there is and will be resistance (people like to speed as you have admitted) but this can and should be changed in the same way that attitudes to drink driving and wearing seatbelts have been changed.


That's great, but road safety relies on cooperation, acceptance and self-restraint by road users, not primarily enforcement, especially not in this era. For that to happen, the average person is going to have to buy in to whatever you have in mind, and that only happens if the risk/reward or inconvenience/risk balance is right. For example, seatbelts are a minor to negligible inconvenience in exchange for avoidance of very serious risk, and they are a personal initiative - noone gives you hassle for wearing one. Changing the average approach to speed requires (1) perception of a risk that in a blanket 20 approach often really isn't there and (2) overall adoption and cooperation, i.e. you as a compliant driver not being the outlier as the slowest person on the road holding everyone up and generating conflict. That's very difficult to achieve without enforcement.


----------



## Winot (Aug 31, 2017)

mauvais said:


> That's great, but road safety relies on cooperation, acceptance and self-restraint by road users, not primarily enforcement, especially not in this era. For that to happen, the average person is going to have to buy in to whatever you have in mind, and that only happens if the risk/reward or inconvenience/risk balance is right. For example, seatbelts are a minor to negligible inconvenience in exchange for avoidance of very serious risk, and they are a personal initiative - noone gives you hassle for wearing one. Changing the average approach to speed requires (1) perception of a risk that in a blanket 20 approach often really isn't there and (2) overall adoption and cooperation, i.e. you as a compliant driver not being the outlier as the slowest person on the road holding everyone up and generating conflict. That's very difficult to achieve without enforcement.



Yes I think you're right - it's not going to happen without enforcement.


----------



## mauvais (Aug 31, 2017)

teuchter said:


> I don't understand what this "trust relationship" is. Who is trusting who? I don't trust any driver (including myself) to make good decisions about safety, because all drivers are humans, and placing a human in a car gives them a distorted view of risk. Or do you mean drivers trusting the authorities not to do them for speeding in situations where they, as a fallible human, made an assessment that breaking the speed limit was "safe"?


There are next to no traffic police. Outside of average speed limits, there are a negligible number of fixed or mobile cameras, usually applied poorly. Noone is going to catch you for speeding, so when the roads are sparse enough that other people's choices don't make the decision for you, it's entirely your choice whether to comply with the posted speed limit or not, and if not, to what degree you don't.

Most reasonable people _do_ comply to some degree, because they don't like breaking the law even if there's noone there to see it, because delegation to that number is easier than making constantly variable contextual decisions, and because they think they might get caught. But this relationship between the number on the sign and the people complying with it depends on those numbers being trusted as appropriate by drivers. This is why speed limits for a particular road used to be based on, IIRC, the 85th percentile of measured speeds, to avoid reducing them to a point at which they were ignored.


----------



## mauvais (Aug 31, 2017)

Winot said:


> Yes I think you're right - it's not going to happen without enforcement.


Well, you're extremely unlikely to get any enforcement until the entire thing is completely disrupted - i.e. the world of purely autonomous vehicles. So until then, if you want to see behavioural changes amongst road users, you probably would be better off pursuing a more cooperative and contextual approach.


----------



## iamwithnail (Aug 31, 2017)

Crispy said:


> I regularly see cars doing ridiculous speeds in the roads around my house (top of Brixton/Tulse Hill). While on my bike, I have been overtaken many times on the "wrong" side of the traffic islands on Upper Tulse Hill, one time coming *this* close to being a nasty head-on collision. It is almost all young men but not exclusively that gender and age. It is the single biggest fear I have for my kids.
> 
> I cannot wait for autonomous cars to price private cars off the road. People (all people, myself included) are terrible drivers.



This, a hundred times this.  Different area, obv but same experince. We're on the one way by Peckham station, and people frequently drive (mostly motorbikes/scooters, but not always) down the wrong way, and as we're the exit route for the rat run people FLOOR it along to the station, hitting 50 or 60 at times.  Needs speed bumps.


----------



## mauvais (Aug 31, 2017)

teuchter said:


> View attachment 114690 View attachment 114691
> 
> In the top image there's a bus stop on one side and access to houses on both sides.
> In the bottom image there's access to houses on the left and a junction beyond to the right (which gives access to houses).
> In both instances pedestrians will want to get from the things on one side of the road to the other. And it's on a curve, meaning sighting distances are reduced. The speed of vehicles therefore becomes particularly important. A 20mph limit makes this section of road safer than if it had a higher limit. The benefit to motorists of a higher limit would be very very marginal.


I suspect you are well aware of this, but this is a good example of a failure. Visibility is excellent. There's no parked vehicles hiding pedestrians. There's a wide buffer between someone or something entering the roadway from either side and entering the path of a car, and an even wider one between someone entering the scene (e.g. leaving a house) and the same. There's separation of opposing directions and no other hazards like junctions.

20mph might make it safer (likely but not a given - factor in engagement & attentiveness), but banning all motorised traffic would make it safer too. Come to think of it, if safety is our game, compulsory purchase orders on the houses for subsequent demolition, elimination of the pavement and an end to public transport would be a good idea here. Probably not a vision that the ever-confusing 'reasonable person' would be into though.


----------



## spanglechick (Aug 31, 2017)

teuchter said:


> View attachment 114690 View attachment 114691
> 
> In the top image there's a bus stop on one side and access to houses on both sides.
> In the bottom image there's access to houses on the left and a junction beyond to the right (which gives access to houses).
> In both instances pedestrians will want to get from the things on one side of the road to the other. And it's on a curve, meaning sighting distances are reduced. The speed of vehicles therefore becomes particularly important. A 20mph limit makes this section of road safer than if it had a higher limit. The benefit to motorists of a higher limit would be very very marginal.


As your little map shows,both of those pics are very close together, and one is right at the end of the bit I was talking about, while the other isn't in it at all.   Where's your picture of the road further up towards CPP?


----------



## teuchter (Aug 31, 2017)

mauvais said:


> I suspect you are well aware of this, but this is a good example of a failure. Visibility is excellent. There's no parked vehicles hiding pedestrians. There's a wide buffer between someone or something entering the roadway from either side and entering the path of a car, and an even wider one between someone entering the scene (e.g. leaving a house) and the same. There's separation of opposing directions and no other hazards like junctions.



I disagree with your assessment. There are two junctions, and there is a relatively sharp curve. And a bus stop, and people often cross roads near bus stops.

But what would be the benefit of changing just this short stretch of road to a 30 or 40 limit, when the road each side of it has a 20 limit?

I think your position is that there shouldn't be a blanket 20 limit at all - in which case questions about this particular location are academic.


----------



## teuchter (Aug 31, 2017)

spanglechick said:


> As your little map shows,both of those pics are very close together, and one is right at the end of the bit I was talking about, while the other isn't in it at all.   Where's your picture of the road further up towards CPP?



The two pictures are at each end of the bit I thought you were talking about, based on a best match with your description ("four carriageways wide"). If you'd like to clarify which section you meant, please go ahead.


----------



## T & P (Aug 31, 2017)

Gramsci said:


> Can you explain why they are daft? Is it because they don't make roads safer? Or that they will be so widely disregarded that it's daft to try and make people keep to them?


It is because on many if not most main roads a 20mph speed limit is excessively low, and by a significant degree. It is a complete overkill, and as such it all but guarantees most drivers are likely to disregard it altogether.

One unsettling fact about the issue of road safety is that anyone who is not campaigning for a full ban on motor vehicles in urban areas is by default accepting a compromise between safety and practicality, and one that will cost lives. Lives which would have been saved by a complete ban on motor vehicles.

The argument that reducing speed limits on all roads to 20 mph invariably makes them safer and therefore is the only logical option is not actually as straightforward as it might seem. Reducing speeds to 10 mph would make the streets far safer still and would probably cut off road accident deaths by more than 90%. Yet I suspect most people would be against imposing a 10 mph limit, because they recognise a compromise must exist between safety and practicality, even if it tragically costs more lives.

So the argument should perhaps be 'which speed limit is the best compromise between safety and practicality', since many of us are likely to agree that there will have to be a compromise somewhere. How do we go about finding that out though? Hell, I don't know. I'm not sure anyone does, or if the perfect speed limit can be proven. That is where discussion about the merits of relative speeds come in.

It is my opinion that on main roads 20 mph is absurdly slow and completely unfit for purpose. And yet I, and indeed a majority of other drivers IME, will voluntarily travel at speeds of 20 mph or even less on smaller residential roads, even when the limit actually allows for 30 mph. Most drivers are actually capable of driving at sensible speeds according to road conditions, though there are always a few dickheads about of course.

It should also be considered that car engine set-ups are not exactly optimised for 20 mph. They are far more efficient and less polluting on 4th gear at 30 mph. Pollution is also a significant factor in premature deaths, and any increase on those might well cancel out the lives saved by blanket 20 mph limits.

Regarding the 'amount-of-seconds-saved' argument mentioned several times upthread, it is far more complex than quoting a paltry 20-second saving for a small stretch of a particular street. Most vehicle journeys will involve several miles, not a few hundred yards. And as most routes in London involve travelling on main roads for much of the journey, those few seconds over a particular stretch of a particular road become many minutes over the entire journey if the main roads are all slapped a 20 mph limit. This will very likely translate as a significant % increase in total journey times across London once every road is 20 mph, which at this rate they will be before long, save a few TFL controlled ones.

I am sure there are very good arguments to be made for 20 mph limits as well. But all I'm saying is that "safer must always been the best overall solution" is not necessarily true in every scenario.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Aug 31, 2017)

Isn't that 20mph limit ignored by 80% of drivers or something?.


----------



## spanglechick (Aug 31, 2017)

teuchter said:


> The two pictures are at each end of the bit I thought you were talking about, based on a best match with your description ("four carriageways wide"). If you'd like to clarify which section you meant, please go ahead.


I mentioned other things in the description too, and in my last post I clarified that.  You've ignored them. You're being a dick as you have form for.  *shrug* you'll have to play with yourself.   Not enough hours in my life to get dragged into one of your masterbatory discursive wormholes.  

Nor is the specific example on my specific commute the be all and end all of the broader point.  If people have reason to see part of a law as ridiculous, it may encourage them to disregard the whole thing.


----------



## snowy_again (Aug 31, 2017)

The 20mph is based on the death rate / injury rate of a collision with a person isn't it: ""a fatality risk of 1.5% at 20 mph versus 8% at 30 mph" 

If getting somewhere about 3 minutes earlier is more important than the increased risk of killing someone, I'd suggest they're not the equipped to be driving a car.


----------



## Winot (Aug 31, 2017)

T & P said:


> The argument that reducing speed limits on all roads to 20 mph invariably makes them safer and therefore is the only logical option is not actually as straightforward as it might seem. Reducing speeds to 10 mph would make the streets far safer still and would probably cut off road accident deaths by more than 90%. Yet I suspect most people would be against imposing a 10 mph limit, because they recognise a compromise must exist between safety and practicality, even if it tragically costs more lives.
> 
> So the argument should perhaps be 'which speed limit is the best compromise between safety and practicality', since many of us are likely to agree that there will have to be a compromise somewhere. How do we go about finding that out though? Hell, I don't know. I'm not sure anyone does, or if the perfect speed limit can be proven. That is where discussion about the merits of relative speeds come in.
> 
> ...



Some thoughtful points, thanks.

You are right that it is a trade-off. However the graph of speed against likelihood of injury/death goes up more sharply from 20 -> 30 than from 10 -> 20. The best guess seems to be a fatality risk of 1.5% at 20 mph versus 8% at 30 mph (source - ROSPA pdf).

Also there seem to be stats to show that the average speed of traffic on the London roads is between 10-20mph (depending on time of day/region) so that is a good reason for choosing 20mph as a limit not 10mph.

The pollution argument is a good one, although if that was pushed to it's limit we would increase speed limits to 56mph everywhere (or whatever the figure is). It does seem to be a bit more complex than "30 less pollutuing than 20" though (detail in Guardian here).


----------



## Winot (Aug 31, 2017)

Ah, Snowy beat me to it.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Aug 31, 2017)

snowy_again said:


> The 20mph is based on the death rate / injury rate of a collision with a person isn't it: ""a fatality risk of 1.5% at 20 mph versus 8% at 30 mph"


I realise this may seem like an outlandish suggestion, to some. But I'm going to throw it out there anyway.
How about not walking out in front of moving vehicles, regardless of the speed they're travelling at?


----------



## snowy_again (Aug 31, 2017)

Because we luckily don't have jaywalking laws in England, and people came before cars? 

Have you read the highway code?


----------



## Saul Goodman (Aug 31, 2017)

snowy_again said:


> Because we luckily don't have jaywalking laws in England, and people came before cars?
> 
> Have you read the highway code?


Have you read the Green Cross Code?


----------



## snowy_again (Aug 31, 2017)

Yes, but that was a public campaign and not part of the Road Traffic Act, unless Tufty snuck into it quietly...


----------



## Saul Goodman (Aug 31, 2017)

Just in case anyone hasn't seen them


----------



## teuchter (Aug 31, 2017)

spanglechick said:


> I mentioned other things in the description too, and in my last post I clarified that.  You've ignored them. You're being a dick as you have form for.  *shrug* you'll have to play with yourself.   Not enough hours in my life to get dragged into one of your masterbatory discursive wormholes.



If you're going to launch completely unprovoked into a load of unnecessary personal abuse then please do go away.


----------



## mauvais (Aug 31, 2017)

Winot said:


> Some thoughtful points, thanks.
> 
> You are right that it is a trade-off. However the graph of speed against likelihood of injury/death goes up more sharply from 20 -> 30 than from 10 -> 20. The best guess seems to be a fatality risk of 1.5% at 20 mph versus 8% at 30 mph (source - ROSPA pdf).
> 
> ...


What's average speed? Is it conditional on being freely moving traffic and not lowered by queues? If it falls into the 10mph range then we're surely not talking about environments where speed choices come into it, and thus not a helpful metric.

On your first point, the chance of fatality risk for a pedestrian being hit by a car at 70mph (or an HGV at 56mph) must be approaching 100%. However we accept this in the context of motorways and rural dual carriageways because the chance of this type of collision is very small.

Speed limits are never set by the mere risk of death in a collision, despite those adverts about chance of survival. They're meant to be set, amongst other less significant things, by the risk of a collision and resultant KSI event.

In cramped urban residential streets with narrow pavements, parked cars and poor visibility, that risk goes up dramatically, which is where 20mph zones are both legitimate and valuable - places like Portsmouth if you've ever had the misfortune to have been there. But this isn't universally the case.


----------



## Gramsci (Aug 31, 2017)

T & P said:


> It is because on many if not most main roads a 20mph speed limit is excessively low, and by a significant degree. It is a complete overkill, and as such it all but guarantees most drivers are likely to disregard it altogether.
> 
> One unsettling fact about the issue of road safety is that anyone who is not campaigning for a full ban on motor vehicles in urban areas is by default accepting a compromise between safety and practicality, and one that will cost lives. Lives which would have been saved by a complete ban on motor vehicles.
> 
> ...



To summarise in answer to my question your view is that 20mph limit is "overkill" and won't be observed by most otherwise law abiding citizens. 

Your other argument is increase in journey times for the motorist. I'm not clear. Are you saying this is a bad thing? A reason not to have 20mph limit?

snowy_again has answered why 20mph limit saves lives.


----------



## mauvais (Aug 31, 2017)

teuchter said:


> I disagree with your assessment. There are two junctions, and there is a relatively sharp curve. And a bus stop, and people often cross roads near bus stops.
> 
> But what would be the benefit of changing just this short stretch of road to a 30 or 40 limit, when the road each side of it has a 20 limit?
> 
> I think your position is that there shouldn't be a blanket 20 limit at all - in which case questions about this particular location are academic.


If that's a relatively sharp curve then you either shouldn't be driving at all or you're going much too fast.

My position is both that blanket limits are counterproductive _and_ that the road you highlight is a good example of exactly that.


----------



## Gramsci (Aug 31, 2017)

mauvais said:


> Well, you're extremely unlikely to get any enforcement until the entire thing is completely disrupted - i.e. the world of purely autonomous vehicles. So until then, if you want to see behavioural changes amongst road users, you probably would be better off pursuing a more cooperative and contextual approach.



My experience in Loughborough Junction is that the car lobby want nothing that might impede the right of the motorist to use the roads.

teuchter asked you what you mean by "trust relationship" between the "reasonable" person and authority. 

There is a whole load of baggage behind what the "reasonable" person is and the "trust relationship"

It's insidiously right wing. It's the why are they having a go at me. Ive worked hard and bought my own car. The police should be out there catching the real criminals. It smacks of Daily Mail.

A 20mph speed limit in London is not a big deal. It's not an monetary extra charge on people, it's not taking away there cars, it's not an infringement on one's personal liberty.


----------



## mauvais (Aug 31, 2017)

Gramsci said:


> My experience in Loughborough Junction is that the car lobby want nothing that might impede the right of the motorist to use the roads.
> 
> teuchter asked you what you mean by "trust relationship" between the "reasonable" person and authority.
> 
> ...


There is no meaningful car lobby outside of niche groups totally unrelated to the average driver. Nor is car ownership somehow meaningfully right-wing. And the standard of a reasonable person (cf 'man on the Clapham omnibus') is an integral part of English law.

If you insist on bringing politics into it, a set of unnecessarily restrictive legislation for no demonstrable benefit is authoritarianism. Not having the faith in people to behave appropriately given the freedom to do so is a right wing hallmark. You'll presumably accept it because you don't like the subject of the action but I bet you wouldn't do so elsewhere.

On a practical level, as mentioned before, there is no hope of meaningful enforcement of anything in the short to medium term so you had better hope to leverage the self-control and positive qualities of ordinary drivers rather than trying to unilaterally apply control on your say so.

Personally I think the typical standard of driving in the UK is generally well intentioned and actually more competent than some might think, but overall insufficient and very much worthy of initiatives to improve it. I think that with a few exceptions like environmental engineering, the only answer is behavioural change through driver education and engagement, and you don't achieve that unilaterally through blunt force - quite the opposite.


----------



## Gramsci (Aug 31, 2017)

mauvais said:


> There is no meaningful car lobby outside of niche groups totally unrelated to the average driver. Nor is car ownership somehow meaningfully right-wing. And the standard of a reasonable person (cf 'man on the Clapham omnibus') is an integral part of English law.
> 
> If you insist on bringing politics into it, a set of unnecessarily restrictive legislation for no demonstrable benefit is authoritarianism. Not having the faith in people to behave appropriately given the freedom to do so is a right wing hallmark. You'll presumably accept it because you don't like the subject of the action but I bet you wouldn't do so elsewhere.
> 
> ...



Not on my say so. 20mph limit was Lambeth Labour party commitment. They were democratically elected.

Yes there is a car lobby. I've seen it in LJ.

On authoritarianism. I was specific in saying this was not an infringement of individual liberty, not an extra tax on people or taking away people's right to own a car. For example if someone wants to smoke dope it's an individual choice that doesn't effects others. So imo it should be legalized Nor am I advocating banning car ownership. No your post confirms my view you sound like Daily Mail.

A 20mph speed limit won't stop you driving in London. I fail to see how this is an infringement on your right to own and drive a car. If I was advocating banning car ownership there might be an argument that this would be authoritarian. I'm not.


----------



## Gramsci (Aug 31, 2017)

mauvais said:


> There is no meaningful car lobby outside of niche groups totally unrelated to the average driver. Nor is car ownership somehow meaningfully right-wing. And the standard of a reasonable person (cf 'man on the Clapham omnibus') is an integral part of English law.
> 
> If you insist on bringing politics into it, a set of unnecessarily restrictive legislation for no demonstrable benefit is authoritarianism. Not having the faith in people to behave appropriately given the freedom to do so is a right wing hallmark. You'll presumably accept it because you don't like the subject of the action but I bet you wouldn't do so elsewhere.
> 
> ...



I insist on "bringing politics into it". Another insidious right wing view. There are people like you who are reasonable non political types and then there are ideological people out of touch with the ordinary man in the street. It's bollox.


----------



## teuchter (Aug 31, 2017)

mauvais said:


> If that's a relatively sharp curve then you either shouldn't be driving at all or you're going much too fast.



I am not a highway designer. But in my estimation, based on google streetview/overhead view, if someone were about to cross the road opposite the bus stop, then for a driver approaching from the west, they might come into view about 60m away, on account of the curve. Here are the desired/minimum visibility distances for pedestrian crossings:

 
You can see that a distance of 60m is ok for 25mph traffic, questionable for 30mph traffic, and not acceptable for 35mph traffic.

I know that this table is intended for use with formal pedestrian crossings. However, part of the idea behind the 20mph initiative is to make Lambeth's streets more amenable to and safer for pedestrians. In my opinion, which you may not agree with, there should be a principle that within reason pedestrians can cross the street safely and not just at formal crossings. Taking this location as an example, if I wanted to cross the street to get to the bus stop, then with traffic going at 30 or 40mph, its questionable whether I can do it safely at that point on the road, even if I look properly before I step out. With traffic going at 20mph, it seems that it should be pretty safe, because if the road is clear for 60m, then should a car appear just after I step out it will have plenty of distance to slow down or stop. This is before we consider the scenario where a kid runs out without looking, and is hit by a vehicle, and the likely consequences at each speed.

You may say this example is contrived, and it is, partly. But I make it to illustrate the point that 20mph vs 30mph traffic does make a difference, even on a road like this. It makes a difference to the safety with which someone can cross the road at a semi-arbitary location. In my opinion that's an important difference. A 20mph limit on this stretch of road makes things better for pedestrians. Of course the counter argument is that it's disproportionate to the disbenefit to car drivers. There are mutterings about increased journey times, but no-one seems able to provide any evidence that this is really a significant problem.


----------



## teuchter (Aug 31, 2017)

mauvais said:


> There is no meaningful car lobby outside of niche groups totally unrelated to the average driver.


As Gramsci says, it was very visible and very real here recently.


mauvais said:


> Nor is car ownership somehow meaningfully right-wing.


This thread is about London. In London there is no need for a car. There is excellent public transport. Public transport is inherently socialist - it is available to and shared by everyone. Using a private car is all about prioritising your own convenience, at the expense of others. It's also something that is only available to those who can afford it.



mauvais said:


> Not having the faith in people to behave appropriately given the freedom to do so is a right wing hallmark.


  Faith doesn't come into it - my observation of what people actually do in the area where I live, where they are given the freedom to drive around seemingly without any enforcement of speed limits is that they drive dangerously. And I don't mean that in the sort of way where I am ticking them off on technical points, I mean in the way that I genuinely fear that I will witness someone getting seriously hurt or worse within view of my front door. It's not people going at 35 in a 30 zone or even 35 in a 20 zone; it's people going 40 and 50 and I suspect in some cases above that. When you can regularly hear tyres screeching as cars turn into a junction on a residential street I think you can conclude that drivers are not behaving "appropriately".


----------



## T & P (Aug 31, 2017)

Gramsci said:


> To summarise in answer to my question your view is that 20mph limit is "overkill" and won't be observed by most otherwise law abiding citizens.
> 
> Your other argument is increase in journey times for the motorist. I'm not clear. Are you saying this is a bad thing? A reason not to have 20mph limit?
> 
> snowy_again has answered why 20mph limit saves lives.


I'm not sure what else I can add. If we're still talking about my initial use of the word daft, I'm happy to consider the possibility that it was the wrong term. But elsewhere in the post I've explained my reasons for believing a 20 mph limit on main roads is too low as clearly as I'm likely to outline them.


----------



## teuchter (Sep 1, 2017)

T & P said:


> It should also be considered that car engine set-ups are not exactly optimised for 20 mph. *They are far more efficient and less polluting on 4th gear at 30 mph*. Pollution is also a significant factor in premature deaths, and *any increase on those might well cancel out the lives saved by blanket 20 mph limits*.
> 
> Regarding the 'amount-of-seconds-saved' argument mentioned several times upthread, it is far more complex than quoting a paltry 20-second saving for a small stretch of a particular street. Most vehicle journeys will involve several miles, not a few hundred yards. And as most routes in London involve travelling on main roads for much of the journey, those few seconds over a particular stretch of a particular road become many minutes over the entire journey if the main roads are all slapped a 20 mph limit. *This will very likely translate as a significant % increase in total journey times across London once every road is 20 mph*, which at this rate they will be before long, save a few TFL controlled ones.



Are you able to offer any evidence for the bits I've highlighted in bold above? Or are they just speculation presented as facts?

Here is what the Rospa report has to say about pollution:



> As well as road safety benefits, it is important to highlight the contribution that 20mph zones can have in
> improving air quality, reducing noise pollution and encouraging more physical activity, such as walking and
> cycling, by contributing towards a safer environment. The money spent on the schemes can also greatly
> improve the residential area.
> ...


----------



## teuchter (Sep 1, 2017)

...and the results of a 2013 City of London study were:



> It is concluded that it would be incorrect to assume a 20mph speed restriction would be
> detrimental to ambient local air quality, as the effects on vehicle emissions are mixed



And a study from the 1990s



> Although the EPA MOBILE model would indicate that slowing down traffic typically increases emissions, empirical research indicates the opposite in many cases. Research in Germany has shown that the greater the speed of vehicles in built-up areas, the higher is the incidence of acceleration, deceleration, and braking, all of which increase air pollution. German research indicates that traffic calming reduces idle times by 15 percent, gear changing by 12 percent, brake use by 14 percent, and gasoline use by 12 percent (Newman and Kenworthy 1992, 39–40). This slower and calmer style of driving reduces emissions, as demonstrated by an evaluation in Buxtehude, Germany. Table E-1 shows the relative change in emissions and fuel use when the speed limit is cut from 50 kph (31 mph) to 30 kph (19 mph) for two different driving styles. Even aggressive driving under the slower speed limit produces lower emissions (but higher fuel use) than under the higher speed limit, although calm driving produces greater reductions for most emissions and net fuel savings (Newman and Kenworthy 1992, 39 –40).


----------



## T & P (Sep 1, 2017)

snowy_again said:


> Because we luckily don't have jaywalking laws in England, and people came before cars?
> 
> Have you read the highway code?


I'm not so sure looking at it from the angle of who should come first is the most logical approach. That pedestrians are much more vulnerable than people in motor vehicles or on bikes/ cycles is a given. But if the emphasis is on preventing accidents in the first place, then establishing rules and who gets priority shouldn't be about which road user is more vulnerable, but on the stopping distance of the user in question.

The stopping distance of a walking pedestrian is one foot. That of a car travelling at 30 mph is 45 times greater. Do you really think it makes more sense to give right of way to the road user who can come to a full stop within a single second and a single foot over a road user who needs tens of times the distance? It shouldn't be about vulnerability, it should be about simple physics and common sense.

If someone suggested pedestrians should be given priority over trains at level crossings they'd be rightly be laughed off the park. While such analogy is of course a bit of a stretch compared with cars on city streets, the basic concept and the physics are exactly the same. You don't give priority to the road user who is more vulnerable- you give it to the one for whom braking in time to avoid a collision would be far more difficult and lengthy.


----------



## teuchter (Sep 1, 2017)

T & P said:


> I'm not so sure looking at it from the angle of who should come first is the most logical approach. That pedestrians are much more vulnerable than people in motor vehicles or on bikes/ cycles is a given. But if the emphasis is on preventing accidents in the first place, then establishing rules and who gets priority shouldn't be about which road user is more vulnerable, but on the stopping distance of the user in question.
> 
> The stopping distance of a walking pedestrian is one foot. That of a car travelling at 30 mph is 45 times greater. Do you really think it makes more sense to give right of way to the road user who can come to a full stop within a single second and a single foot over a road user who needs tens of times the distance? It shouldn't be about vulnerability, it should be about simple physics and common sense.
> 
> If someone suggested pedestrians should be given priority over trains at level crossings they'd be rightly be laughed off the park. While such analogy is of course a bit of a stretch compared with cars on city streets, the basic concept and the physics are exactly the same. You don't give priority to the road user who is more vulnerable- you give it to the one for whom braking in time to avoid a collision would be far more difficult and lengthy.


The train analogy is not "a bit of a stretch" - it's completely irrelevant. Railways are almost entirely segregated from people's day-to-day urban realm. It's this segregation that allows them to transport people medium-long distances at speed and in London the railways form part of the public transport system which means that anyone can get around the city pretty easily without needing private transport of their own. Level crossings are inherently dangerous and Network Rail is in the process of eliminating as many of them as possible.

Assigning priority according to stopping distance creates a situation where, if one or other party makes a mistake, someone is liable to get hurt. And it will nearly always be the pedestrian who gets hurt. The onus should be on the person creating the danger in the situation to mitigate it. The street is a pretty safe place until someone wants to decide to drive a motor vehicle onto it. The thinking you are outlining is hopelessly outdated, and it's what created the car-dominated town planning that destroyed so many of the UK's town centres, as well as much of the urban environment you see in the USA where in some places you are simply considered a nutter if you want to walk to the shop. The thinking that the 20mph limits come out of attempts to learn from those mistakes.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Sep 1, 2017)

teuchter said:


> The train analogy is not "a bit of a stretch" - it's completely irrelevant.


Like you say, trains are public transport that everyone can use to speed around London.
So let's limit trains to 20mph, just in case one crashes and passengers are injured or killed.


----------



## mauvais (Sep 1, 2017)

teuchter said:


> Faith doesn't come into it - my observation of what people actually do in the area where I live, where they are given the freedom to drive around seemingly without any enforcement of speed limits is that they drive dangerously. And I don't mean that in the sort of way where I am ticking them off on technical points, I mean in the way that I genuinely fear that I will witness someone getting seriously hurt or worse within view of my front door. It's not people going at 35 in a 30 zone or even 35 in a 20 zone; it's people going 40 and 50 and I suspect in some cases above that. When you can regularly hear tyres screeching as cars turn into a junction on a residential street I think you can conclude that drivers are not behaving "appropriately".


I don't doubt this, and I sympathise. However it's probably sufficiently disconnected from both the behaviour of crowds and compliance with the law that speed limits really don't make any difference. It's into the realms of ASB or non-speed traffic offences, e.g. DWDCA. So a discussion about 20 vs 30 is separate to this.

Unfortunately I don't have much in the way of suggestions for you. If you can identify a regular pattern (place and time window) then there was a time in which you could raise it and road traffic police would be interested in attending to see if they caught anyone. Whether that's still the case, especially in London, I don't know.


----------



## Lizzy Mac (Sep 1, 2017)

Saul Goodman said:


> Just in case anyone hasn't seen them



That (No 1) was filmed outside my school.  I remember it.  Ahhhh.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Sep 1, 2017)

If drivers always drove appropriate to the conditions then we wouldn't need speed limits at all, but they don't. It's a bit like broken windows theory, the more they know the rules can be disregarded, the more they find reasons to break them...


----------



## T & P (Sep 1, 2017)

teuchter said:


> Are you able to offer any evidence for the bits I've highlighted in bold above? Or are they just speculation presented as facts?


 The first bit is certainly speculation based on a basic understanding of mechanics. Higher revs mean higher fuel comsumption. I have driven many, many different types and models of cars in my life, and without fail every single one of them needed to be medium to high RPMs in 2nd gear to do sustained travel at 20 mph, while all of them travelled comfortably in low reves at 30mph in 4th gear. It is of course possible and even likely that if 20 mph became the norm everywhere, future cars would be released with a gearbox optimised for sustained travel at 20 mph. But that is not the case now.


----------



## T & P (Sep 1, 2017)

teuchter said:


> Assigning priority according to stopping distance creates a situation where, if one or other party makes a mistake, someone is liable to get hurt. And it will nearly always be the pedestrian who gets hurt. The onus should be on the person creating the danger in the situation to mitigate it. The street is a pretty safe place until someone wants to decide to drive a motor vehicle onto it. The thinking you are outlining is hopelessly outdated, and it's what created the car-dominated town planning that destroyed so many of the UK's town centres, as well as much of the urban environment you see in the USA where in some places you are simply considered a nutter if you want to walk to the shop. The thinking that the 20mph limits come out of attempts to learn from those mistakes.


 If cars are to be tolerated in towns and cities, then you cannot magic away basic facts regarding mass weight, speed and braking distance. Either we ban motor vehicles altogether, or we allow them to be used in urban areas and try to prevent accidents by the most effective way possible. And the most effective way possible is try to avoid a collision by the most logical way, rather than trying to put all the responsibility and all the blame on one party only. Because even at 20 mph there will still be many collisions.

Do you believe it is possible for a pedestrian to be hit by a motor vehicle and be the pedestrian's fault?


----------



## Winot (Sep 1, 2017)

T & P said:


> The first bit is certainly speculation based on a basic understanding of mechanics. Higher revs mean higher fuel comsumption. I have driven many, many different types and models of cars in my life, and without fail every single one of them needed to be medium to high RPMs in 2nd gear to do sustained travel at 20 mph, while all of them travelled comfortably in low reves at 30mph in 4th gear. It is of course possible and even likely that if 20 mph became the norm everywhere, future cars would be released with a gearbox optimised for sustained travel at 20 mph. But that is not the case now.



There is some stuff on the AA website from 2008 which supports your position but it might be more complicated than that as noted in the Guardian link I posted upthread.


----------



## teuchter (Sep 1, 2017)

T & P said:


> The first bit is certainly speculation based on a basic understanding of mechanics. Higher revs mean higher fuel comsumption. I have driven many, many different types and models of cars in my life, and without fail every single one of them needed to be medium to high RPMs in 2nd gear to do sustained travel at 20 mph, while all of them travelled comfortably in low reves at 30mph in 4th gear. It is of course possible and even likely that if 20 mph became the norm everywhere, future cars would be released with a gearbox optimised for sustained travel at 20 mph. But that is not the case now.


The evidence - some of which I posted above - simply does not seem to support the idea that a drop from 30 to 20 is likely to increase pollution. It seems that a complicated mix of factors come into play which mean that it's not possible to say there would be a significant change in either direction. I don't think it's a valid reason to object to a lowering of the speed limit. It may be a valid reason to try and reduce the use of speed humps as a traffic calming device though.

Also as you rightly point out, if 20mph limits become more the norm, then car manufacturers can follow suit in the longer term.


----------



## teuchter (Sep 1, 2017)

T & P said:


> If cars are to be tolerated in towns and cities, then you cannot magic away basic facts regarding mass weight, speed and braking distance. Either we ban motor vehicles altogether, or we allow them to be used in urban areas and try to prevent accidents by the most effective way possible. And the most effective way possible is try to avoid a collision by the most logical way, rather than trying to put all the responsibility and all the blame on one party only. Because even at 20 mph there will still be many collisions.
> 
> Do you believe it is possible for a pedestrian to be hit by a motor vehicle and be the pedestrian's fault?



Depends exactly what you mean by "their fault". At the moment, the fact is, it is risky for me to cross the road without taking quite a lot of care. So if I step out into the road without looking, and get hit by a car doing 20 or 30 then, in the sense that I have taken an action which is obviously risky, it is "my fault".

The fact is that I'd like to go further than 20mph speed limits. I do think we should ban motor vehicles altogether in some situations, and possibly ban private cars altogether, in some situations. I'd like London's urban environment to be much, much, more optimised for pedestrians than it is at present. An environment where, at least on some streets, you simply don't have to watch out for speeding cars if you want to cross from one side to the other. In this scenario, if I were to be hit by a car, then no it would not be my fault, because we would be operating under a different regime from the one we must put up with at present. Some think this is an extreme position and yet things like this have been successfully implemented in other places.

It's not an "either or" choice, between allowing vehicles or not allowing vehicles. There's a sliding scale, one end of which represents something like the worst kind of American car city, and the other end of which represents somewhere entirely pedestrianised. I'd like London to move closer to the latter end of that scale, and I'd probably like it moved a lot further than most people would. But the attempts at reductio ad absurdium arguments, where we end up virtually banning motor vehicles altogether, don't work in my opinion, because I don't think that's an absurd position.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Sep 1, 2017)

Gramsci said:


> On authoritarianism. I was specific in saying this was not an infringement of individual liberty, not an extra tax on people or taking away people's right to own a car.



How about we Install traffic light controlled pedestrian crossings at key locations, and make it illegal for anyone to cross the road at anywhere but these locations?

This is not an infringement of individual liberty, not an extra tax on people or taking away people's right to walk or cross the road.


----------



## Rushy (Sep 1, 2017)

Saul Goodman said:


> How about we Install traffic light controlled pedestrian crossings at key locations, and make it illegal for anyone to cross the road at anywhere but these locations?
> 
> This is not an infringement of individual liberty, not an extra tax on people or taking away people's right to walk or cross the road.


Jay walking is illegal in Germany. Certainly feels like an infringement of personal liberty when told off for doing so.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Sep 1, 2017)

Rushy said:


> Jay walking is illegal in Germany. Certainly feels like an infringement of personal liberty when told off for doing so.


It should be illegal everywhere.


----------



## Rushy (Sep 1, 2017)

Saul Goodman said:


> It should be illegal everywhere.


Oh.


----------



## maomao (Sep 1, 2017)

Just ignore the troll. Perfectly civilised and interesting conversation happening here.


----------



## teuchter (Sep 1, 2017)

The situation in Germany is that you are not allowed to cross on a red man. You are allowed to cross the road anywhere except for within 30 or 40m of a formal crossing point.

We could build light-controlled pedestrian crossings at 30m intervals throughout london. I propose the cost of this be borne by motorists, if it's what they want.


----------



## teuchter (Sep 1, 2017)

Returning to the stuff about journey times - and the paranoia that lower speed limits will have terrible consequences in this regard. As I said before, it's congestion and traffic lights that slow you down in an urban setting. And traffic lights are an attempt to manage the problems caused by fast moving traffic. Slower traffic overall reduces the need for controlled junctions and it also reduces the need for signaled pedestrian crossings. The full extension of this is the "shared space" concept. This has been discussed on other threads. Unfortunately, it seems we're not ready for it, culturally, in this country yet.

Even if we can't make shared space work, then a general approach of slower speeds and fewer controlled junctions/crossings can have benefits for drivers *and* pedestrians. Traffic lights slow both groups of road users down. My walk into brixton is considerably slower than it would be otherwise, if there were no traffic, or traffic that was slow enough that i could cross amongst it. To get to the tube station i have to cross about 6 streams of traffic. At some of these there's traffic lights to wait for; at some there's no control but a gap in traffic to wait for. I would argue that car journeys are only marginally affected by pedestrians, because in most cases, controlled crossings are combined with junctions where there would be traffic lights anyway. It's the motor traffic that generates the problem. This is the relevance of the comment above that pedestrians "came first".


----------



## Saul Goodman (Sep 1, 2017)

maomao said:


> Just ignore the troll. Perfectly civilised and interesting conversation happening here.


It was perfectly civilised until you turned up.
Wanker.


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 1, 2017)

T & P said:


> I'm not so sure looking at it from the angle of who should come first is the most logical approach. That pedestrians are much more vulnerable than people in motor vehicles or on bikes/ cycles is a given. But if the emphasis is on preventing accidents in the first place, then establishing rules and who gets priority shouldn't be about which road user is more vulnerable, but on the stopping distance of the user in question.
> 
> The stopping distance of a walking pedestrian is one foot. That of a car travelling at 30 mph is 45 times greater. Do you really think it makes more sense to give right of way to the road user who can come to a full stop within a single second and a single foot over a road user who needs tens of times the distance? It shouldn't be about vulnerability, it should be about simple physics and common sense.
> 
> If someone suggested pedestrians should be given priority over trains at level crossings they'd be rightly be laughed off the park. While such analogy is of course a bit of a stretch compared with cars on city streets, the basic concept and the physics are exactly the same. You don't give priority to the road user who is more vulnerable- you give it to the one for whom braking in time to avoid a collision would be far more difficult and lengthy.



As far as I understand if I'm cycling down the road I must do so in way that I can stop if a pedestrian walks into the road. The onus is on me to stop.

In this country "jaywalking" does not apply. I may be wrong. But that's always been my understanding. 

I accept this. In all my time of cycling I've never gone into anyone. ( Though must say people on phones suddenly stepping into road is wearing).

I wouldn't want "jaywalking" to be brought into law here for pedestrians. 

Imo on roads pedestrians are the most vulnerable. That public space like roads should be made more pedestrian friendly. A 20mph limit would go a long way to make this happen.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Sep 1, 2017)

Gramsci said:


> As far as I understand if I'm cycling down the road I must do so in way that I can stop if a pedestrian walks into the road. The onus is on me to stop.
> 
> In this country "jaywalking" does not apply. I may be wrong. But that's always been my understanding.
> 
> ...


In all my time driving and riding motorcycles I've never run into a pedestrian.
This is getting like America, where a bloke successfully sued the manufacturers of the camper he was driving, because when he turned on the cruise control and went into the back of the camper to make a coffee, the camper crashed into something.

Why don't people just not cross the road until it's safe to do so?


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 1, 2017)

Saul Goodman said:


> In all my time driving and riding motorcycles I've never run into a pedestrian.
> This is getting like America, where a bloke successfully sued the manufacturers of the camper he was driving, because when he turned on the cruise control and went into the back of the camper to make a coffee, the camper crashed into something.
> 
> Why don't people just not cross the road until it's safe to do so?



Do you live in London?


----------



## Saul Goodman (Sep 1, 2017)

Gramsci said:


> Do you live in London?


I don't. Does that matter?


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 1, 2017)

Saul Goodman said:


> How about we Install traffic light controlled pedestrian crossings at key locations, and make it illegal for anyone to cross the road at anywhere but these locations?
> 
> This is not an infringement of individual liberty, not an extra tax on people or taking away people's right to walk or cross the road.



Actually it is.

A 20mph limit for car drivers does not affect there freedom to access roads. It's about reducing speed. 

What ur advocating is a limitation on pedestrians access to road space.


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 1, 2017)

Saul Goodman said:


> I don't. Does that matter?



In the context of this thread yes.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Sep 1, 2017)

Gramsci said:


> Actually it is.
> 
> A 20mph limit for car drivers does not affect there freedom to access roads. It's about reducing speed.
> 
> What ur advocating is a limitation on pedestrians access to road space.


Actually, no. Enforcing crossing at designated crossing points does not in any way affect their freedom. 
Roads are for vehicles. Footpaths (it's in the name) are for pedestrians.
How is asking someone to cross the road at a designated crossing point an infringement on their human rights, any more so than limiting car drivers' speed to 20mph?


----------



## teuchter (Sep 1, 2017)

This is a good article. The caricature character that Saul Goodman is trying to play would do well to read it.

The secret history of jaywalking: The disturbing reason it was outlawed — and why we should li...

The origin of the word is interesting, as it points out. The modern equivalent of its original intended meaning might be something like "chavwalking". It's an arrogant, snobbish, self-entitled word. And that would reflect the attitude that some motorists seem to have towards the road.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Sep 1, 2017)

Gramsci said:


> In the context of this thread yes.


How so? 
I have basic survival instincts, which prevent me from walking out in front of moving vehicles.


----------



## mauvais (Sep 1, 2017)

Gramsci said:


> As far as I understand if I'm cycling down the road I must do so in way that I can stop if a pedestrian walks into the road. The onus is on me to stop.


Like all road users in the UK, you are loosely expected to be able to stop in the distance you can see to be - and reasonably expect to remain - clear. Actually your legal burden of responsibility may be some way _below_ that standard, but let's assume it's that. If someone walks out in front of you in a way that a reasonable person wouldn't have expected, it's they who violate this notion, not you. In other words, no cyclist or motorist or indeed pedestrian is expected to conduct themselves so cautiously that they can successfully avoid all eventualities.


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 1, 2017)

Saul Goodman said:


> Actually, no. Enforcing crossing at designated crossing points does not in any way affect their freedom.
> Roads are for vehicles. Footpaths (it's in the name) are for pedestrians.
> How is asking someone to cross the road at a designated crossing point an infringement on their human rights, any more so than limiting car drivers' speed to 20mph?



Typical comment from car lobby. Ive had a bellyfull of this recently in LJ. 

In London, where you don't live, there have been moved to widen pavements and decrease space for vehicles. I take it you don't have a problem with that?


----------



## Saul Goodman (Sep 1, 2017)

mauvais said:


> Like all road users in the UK, you are loosely expected to be able to stop in the distance you can see to be - and reasonably expect to remain - clear. Actually your legal burden of responsibility may be some way _below_ that standard, but let's assume it's that. If someone walks out in front of you in a way that a reasonable person wouldn't have expected, it's they who violate this notion, not you. In other words, no cyclist or motorist or indeed pedestrian is expected to conduct themselves so cautiously that they can successfully avoid all eventualities.


I fear such logic will be lost here.
And after that hogwash teuchter  just posted, I'm out, because we're not dealing with rational people.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Sep 1, 2017)

Gramsci said:


> Typical comment from car lobby. Ive had a bellyfull of this recently in LJ.
> 
> In London, where you don't live, there have been moved to widen pavements and decrease space for vehicles. I take it you don't have a problem with that?


None whatsoever.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Sep 1, 2017)

Does anyone here believe that at some stage people have a responsibility to not get themselves killed?


----------



## Saul Goodman (Sep 1, 2017)

I really do fear that we're heading into Americanism. Where it's always someone elses fault.


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 1, 2017)

Saul Goodman said:


> How so?
> I have basic survival instincts, which prevent me from walking out in front of moving vehicles.



I live in London. London has Councils responding to local people concerns by bringing in curbs on traffic. This is resented by the car lobby. This thread is an example.

The worst of it is car lobby make it out they are standing up for the rights of the individual against authoritarian collectivists. It's right wing masquerading as sticking up for freedom.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Sep 1, 2017)

Gramsci said:


> Typical comment from car lobby. Ive had a bellyfull of this recently in LJ.


I don't drive a car. I simply have a strong urge to survive.


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 1, 2017)

Saul Goodman said:


> I really do fear that we're heading into Americanism. Where it's always someone elses fault.



Christ sakes. I'm a long term regular on Brixton Forum. How is it that threads on car use get you Daily Mail trolls on here? Never see you here otherwise.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Sep 1, 2017)

Gramsci said:


> Christ sakes. I'm a long term regular on Brixton Forum. How is it that threads on car use get you Daily Mail trolls on here? Never see you here otherwise.


It isn't a thread on car use. It's a thread on physics and common sense, which, it appears, isn't so common.
If you walk out in front of a two ton vehicle, there's only going to be one loser, no matter what speed it's travelling at.


----------



## teuchter (Sep 1, 2017)

Just ignore, Gramsci

They said they were "out of here" - let's see if they're true to their word as well as someone with an outstanding grasp of common sense and physics.


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 1, 2017)

This thread shows that any reform of road use gets people very angry.

I've had a lot of it in Brixton post the LJ debacle.

At a meeting a while back. The Council officer was talking about road calming measures in Lambeth. Quite reasonable standard stuff imo. Not about road closures or banning cars.

At end one woman went off on one at the officer. Her exact words were "no one is taking my car from me." "I worked hard to buy my car".

I did point out that the officer wasn't advocating this.

She then said "how could someone of her age be expected to walk and cycle" ( use other alternative ways of getting around). Someone pointed out to her that I was actually younger than her. This enraged her even more. Then he said I looked younger than my age. ( I'm a cyclist). Really wished he hadn't.

My point is that the road use issue isn't one where there is going to be a middle ground.


----------



## teuchter (Sep 1, 2017)

Someone should have asked her how someone older than her, prevented by their age from being able to drive, but able to walk to the shop, might feel about traffic calming measures.


----------



## T & P (Sep 1, 2017)

Gramsci said:


> As far as I understand if I'm cycling down the road I must do so in way that I can stop if a pedestrian walks into the road. The onus is on me to stop.
> 
> In this country "jaywalking" does not apply. I may be wrong. But that's always been my understanding.
> 
> ...


Yes peds are the most vulnerable road users and measures to make the road safer have merit (even if I myself might not agree with every last measure proposed). But vulnerability and overall priority in the eyes of the law should not mean pedestrians should not take precautions when crossing the road and assume priority guarantees their safety.

I've lost the number of times I've seen peds crossing a junction without even a cursory check to see if there are cars turning into it. To state the very obvious, that the law grants them right of way does not mean they're provided with an invisible shield to protect them from harm- but many act as if it might actually do.

Drivers and cyclists are instructed to always proceed with caution, and always check for hazards, even when they have right of way over all other traffic (such as green lights at a junction). Always assume the worst scenario and act defensively. But other than education for schoolchildren, I have never ever seen any initiative to improve road awareness and promote sensible behaviour. It's almost as if a campaign asking peds to check for incoming traffic would be seen as an infringement of their rights. There should be regular campaigns to remind peds to take basic precautions, to avoid stepping into the road without checking for incoming traffic, to turn their heads before crossing a junction. I'm yet to see a single one in all my time here.


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 1, 2017)

teuchter said:


> It's not an "either or" choice, between allowing vehicles or not allowing vehicles. There's a sliding scale, one end of which represents something like the worst kind of American car city, and the other end of which represents somewhere entirely pedestrianised. I'd like London to move closer to the latter end of that scale, and I'd probably like it moved a lot further than most people would. But the attempts at reductio ad absurdium arguments, where we end up virtually banning motor vehicles altogether, don't work in my opinion, because I don't think that's an absurd position.



The reference to US cities reminded me of radio program on breast cancer in US I listened to a while back. The programme was looking into why more black American women died compared to white American women. In US colour and class overlap. (that is being poor and black is is how it is in many parts of US)Researchers found transport was issue. In Los Angeles there are good hospital but the poor black American women have difficulty accessing them partly due to lack of public transport. Los Angeles used to have good public transport. This went with rise of the car. Leaving the less well off stranded in there neighborhoods. If you don't have a car in Los Angeles you are stuck. Large roads effectively acts as physical obstacles to free movement in the city.

Why I think who can access roads, who has predominant use is a class issue. It's not those who want measures to shift road / transport priorities to pedestrians (non car owners ) who are authoritarian.

The opposite is the case.


----------



## teuchter (Sep 1, 2017)

T & P said:


> But vulnerability and overall priority in the eyes of the law should not mean *pedestrians should not take precautions when crossing the road and assume priority guarantees their safety.*



No-one's advocating this!

Not sure exactly when this strawman was introduced into this thread - but that's all it is. 

Most people, when crossing the road, do take precautions, because they know their lives depend on it.

With regard to the thing about crossing a junction - yes it's a good idea to check, because many drivers seem unaware that pedestrians have priority in this situation. Maybe there should be regular campaigns to advise pedestrians to check, but why aren't you also asking for regular campaigns for drivers to read the highway code, and to make them aware of the law in this situation?


----------



## teuchter (Sep 1, 2017)

Gramsci said:


> Why I think who can access roads, who has predominant use is a class issue. It's not those who want measures to shift road / transport priorities to pedestrians (non car owners ) who are authoritarian.
> 
> The opposite is the case.



I think it's more about libertarianism than authoritarianism. The freedom of the individual. In my opinion the parallels with the gun debate in the US are stark. And now that terrorists have hooked onto using vehicles as weapons - even more so.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 2, 2017)

Crispy said:


> I regularly see cars doing ridiculous speeds in the roads around my house (top of Brixton/Tulse Hill). While on my bike, I have been overtaken many times on the "wrong" side of the traffic islands on Upper Tulse Hill, one time coming *this* close to being a nasty head-on collision. It is almost all young men but not exclusively that gender and age. It is the single biggest fear I have for my kids.
> 
> I cannot wait for autonomous cars to price private cars off the road. People (all people, myself included) are terrible drivers.



Upper Tulse Hill has always been fucking awful, and was even worse before the traffic islands and speed bumps, if you can imagine that.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 2, 2017)

Saul Goodman said:


> How about we Install traffic light controlled pedestrian crossings at key locations, and make it illegal for anyone to cross the road at anywhere but these locations?
> 
> This is not an infringement of individual liberty, not an extra tax on people or taking away people's right to walk or cross the road.



Jay-walking laws have lowered the number of deaths due to vehicles in Germany, and it's pretty much seen as antisocial behaviour to jay-walk there.  I'm all in favour of it.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 2, 2017)

Rushy said:


> Jay walking is illegal in Germany. Certainly feels like an infringement of personal liberty when told off for doing so.



Shouldn't have broken the law then, should you?  When in Rome..


----------



## Saul Goodman (Sep 2, 2017)

ViolentPanda said:


> Jay-walking laws have lowered the number of deaths due to vehicles in Germany, and it's pretty much seen as antisocial behaviour to jay-walk there.  I'm all in favour of it.


I'd be 100% for it. I know at least one person here thinks I'm trolling, but I honestly see no reason why pedestrians shouldn't be responsible for their own actions. But like some car drivers, some pedestrians can't be trusted to act responsibly. If jaywalking was made illegal, I feel it would drastically reduce the number of 'accidents'.
I'm honestly not trying to come across as a knob. I actually believe in what I'm saying. I don't want pedestrians to die. but in the absence of common sense, I believe regulations should be imposed.
I'm not a car lobbyist, far from it. I ride a motorbike and I know how bad some (a lot of) car drivers can be, which is why whenever I'm on my bike I assume every car driver is out to kill me, and I ride accordingly, because I don't want to die. I think maybe a lot of pedestrians should adopt a similar attitude, and realise that in a fight with a car, they _will_ lose.
I reiterate... I honestly believe jay-walking should be illegal, and as you say, deemed antisocial.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Sep 2, 2017)

I was always told that if there's a pedestrian crossing (of any kind) within 100 yards of you..(as a pedestrian) ..that if you didn't use it and you were knocked down crossing at a point within that 100 yards that it was likely you would be held to a large degree, responsible for your own lack of due care.

......my mum was pretty strict about crossing roads...

In all seriousness though...anyone driving has to constantly assume that anything can happen. It's 25 years since I was taught to drive by a retired army driving instructor. He was a brilliant teacher...The one thing he repeated ad nauseum was "be prepared to stop at all times because anything can walk out in front of you". He ised to practice emergency stops all the time.....we'd be driving along at 50km and he'd shout "stop". ...(usually nobody was behind us when he did this)

Drivers need to drive with the mindset that pedestrians dont always keep to the path..at all times.

And pedestrians need to realise that they have to take due care and be fully aware of their environment.


----------



## teuchter (Sep 2, 2017)

ViolentPanda said:


> Jay-walking laws have lowered the number of deaths due to vehicles in Germany,



Have you got a source for this claim?

I believe the Netherlands legalised jaywalking in the 90s and did not observe an increase in pedestrian fatalities.


----------



## teuchter (Sep 2, 2017)

A defense of jaywalking.


----------



## teuchter (Sep 2, 2017)

Also: if the rationale behind forcing pedestrians only to use crossings is to protect them from their own carelessness, then we should ban motorcycles too, as it's one of the most dangerous forms of transport around.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 2, 2017)

teuchter said:


> Also: if the rationale behind forcing pedestrians only to use crossings is to protect them from their own carelessness, then we should ban motorcycles too, as it's one of the most dangerous forms of transport around.



"Most dangerous" as in motorcyclists have a higher rate of injury and fatality from accidents?


----------



## teuchter (Sep 2, 2017)

ViolentPanda said:


> "Most dangerous" as in motorcyclists have a higher rate of injury and fatality from accidents?


Yes.


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 2, 2017)

On Jaywalking.

Im against laws on it. In London there have been measures to change it from being dominated by cars. From what I've seen any measures are virulently opposed by drivers. And there supporters who see curb on driving as human rights issue. As I'm on the roads a lot I've heard it all.

Bringing in laws on "Jaywalking" ( a contentious term itself) is of the order of the "if they are doing this to me ( the car driver) they should make them do that" line of argument. That is if my life is made harder then then there's should be. That's what this debate about ", Jaywalking" is about.

The issue of "Jaywalking" is also regard action by car driving lobby as symbolic action. It's not about concern for safety. It's about symbolically saying roads are for cars first. That cars come first.

The moves across London over past recent years - traffic calming, shared space - the "Dutch model" is what lobbying for laws against Jaywalking are directed at.

The Dutch model adopted by Councils at varying levels is what car driving lobby really hate. It moves the emphasis of the public highway away from car drivers to pedestrians, cyclists and buses.


----------



## David Clapson (Sep 9, 2017)

Seems to me that the motorcyclists are the worst problem now. They seem more inclined to ride around in groups, pulling wheelies and making as much noise as possible with painfully loud exhausts (which are not road-legal). They've imported a US bike gang culture which is all about 'taking over the street'. They think it's OK to herd everybody else by being loud. I'm rather sick of it. The traffic police used to keep a lid on this behaviour, but they're almost extinct now.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Sep 9, 2017)

David Clapson said:


> Seems to me that the motorcyclists are the worst problem now. They seem more inclined to ride around in groups, pulling wheelies and making as much noise as possible with painfully loud exhausts (which are not road-legal). They've imported a US bike gang culture which is all about 'taking over the street'. They think it's OK to herd everybody else by being loud. I'm rather sick of it. The traffic police used to keep a lid on this behaviour, but they're almost extinct now.


Way to go with a ridiculous blanket statement. 
Did you mean there are a few cunts in gangs on motorbikes?


----------



## technical (Sep 9, 2017)

No. I think you've previously said you don't live in London. In which case you won't have seen the groups of up to 100 motorcyclists driving together around town all of whom have ridiculously loud bikes. They have passed me and my daughter on several Saturdays in Brixton recently. It ends up with people (particularly children) trying to cover their ears because of the noise. They're juvenile tossers basically


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 9, 2017)

technical said:


> No. I think you've previously said you don't live in London. In which case you won't have seen the groups of up to 100 motorcyclists driving together around town all of whom have ridiculously loud bikes. They have passed me and my daughter on several Saturdays in Brixton recently. It ends up with people (particularly children) trying to cover their ears because of the noise. They're juvenile tossers basically


I do live in London and I have never seen the groups of bikers you describe


----------



## organicpanda (Sep 9, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> I do live in London and I have never seen the groups of bikers you describe


they quite often come down Coldharbour Lane, mixture of quad bikes and motorbikes pulling wheelies and other stunts, there are plenty of videos on youtube


----------



## ash (Sep 9, 2017)

organicpanda said:


> they quite often come down Coldharbour Lane, mixture of quad bikes and motorbikes pulling wheelies and other stunts, there are plenty of videos on youtube


Many of them wearing masks such as skeleton face or scream.


----------



## spanglechick (Sep 9, 2017)

organicpanda said:


> they quite often come down Coldharbour Lane, mixture of quad bikes and motorbikes pulling wheelies and other stunts, there are plenty of videos on youtube


Yep, seen them around Crystal Palace. It feels pretty lawless when they go by. No helmets in the most part, either.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Sep 9, 2017)

technical said:


> No. I think you've previously said you don't live in London. In which case you won't have seen the groups of up to 100 motorcyclists driving together around town all of whom have ridiculously loud bikes. They have passed me and my daughter on several Saturdays in Brixton recently. It ends up with people (particularly children) trying to cover their ears because of the noise. They're juvenile tossers basically





organicpanda said:


> they quite often come down Coldharbour Lane, mixture of quad bikes and motorbikes pulling wheelies and other stunts, there are plenty of videos on youtube


I've had a look on youtube but all I can find is groups of 10 - 20 muppets, and I'd hazard a guess that most of them are on stolen bikes.
What I did find was lots of videos about London street gangs with hundreds of members. Maybe it's people that are the problem, not the mode of transport they choose to use?


----------



## Ms T (Sep 9, 2017)

I got overtaken yesterday going up the hill to Crystal Palace!


----------



## spanglechick (Sep 9, 2017)

Ms T said:


> I got overtaken yesterday going up the hill to Crystal Palace!


I suspect that's the hill I was mentioning earlier.


----------



## teuchter (Sep 15, 2017)

Saul Goodman said:


> I've had a look on youtube but all I can find is groups of 10 - 20 muppets, and I'd hazard a guess that most of them are on stolen bikes.
> What I did find was lots of videos about London street gangs with hundreds of members. Maybe it's people that are the problem, not the mode of transport they choose to use?


Here we are, back to the parallels with the gun debate.


----------



## bimble (Sep 15, 2017)

I had no idea quite how bad it is (the aggressive speeding and general nutter driving around here) until i started driving lessons this year, now instead of just seeing and hearing the crazy drivers it's about learning to just carry on at the 20mph whilst people go into fits of beeping rage waiting to overtake. Lifelong pedestrian that I am, I can see another side to the 'jaywalking' issue now too to be honest, if i ever do pass my test it'll be because I learn to stop watching the pavements like crazy looking for a sign that might tell me whether or not that person with the headphones on or looking at their phone is thinking about just stepping onto the street at any given moment.


----------



## teuchter (Sep 15, 2017)

bimble said:


> I can see another side to the 'jaywalking' issue now too to be honest, if i ever do pass my test it'll be because I learn to stop watching the pavements like crazy looking for a sign that might tell me whether or not that person with the headphones on or looking at their phone is thinking about just stepping onto the street at any given moment.



Is the "another side" that if cars had total priority, you as a car diver could get away with not doing what you're currently supposed to do (and are doing) - paying attention to what's going on, so you don't hurt someone?


----------



## bimble (Sep 15, 2017)

teuchter said:


> Is the "another side" that if cars had total priority, you as a car diver could get away with not doing what you're currently supposed to do (and are doing) - paying attention to what's going on, so you don't hurt someone?


I'm being told constantly by my teacher that I am not doing it right and that my attention should be on where i'm going not on pedestrians who are doing their own thing. He has a point as I am far from a safe driver whilst scanning the faces of people on the pavement in a silly attempt to divine what they might be about to do.


----------



## Crispy (Sep 15, 2017)

bimble said:


> I'm being told constantly by my teacher that I am not doing it right and that my attention should be on where i'm going not on pedestrians who are doing their own thing. He has a point as I am far from a safe driver whilst scanning the faces of people on the pavement in a silly attempt to divine what they might be about to do.


This is a great example of why computers are/will be better drivers. They can watch everything in all directions with as much attention as a human can only give one thing at a time.


----------



## teuchter (Sep 15, 2017)

bimble said:


> I'm being told constantly by my teacher that I am not doing it right and that my attention should be on where i'm going not on pedestrians who are doing their own thing. He has a point as I am far from a safe driver whilst scanning the faces of people on the pavement in a silly attempt to divine what they might be about to do.


Tell him to read the highway code then.



Your instinct is the rational one: you are in control of something that could hurt someone seriously if they make a mistake. The highway code also talks about only driving at a speed where you can stop well within the distance you can see to be clear. This is ignored by nearly all drivers (particularly in the countryside). Driving instructors pretend they teach you to drive safely, but the reality is that they teach you to drive in a way that's fundamentally dangerous but presents a level of risk to others that's currently accepted culturally. A level of risk that's accepted for pretty much no other common activity.


----------



## bimble (Sep 15, 2017)

Yes. I've left it so late to learn because I am pretty much terrified of the whole thing, which seems to me a perfectly rational attitude to have. One of the things that seems wrong with the system as it's being taught to me is that you will be judged to have committed a fault in your driving test if you drive too slowly, if conditions allow you are supposed to drive at the speed limit, in fact this is a fairly common reason for people failing their tests.


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 15, 2017)

ViolentPanda said:


> Shouldn't have broken the law then, should you?  When in Rome..


I keep forgetting over there. The first time there were loads of people at a crossing and not a car to be seen for about 100 yards. I crossed alone and an old lady shouted at me in German from the other side "young man, are you in a hurry". I've done it many times since and normally only get a 'you're not from round here, are you?' look.


----------



## teuchter (Sep 15, 2017)

The "driving too slowly" thing basically comes about as a result of the consequences of other drivers becoming frustrated and doing dangerous overtaking moves, etc. 

In other words it's a result of drivers being unable to observe the highway code.

As per Crispy's comment, the sooner we can completely hand the job over to computers the better. Sadly I think it'll take a long time, not because of technological constraints but because of people defending their right to handle weapons.


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 15, 2017)

teuchter said:


> The "driving too slowly" thing basically comes about as a result of the consequences of other drivers becoming frustrated and doing dangerous overtaking moves, etc.


Not directly. It's to prevent congestion (which leads to overtaking ... which may or may not be dangerous). The point of driving is to make progress safely, and a slow moving vehicle among faster ones is a hazard. Minimum speed limits make sense on some motorways, especially "smart" roads where overall speed is used to manage congestion on sections. They have minimums in Ireland ... 30mph on motorways.


----------



## teuchter (Sep 15, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> and a slow moving vehicle among faster ones is a hazard



What you mean is that a mixture of vehicles attempting to move at different speeds can be a hazard (and indeed can exacerbate congestion). It does not follow that making the slower vehicles move faster is the best or safest way to resolve this situation.

Motorways are a completely different situation to urban roads. They are irrelevant to this discussion.


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 15, 2017)

teuchter said:


> What you mean is that a mixture of vehicles attempting to move at different speeds can be a hazard (and indeed can exacerbate congestion). It does not follow that making the slower vehicles move faster is the best or safest way to resolve this situation.


Depends on the circumstances but if everyone drove at a suitable speed it wouldn't be an issue. The reason learners are failed for driving too slowly is because it's considered inappropriate speed, and possibly a lack of confidence or ability.


----------



## teuchter (Sep 15, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> Depends on the circumstances but if everyone drove at a suitable speed it wouldn't be an issue. The reason learners are failed for driving too slowly is because it's considered inappropriate speed, and possibly a lack of confidence or ability.



People driving at a faster than suitable speed is a much bigger problem than people driving at a lower than suitable speed. Driving tests are unable to test for people who go on to habitually drive too fast. Bring on the autonomous cars.

In my opinion learner drivers tend not to suffer so much from a lack of confidence, as a lack of overconfidence. They are the ones driving with a more realistic assessment of the danger of what they are doing.


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 15, 2017)

teuchter said:


> People driving at a faster than suitable speed is a much bigger problem than people driving at a lower than suitable speed. Driving tests are unable to test for people who go on to habitually drive too fast.


Both are an issue in different ways. _Appropriate_ is where it's at, and slow is clearly not always appropriate. The thing with autonomous cars is that the first generations are going to be dual controlled anyway, so there will be a mix of cars being driven by humans and cars driving themselves. It'll be a very long time indeed (if it happens at all) before every car on the road is autonomously controlled by law. Too many people don't see cars as simply a means of transport.


----------



## bimble (Sep 15, 2017)

Sometimes lack of confidence is undeniably dangerous. This constant awareness that i might kill someone is definitely the main problem with my driving, causes things like stopping suddenly for no good reason which is obviously a stupid thing to do. I've been waiting 20 years for autonomous cars and do wish they'd hurry up.


----------



## teuchter (Sep 15, 2017)

bimble said:


> Sometimes lack of confidence is undeniably dangerous.


For sure, but it's nowhere near as dangerous as overconfidence. In an urban setting in a 20mph zone, stopping suddenly is unlikely to cause anything terrible to happen. If someone goes into the back of you, they haven't been paying attention and/or are driving too close. They also would have gone into the back of you if you'd made an emergency stop for good reason.


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 15, 2017)

bimble said:


> Sometimes lack of confidence is undeniably dangerous.


Driving very slowly is often indicative of something else too. A copper I knew said that they would nearly always stop vehicles being driven extremely slowly, and often the driver was either pissed, stoned, or confused.


----------



## bimble (Sep 15, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> Driving very slowly is often indicative of something else too. A copper I knew said that they would nearly always stop vehicles being driven extremely slowly, and often the driver was either pissed, stoned, or confused.


 Well ok fair enough, if they had a breathalyser to measures confusion I'd fail most times, driving or not.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Sep 15, 2017)

teuchter said:


> Here we are, back to the parallels with the gun debate.


How was that even remotely similar to a debate on guns?


----------



## teuchter (Sep 15, 2017)

Saul Goodman said:


> How was that even remotely similar to a debate on guns?



You:
"Maybe it's people that are the problem, not the mode of transport they choose to use"

American gun nuts:
"Guns don't kill people - people do"


----------



## Saul Goodman (Sep 15, 2017)

teuchter said:


> You:
> "Maybe it's people that are the problem, not the mode of transport they choose to use"
> 
> American gun nuts:
> "Guns don't kill people - people do"


I was going to ridicule this nonsense but then I saw who had liked your post, which saved me the job


----------



## teuchter (Sep 15, 2017)

Saul Goodman said:


> I was going to ridicule this nonsense but then I saw who had liked your post, which saved me the job


Everyone can make their own mind up whether you're trolling or just not prepared to think things through, I guess. Either way it doesn't seem like there's much point engaging with you.


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 15, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> Depends on the circumstances but if everyone drove at a suitable speed it wouldn't be an issue. The reason learners are failed for driving too slowly is because it's considered inappropriate speed, and possibly a lack of confidence or ability.



I'm getting a bit lost here.

bimble like me is local resident.

Bimble is a leaner. So has to follow the speed limits for the area. Which in Lambeth is 20 mph.

The Labour party were elected in manifesto to bring this in. The Green party support it. And criticised Council for not bringing it in sooner.

This thread is partly about how this speed limit is disregarded. I live on busy road and I think drivers are variable about keeping to this speed limit.

So what are you saying? That this speed limit should be disregarded?


----------



## Saul Goodman (Sep 15, 2017)

teuchter said:


> Everyone can make their own mind up whether you're trolling or just not prepared to think things through, I guess. Either way it doesn't seem like there's much point engaging with you.


Yes, because owning a motorcycle is exactly the same as owning a gun


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 16, 2017)

Gramsci said:


> So what are you saying? That this speed limit should be disregarded?


Eh?


----------



## snowy_again (Sep 28, 2017)

Watched a beautiful example of idiocy last night. 

Milkwood Road traffic down to the junction at Herne Hill can get a little congested at rush hour, with a tail back of cars from Dickson's offie up to the zebra crossing by the railway station tunnel. That's probably 20m. 

Last night a beemer driver who had been sat in traffic feeling that traffic laws and general commons sense didn't apply to them, pulled out, overtook the line of waiting cars and then _slowly _drove through three red lights at the junction; cos traffic lights didn't apply to them. They almost hit two pedestrians and a couple of people on bikes. Beemer driver even honked them for being so inconsiderate being on the road in the right place and hampering their journey.


----------



## editor (Sep 28, 2017)

snowy_again said:


> Watched a beautiful example of idiocy last night.
> 
> Milkwood Road traffic down to the junction at Herne Hill can get a little congested at rush hour, with a tail back of cars from Dickson's offie up to the zebra crossing by the railway station tunnel. That's probably 20m.
> 
> Last night a beemer driver who had been sat in traffic feeling that traffic laws and general commons sense didn't apply to them, pulled out, overtook the line of waiting cars and then _slowly _drove through three red lights at the junction; cos traffic lights didn't apply to them. They almost hit two pedestrians and a couple of people on bikes. Beemer driver even honked them for being so inconsiderate being on the road in the right place and hampering their journey.


If I had extra special mind powers that worked, I would have directed his foot to accidentally jam on the accelerator and smash at speed into the nearest sturdy lamp post.

Some of the biggest fucking arseholes I've seen recently are super bike twats who have tried to roar through peaceful protests in Brixton. The utter dickhead who attempted to accelerate _through _the banner about air pollution that was momentarily blocking Brixton Road last week was particularly unpleasant. The fact that the protest was on a pedestrian crossing that was, at the time, showing green for walkers seemed immaterial to this Very Important Person who had no time for the concerns of locals.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 31, 2017)

Another horrible, tragic story of someone losing their life on the road. Someone who would likely still be alive if speed limits were properly enforced.

Tributes to 'angel' motorcyclist killed in south London crash


----------



## Saul Goodman (Oct 31, 2017)

teuchter said:


> Another horrible, tragic story of someone losing their life on the road. Someone who would likely still be alive if speed limits were properly enforced.
> 
> Tributes to 'angel' motorcyclist killed in south London crash


Sorry, I don't see the bit where it states he was speeding. Could you point it out for me, please?


----------



## teuchter (Oct 31, 2017)

Saul Goodman said:


> Sorry, I don't see the bit where it states he was speeding. Could you point it out for me, please?


There is no bit where it states the motorcyclist was speeding and neither did I say there was.

However, given the seriousness of the accident I do consider the following to be likely:

(a) at least one of the vehicles involved (two cars and a motorcycle) was going faster than 20mph
(b) if none of those vehicles had been going faster than 20mph then the accident may not have happened in the first place
(c) had the accident happened with no vehicles going faster than 20mph the outcome would have been less serious and this young man might still have been alive today.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Oct 31, 2017)

teuchter said:


> There is no bit where it states the motorcyclist was speeding and neither did I say there was.
> 
> However, given the seriousness of the accident I do consider the following to be likely:
> 
> ...


You've managed to draw all of those conclusions without knowing a single fact about the accident?
You have some serious powers of deduction there. Maybe you should hook up with squirrelp and guess the world right.


----------



## kittyP (Nov 1, 2017)

I can only give my personal experience. 

Firstly, cars frequently bomb down my road. It is a small residential road, mostly only space for single traffic and with a blind bend in it. 

Also, I totally stick to the 20 mph limit (often driving slower) and the amount of time I have had people driving right up my arse beeping me as I won't drive any faster. 
Especially on Coldharbour Lane. Maybe as people don't realise that it actually is 20mph


----------



## teuchter (Nov 1, 2017)

Saul Goodman said:


> You've managed to draw all of those conclusions without knowing a single fact about the accident?
> You have some serious powers of deduction there. Maybe you should hook up with squirrelp and guess the world right.


This is a real person, who has lost their life on a real road in the area where I and others who post here live. And as remarked on the main Brixton thread one poster unfortunately witnessed the aftermath of this accident. This thread is about what I think is a serious issue, and it's in the Brixton forum because I'd like it to be discussed by people who actually live here and are affected by this stuff. So go and try to wind folk up elsewhere please. Bye bye.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Nov 1, 2017)

teuchter said:


> Leave me to post my own, fact-free narrative.


OK, will do


----------



## Spymaster (Nov 1, 2017)

teuchter said:


> This is a real person, who has lost their life on a real road in the area where I and others who post here live. And as remarked on the main Brixton thread one poster unfortunately witnessed the aftermath of this accident. This thread is about what I think is a serious issue, and it's in the Brixton forum because I'd like it to be discussed by people who actually live here and are affected by this stuff. So go and try to wind folk up elsewhere please. Bye bye.


So you just want to make things up then.


----------



## B.I.G (Nov 1, 2017)

Its true isnt it that there is far less chance of a fatality at a lesser speed? 

Seems reasonable to conclude that in the case of a fatality, one of the parties was going faster than 20mph.


----------



## alex_ (Nov 1, 2017)

B.I.G said:


> Its true isnt it that there is far less chance of a fatality at a lesser speed?
> 
> Seems reasonable to conclude that in the case of a fatality, one of the parties was going faster than 20mph.



Yes but saying speed is an aggravating cause of worse injuries and fatalities therefore this fatal accident was caused by speed is a fallacy.


----------



## Spymaster (Nov 1, 2017)

B.I.G said:


> Its true isnt it that there is far less chance of a fatality at a lesser speed?


Yes.


> Seems reasonable to conclude that in the case of a fatality, one of the parties was going faster than 20mph.


No. It's perfectly possible for someone to die in a 3 vehicle accident with everyone doing less than 20, especially if one's on a bike. This is the kind of nonsense that we've come to expect from teuchter. Sloppy. Very sloppy.


----------



## teuchter (Nov 1, 2017)

It seems that folk have problems reading and understanding the word "likely".


----------



## Saul Goodman (Nov 1, 2017)

teuchter said:


> This is a real person, who has lost their life on a real road in the area where I and others who post here live. And as remarked on the main Brixton thread one poster unfortunately witnessed the aftermath of this accident. This thread is about what I think is a serious issue, and it's in the Brixton forum because I'd like it to be discussed by people who actually live here and are affected by this stuff. So go and try to wind folk up elsewhere please. Bye bye.


Yes, this is a real person. It's a real person with real relatives, yet you still feel it's OK to bandy around unfounded accusations of speeding, with no thought for this lad's relatives.
Well done you.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Nov 1, 2017)

teuchter This is why I suggested you should maybe hook up with squirrelp. Because it seems neither of you are aware that your bullshit could hurt real people.


----------



## sparkybird (Nov 2, 2017)

Driving just over the 20 mph (sorry) in Brixton water lane. Twat driving right up behind me decides to overtake.
I pull up by the side of him at the lights. Ask him if he realises he was speeding
Yes he replies, but I was overtaking.
Me, I saw that, but it's a 20 mph zone
He says, yes but if I was doing 20 I wouldn't have been able to over take you, would I?

 

How the hell does someone with this few braincells manage to get a driving license??


----------



## teuchter (Dec 4, 2017)

Very pleased to see London Assembly report recommending further attempts to prioritise pedestrians and cyclists, especially in outer London.

Notably, they seem to be in favour of increasing 20mph limits on TfL roads. Good.



> Recommendation 1
> TfL should review the speed limits on all its roads, in line with the Healthy Streets check. We ask for TfL to report back to us on its review by May 2018.
> On 20mph limits, TfL should look to international best practice and carry out on-street trials in outer London to find ways that 20mph can be self-enforcing on main roads and at busy junctions. TfL should write to us with a list of places in outer London for on-street trials by May 2018.
> The Mayor should also carry out a public information campaign to promote the work that the Metropolitan Police Service is doing to enforce 20mph. It must be clear to people that they can be caught and prosecuted for breaking 20mph limits.


----------



## teuchter (Dec 4, 2017)

Good to see this recognised as well. Something I've been going on about for a while.



> 2.7 Many of the streets we came across had junction geometry to help motorised vehicles maintain their speed around corners – for example, side streets and roundabouts with wide, curved entrances and exits. Not only do these allow cars to drive faster, but they also widen the crossing distance, leaving pedestrians exposed to turning traffic for longer than necessary.



And this


> Reducing motor traffic speeds would fit with the Mayor’s Vision Zero aim that no-one is killed or seriously injured on London’s roads. It is worth noting that even in places with dedicated pedestrian facilities, formal crossings are not always enough to protect people. 377 people were killed or seriously injured at London’s light-controlled pedestrian crossings in 2016.18 Infrastructure alone is not enough, and it is hard to see how the Mayor can achieve his Vision Zero aim without reducing traffic speeds.



And all this is great:



> 3.1 While the Mayor’s Healthy Streets approach makes it clear that TfL should prioritise people walking, cycling and using public transport, we found that this is not always how things work in practice.
> 3.2 Since its creation, TfL has prioritised motor traffic when making decisions on the TfL road network. Engineers have to demonstrate that any changes they are proposing to the streets won’t delay cars or buses. The key measure they use is ‘journey time reliability’, which aims to make sure drivers aren’t too badly affected by congestion, and that their journeys take a consistent amount of time each day.
> 3.3 Prioritising motor traffic has limited TfL’s ability to improve facilities for walking and cycling. Publica, an urban design company, explains that:
> “Junctions designed to prioritise and optimise the flow of motor traffic rather than the safe and efficient movement of those walking or travelling by bicycle currently dominate outer London. For this reason, the needs of pedestrians and cyclists have been neglected in favour of schemes that maintain or increase motor vehicle capacity.”22
> 3.4 Healthy Streets and Vision Zero call for a fundamentally different approach. Motor traffic cannot be prioritised in the same way if the Mayor is to meet his aims to get more Londoners walking and cycling, and for there to be no-one killed or seriously injured on London’s streets. This is a big shift in emphasis, and will be a real challenge for TfL in terms of their working culture.


----------



## teuchter (Dec 11, 2017)

Two things from the weekend.

1. Driving in a zipcar along coldharbour lane, between brixton and Loughborough junction, around midnight on saturday. I was going at 20. Two cars overtook at considerable speed, the second one swerving in front of us to avoid something coming the other way. That people feel they can do this on an urban street shows how little enforcement there is.

2. Crunching sound outside. Looked out the window and yup, yet another crash at the junction nearby. These almost always seem to happen because someone is going too fast to stop when someone is pulling into or out of the junction. There are various bollards which often have to be re-concreted into the ground after one of these incidents. Each time I see those bollards knocked over I think that that could have been a pedestrian.


----------



## bimble (Dec 11, 2017)

From my windows I get to see a lot of the deliveries that go into the scrap metal yard on Gordon grove, the scrunched up written off cars being laid to rest, day in day out. Meanwhile my eternal driving lessons are ongoing and I think it's fair to say I get overtaken at some point every single lesson when going at the speed limit of 20mph, unless the road is full of speed bumps, which seem to work.


----------



## teuchter (Dec 11, 2017)

bimble said:


> From my windows I get to see a lot of the deliveries that go into the scrap metal yard on Gordon grove, the scrunched up written off cars being laid to rest, day in day out.



From my windows I see the ones that aren't quite written off - being brought to the various mechanics to get fixed up.

At least crap driving keeps some people in business.


----------



## Twattor (Dec 11, 2017)

There seem to be a lot of drivers travelling south on Brixton road who are avoiding the no right turn into Acre Lane by performing a u-turn across the traffic just past the junction then turning left rather than going round St Matthews.  I hadn't noticed it before but now i often see cars perpendicular to the traffic flow blocking carriageways and the Coldharbour filter.  Is this a new thing or has it always happened?  

Lambeth should be able to make a few quid in fines if they had a couple of ANPR cameras at that junction.


----------



## bimble (Dec 11, 2017)

^ Yep, that happened just as i was sat there on my last driving lesson, car behind did a U-turn to join the traffic going the other way completely blocking the road to save themselves driving round. (No idea if it's a new thing or not). 
This constant awareness that people might at any moment do something unexpectedly bonkers makes learning that much more difficult, if i can't trust that people will behave rationally how am i supposed to just look where I'm going instead of looking in every direction for random loons.


----------



## teuchter (Dec 11, 2017)

bimble said:


> ^ Yep, that happened just as i was sat there on my last driving lesson, car behind did a U-turn to join the traffic going the other way completely blocking the road to save themselves driving round. (No idea if it's a new thing or not).
> This constant awareness that people might at any moment do something unexpectedly bonkers makes learning that much more difficult, if i can't trust that people will behave rationally how am i supposed to just look where I'm going instead of looking in every direction for random loons.


I learnt to drive in the relatively sedate streets of Inverness. For some time I was fairly terrified at the prospect of driving in London. However, I realised that in some ways it's easier, because hardly anyone in south London is doing what they are supposed to. So your mistakes hardly stick out. My approach is just to not go too fast, and learn to ignore anyone beeping at you because 90% of the time it's just impatience. If you find yourself having to change lane at the last minute because you got into the wrong one initially, push your way in in slow motion and in a state of zen. Put Smooth FM on the radio. People can wait; everyone else is pulling dodgy maneuvers too. I realise none of this is helpful advice for driving lessons.


----------



## trabuquera (Dec 11, 2017)

^ Look on the bright side bimble - learning to drive in Brixton does WONDERS for your risk perception & defensive driving techniques. Because literally anything can happen anywhere anytime. Once you're in an SW9 state of mind nothing on (the) road can scare or faze you any more.


----------



## bimble (Dec 11, 2017)

teuchter said:


> Put Smooth FM on the radio.


This would be unhelpful, unless you wish me to join the ranks of rage-fuelled violently anti-social brixton drivers. If you can't beat em join em i suppose.


----------



## Spymaster (Dec 11, 2017)

trabuquera said:


> Once you're in an SW9 state of mind nothing on (the) road can scare or faze you any more.


Wanna bet? Pretty much everywhere in Eastern Europe makes Brixton seem like a cake-walk.


----------



## Ms T (Dec 12, 2017)

I actually think that London drivers are better and more easy-going than drivers in other parts of the country. And generally, no one is going anywhere very fast!


----------



## Saul Goodman (Dec 12, 2017)

Ms T said:


> I actually think that London drivers are better and more easy-going than drivers in other parts of the country.


Have you ever been to another part of the country?
London drivers are beyond bad.


----------



## craigxcraig (Dec 12, 2017)

Agree with Ms T outside of London no one acknowledges you or says thanks, London is so much better.


----------



## Ms T (Dec 12, 2017)

Saul Goodman said:


> Have you ever been to another part of the country?
> London drivers are beyond bad.



Yes. 

And I disagree.


----------



## Nanker Phelge (Dec 12, 2017)

I think it's just different types of bad driving.

As a passenger though, I tend to feel safer when being driven around London than I do the rest of the country.

There's a lot more scope for speed and collisions at speed elsewhere.

In London you are more likely to get a bump than a full on smash up if something goes wrong.

I think pedestrians get it tougher in London, but I also think pedestrians take more risks in London, and cyclists.


----------



## Gramsci (Dec 12, 2017)

teuchter said:


> Two things from the weekend.
> 
> 1. Driving in a zipcar along coldharbour lane, between brixton and Loughborough junction, around midnight on saturday. I was going at 20. Two cars overtook at considerable speed, the second one swerving in front of us to avoid something coming the other way. That people feel they can do this on an urban street shows how little enforcement there is.
> 
> 2. Crunching sound outside. Looked out the window and yup, yet another crash at the junction nearby. These almost always seem to happen because someone is going too fast to stop when someone is pulling into or out of the junction. There are various bollards which often have to be re-concreted into the ground after one of these incidents. Each time I see those bollards knocked over I think that that could have been a pedestrian.



As I live on Coldharbour lane, on that stretch, I see cars doing quite a speed on CHL on regular basis late at night. And in morning. 

I saw the bollards on Loughborough road just past the bridge have been knocked over or pulled out. Not the first time.


----------



## Slo-mo (Dec 13, 2017)

Ms T said:


> Yes.
> 
> And I disagree.


So do I. I find the standards of driving in Birmingham much lower than those in London.


----------



## nick (Dec 13, 2017)

Regional variations in driving etiquette even within London.
In Brixton environs everyone goes for the gap in a motorised form of chicken . No one thanks anyone else etc.
When up in Rayners Lane area, people are obsessive about taking turns to pass when the roads are narrowed by parked cars , and always thank each other.

Both systems seem to work as long as everyone is playing by the same rules


----------



## Gramsci (Dec 15, 2017)

Twattor said:


> There seem to be a lot of drivers travelling south on Brixton road who are avoiding the no right turn into Acre Lane by performing a u-turn across the traffic just past the junction then turning left rather than going round St Matthews.  I hadn't noticed it before but now i often see cars perpendicular to the traffic flow blocking carriageways and the Coldharbour filter.  Is this a new thing or has it always happened?
> 
> Lambeth should be able to make a few quid in fines if they had a couple of ANPR cameras at that junction.



Since you posted this I've been looking to see this and your right it's common now. Technically it's maybe not contravening the traffic rules. Trouble is once a few drivers do this more do. The way drivers see it is that it's there way of having a go at the "man". Striking a blow for freedom. I know as had drivers tell me proudly of where they do it in other areas. It's the mentality that see any curb on drivers "rights" as big brother intervention on one's daily life.


----------



## Gramsci (Dec 15, 2017)

On dangerous driving. I often use Villa road in evenings to get home. I'm surprised that it is a rat run. I'm not clear why.

Villa road is quite narrow. But it's busy in evenings. Had car honking at me for not going quickly enough/ not pulling off from corner quick enough for him.

Anyone know why it's a rat run?

It annoys me to have cars honking at me on side residential roads. As though I was in main road.


----------



## teuchter (Dec 15, 2017)

Is it the first one you're allowed to turn right into heading north on brixton rd?


----------



## Ms T (Dec 16, 2017)

Gramsci said:


> On dangerous driving. I often use Villa road in evenings to get home. I'm surprised that it is a rat run. I'm not clear why.
> 
> Villa road is quite narrow. But it's busy in evenings. Had car honking at me for not going quickly enough/ not pulling off from corner quick enough for him.
> 
> ...


It’s a way of avoiding the bottleneck that is Brixton in the evenings.


----------



## teuchter (Dec 16, 2017)

Camberwell end of CHL closed at the moment for a crash. The car looked to me like whatever had happened didn't happen at 20mph.


----------



## Gramsci (Dec 16, 2017)

teuchter said:


> Is it the first one you're allowed to turn right into heading north on brixton rd?



I think so.


----------



## Gramsci (Dec 16, 2017)

I was looking at the GLA report teuchter posted up about (#183). Mayor's "Healthy Streets" comes up in it.

I didn't know about that.

Healthy Streets for London

The report on outer London is seeing how TFL could prioritise the Mayor's Healthy Streets policy. Which is to have a culture change in the way that TFL works. To prioritise pedestrians, public transport and cycling before cars.

The report recommends that TFL collects data on before and after road junction improvements to see if they further Mayor's strategy. I would think Loughborough junction would be one where this should be done. 

There are more details here on TFL and Healthy Streets. I haven't had look at all of it yet

Healthy Streets


----------



## Gramsci (Dec 16, 2017)

Ms T said:


> It’s a way of avoiding the bottleneck that is Brixton in the evenings.



That would explain it. I see cars coming both ways on Villa road in evening. Causing traffic jam on that road. I don't know if it happens in day so much.

This is a residential road with on other side a park with play area for children. I think there should be no left turn from Brixton road into that street.


----------



## teuchter (Dec 17, 2017)

Gramsci said:


> I was looking at the GLA report teuchter posted up about (#183). Mayor's "Healthy Streets" comes up in it.
> 
> I didn't know about that.
> 
> ...


What's interesting about that report is that it's largely the mayor's office telling TfL to get its act together somewhat as far as pedestrians and cyclists are concerned. It's quite bold in a number of aspects. NB also that in the appendix there's a bit where the conservatives on the GLA say they don't agree with the report.


----------



## teuchter (Jun 11, 2018)

A few weeks ago, round about this point on Coldharbour lane, someone (aggressively) overtook me as I was going along at 20mph.

Today I came across this. You can see that the solid weight of that brick wall has been shifted by a couple of inches in a couple of places. Was this car going at 20mph? Doubt it. Therefore, was this, in any way, an "accident"? I don't think so - this was almost certainly a predicable outcome of dangerous, aggressive, selfish driving and if anyone had been unlucky enough to be on the pavement at that moment then I'd want to have seen the driver take full responsibility for what happened to them.

At the moment we're hearing about people being stabbed on the street. Cars are weapons too, they just cost a bit more to buy, and the law doesn't seem to worry as much about who's allowed to take them out on the street.

Last night I listened to a car literally screeching its tyres around the junction near where I am in Lougborough Junction.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Jun 11, 2018)

teuchter said:


> View attachment 137884 View attachment 137885 View attachment 137886
> 
> 
> A few weeks ago, round about this point on Coldharbour lane, someone (aggressively) overtook me as I was going along at 20mph.
> ...



Good work there Columbo  

How do you know it wasn't some poor old dear got her brake and accelerator mixed up?


----------



## organicpanda (Jun 11, 2018)

Saul Goodman said:


> Good work there Columbo
> 
> How do you know it wasn't some poor old dear got her brake and accelerator mixed up?


it was two young people in the car, hope that answers your question, they were not seriously hurt apparently and it happened around 1 in the morning. The wall has moved 3 inches and pushed the pillar so that the gate is now jammed.  According to one of the neighbours even before they had got out the car there were some who were trying to rob them.


----------



## organicpanda (Jun 11, 2018)

also does anyone know any good brickies who could replace the wall


----------



## Saul Goodman (Jun 11, 2018)

organicpanda said:


> it was two young people in the car, hope that answers your question, they were not seriously hurt apparently and it happened around 1 in the morning. The wall has moved 3 inches and pushed the pillar so that the gate is now jammed.  According to one of the neighbours even before they had got out the car there were some who were trying to rob them.


Sounds like a wonderful place to live.


----------



## organicpanda (Jun 11, 2018)

it's edgy and vibrant


----------



## SpamMisery (Jun 11, 2018)

organicpanda said:


> it was two young people in the car, hope that answers your question, they were not seriously hurt apparently and it happened around 1 in the morning. The wall has moved 3 inches and pushed the pillar so that the gate is now jammed.  According to one of the neighbours *even before they had got out the car there were some who were trying to rob them*.



I saw someone posting that crackheads are the most effective tool to combat gentrification and we should cherish them. I'm pretty sure it was a joke.


----------



## T & P (Jun 11, 2018)

teuchter said:


> View attachment 137884 View attachment 137885 View attachment 137886
> 
> 
> A few weeks ago, round about this point on Coldharbour lane, someone (aggressively) overtook me as I was going along at 20mph.
> ...


There could be many different reasons how that crash came to be, some of which would be irrelevant of the speed limit in the area. It should also be pointed out that in most of those crashes where reckless speeding was actually to blame, the speed limit will make virtually zero difference, given that the kind of people who engage in such reckless driving don't tend pay much attention to the speed limit in the first place.


----------



## teuchter (Jun 11, 2018)

T & P said:


> There could be many different reasons how that crash came to be, some of which would be irrelevant of the speed limit in the area. It should also be pointed out that in most of those crashes where reckless speeding was actually to blame, the speed limit will make virtually zero difference, given that the kind of people who engage in such reckless driving don't tend pay much attention to the speed limit in the first place.


Not sure what your point is. 
If the 20mph speed limit were actually enforced, the likelihood of this kind of crash taking place would be reduced, would it not? 
And if everyone _obeyed_ the 20mph speed limit, the likelihood of this kind of crash taking place would be *much* reduced, perhaps approaching zero, would it not?


----------



## T & P (Jun 11, 2018)

In both cases, the answer still remains 'probably not', or 'impossible to say' at best, since we don't know how this kind of crash came to be. You have perhpas picked the wrong collision to discuss the benefits of rigurously-enforced low speed limis.


----------



## organicpanda (Jun 11, 2018)

the chance of the speed limit being enforced is south of 0%, priorities, money or lack of, political will or lack of, the list goes on and on
and as for everyone obeying the speed limit, there will always be those who know better/are better drivers/rebels/dicks etc. that means there will always be a small minority who constantly break the law


----------



## teuchter (Jun 11, 2018)

T & P said:


> In both cases, the answer still remains 'probably not', or 'impossible to say' at best, since we don't know how this kind of crash came to be. You have perhpas picked the wrong collision to discuss the benefits of rigurously-enforced low speed limis.


Here's what I think is reasonable to say is likely what happened: the car was travelling west along Coldharbour Lane and on the left hand side of the road. Something caused it to swerve across the other lane, and pavement, and crash into the wall still going at a speed that was enough to deform most of the front crumple zone, and shift a large mass of brickwork by 2 or 3 inches. I'm going to estimate that the distance along a plausible curve from the westbound lane to the wall is at least 10m, and the stopping distance (including thinking distance) at 20mph is about 12m.

It's on that basis that I think it's really not wild speculation to suspect that at the point where the car first swerved, it was probably going at more than 20mph.


----------



## Mr Retro (Jun 11, 2018)

organicpanda said:


> the chance of the speed limit being enforced is south of 0%, priorities, money or lack of, political will or lack of, the list goes on and on
> and as for everyone obeying the speed limit, there will always be those who know better/are better drivers/rebels/dicks etc. that means there will always be a small minority who constantly break the law


I only have my drivers license for 2 years though I drove in Ireland on a provisional for 5 years, 20 years ago. 

I can’t get my head around how bad, reckless and inconsiderate some drivers are. I don’t remember it being like this. 

I regularly see drivers overtake on the busy 20 mph street near me, which has a school on either end. Fucking clowns.


----------



## Gramsci (Jun 11, 2018)

I live directly on that section of Coldharbour lane. Cars do speed. Especially at night when there is less traffic on that section of CHL.


----------



## Gramsci (Jun 11, 2018)

I agree with teuchter . On my section of CHL. Between LJ and accident site I think it is difficult to keep to 20 mph without annoying other drivers.

I like motorbikes but moped and motorcycles are the worst. Regularly see them tearing down my bit of CHL.


----------



## teuchter (Jun 11, 2018)

Quoted from other thread -



organicpanda said:


> update on the crash. Apparently the driver was speeding, took swerved and lost control when avoiding a dog/fox. crashed into the the wall narrowly missing a group of pissed up people and was rendered temporarily unconscious. while the crowd was trying to get at the driver who was on the floor someone else robbed the car, they moved on when the emergency services turned up
> 
> we are still trapped send beer


----------



## teuchter (Jun 12, 2018)

Gramsci said:


> I live directly on that section of Coldharbour lane. Cars do speed. Especially at night when there is less traffic on that section of CHL.


I don't really understand why people don't seem to be more angry about this in general. It seems that the other night several people came very close potentially to being killed as a direct result of speeding. And yet it feels like many people want to find reasons to excuse the drivers' behaviour.

This is not an abstract danger, like air pollution. This is a simple matter of cars being driven in a way that massively increases the risk of pedestrians and others being seriously injured or killed. And when it's happening in your own neighbourhood, that means you and people close to you are being put at real, non-abstract risk. And the dangerous driving is not an invisible phenomenon. It's there in plain sight, every day and night.


----------



## RoyReed (Jun 12, 2018)

The 20mph limit seems to have led to an increase in some bad behaviour with aggressive tailgating of people who try to keep to the limit and even dangerous overtaking of 'slow' drivers in narrow built up streets.


----------



## teuchter (Jun 12, 2018)

It's not the 20mph limit that creates the bad behaviour though.


----------



## RoyReed (Jun 12, 2018)

teuchter said:


> It's not the 20mph limit that creates the bad behaviour though.


No, I agree. It's idiot driving.


----------



## bimble (Jun 12, 2018)

People are constantly doing the thing of aggressively overtaking when you go at 20 on coldharbour lane, which is a narrow busy road with parked cars and plenty of pedestrians. This was not a fun place to learn to drive.


----------



## Gramsci (Jun 13, 2018)

teuchter said:


> I don't really understand why people don't seem to be more angry about this in general. It seems that the other night several people came very close potentially to being killed as a direct result of speeding. And yet it feels like many people want to find reasons to excuse the drivers' behaviour.
> 
> This is not an abstract danger, like air pollution. This is a simple matter of cars being driven in a way that massively increases the risk of pedestrians and others being seriously injured or killed. And when it's happening in your own neighbourhood, that means you and people close to you are being put at real, non-abstract risk. And the dangerous driving is not an invisible phenomenon. It's there in plain sight, every day and night.



Because the 20mph speed limit is seen as attack on the ordinary working person and there car now. Its not even a gender issue. Women drivers get as worked up about it as men.

Its the I work hard and have a car what right have these people to tell me what to do line of argument.

On another thread here there are photos of the 90s "Reclaim the streets" protest. At that time it looked like there was an opposition to " car culture". And not just in Brixton. Quite radical opposition.

Now moving to transport policy that puts pedestrians/ cyclists/ buses first as mainstream , which is a success due partly imo of the way out "swampys" of years back, is now seen as imposition on the average person. Like its anti working class. I despair.I know people in LJ who don't own a car and can't afford one who see all these measures in that light.


----------



## Gramsci (Jun 13, 2018)

teuchter said:


> I don't really understand why people don't seem to be more angry about this in general. It seems that the other night several people came very close potentially to being killed as a direct result of speeding. And yet it feels like many people want to find reasons to excuse the drivers' behaviour.
> 
> This is not an abstract danger, like air pollution. This is a simple matter of cars being driven in a way that massively increases the risk of pedestrians and others being seriously injured or killed. And when it's happening in your own neighbourhood, that means you and people close to you are being put at real, non-abstract risk. And the dangerous driving is not an invisible phenomenon. It's there in plain sight, every day and night.



Another thing. Its a vote loser to go on about cars. Last election making Lambeth pedestrian friendly hardly got a look in.

Greens spent there time going in about housing etc. At recent Council elections they were silent on the issue of putting pedestrian and cyclists first. They imo stayed off the issue. Which as they are supposed to be Green is a bit off.

Since the LJ road closures debacle the political argument to do a fundamental change has been been lost.


----------



## MissL (Jun 13, 2018)

It makes me feel sick in the stomach when I see cars speeding down residential streets with cars parked either side. It is so easy for a child or anyone really to step out and they would not have a chance of stopping. I don't know why people do it. General fuckwittery or just not giving a shit about anyone else. I saw the worst piece of driving I've ever seen at the junction of Josephine Aveneue/ Brixton Water Lane the other day. Cars often queue for a few minutes to turn right into Brixton Water Lane at that junction. One absolute fucktard turning left could not be bothered to wait behind the queue of cars so just drove onto the pavement and round the corner into Brixton Water Lane ON THE PAVEMENT.


----------



## bimble (Jun 14, 2018)

If you keep an eye on the 'street furniture' round here or whatever its called (the metal signposts plastic bollards on crossings, trees and even lamposts) on CHL in particular they are continuously being knocked over into the road and replaced. That we have so many cctvs around but none for this behaviour doesn't make sense.


----------



## teuchter (Jun 14, 2018)

bimble said:


> If you keep an eye on the 'street furniture' round here or whatever its called (the metal signposts plastic bollards on crossings, trees and even lamposts) on CHL in particular they are continuously being knocked over into the road and replaced. That we have so many cctvs around but none for this behaviour doesn't make sense.



Yes, I notice this all the time too.

And yes, speed cameras can pay for themselves, can't they? I'm not sure that a lack of police resources need stop the installation of speed cameras.


----------



## teuchter (Jun 14, 2018)

MissL said:


> It makes me feel sick in the stomach when I see cars speeding down residential streets with cars parked either side.



same here.


----------



## Mr Retro (Jun 14, 2018)

The park I live in now is a dead end with a roundabout at the end. People think it is a through road but when they realise it is not, some absolutely fly through the park, around the roundabout and away. Children play and drive their bikes around that roundabout. 

Twice I managed to confront drivers speeding through and both times was met with genuine surprise and apologies. No good when you’ve knocked down a child to be sorry afterwards.


----------



## Winot (Jun 14, 2018)

teuchter said:


> Yes, I notice this all the time too.
> 
> And yes, speed cameras can pay for themselves, can't they? I'm not sure that a lack of police resources need stop the installation of speed cameras.



IIRC there are limits imposed on where you can introduce speed cameras. I think you need to show that the location is particularly prone to accidents. In the meantime, even if there aren’t accidents, fast driving puts people off cycling and they are more likely to use the car.


----------



## bimble (Jun 14, 2018)

This actually happened in my street (cars parked either side all the way along) whilst i was having a driving lesson few months ago: Football rolls into the road followed by small child chasing it. And people speed down here constantly. I was scared of cars before becoming a driver but so much more so now i'm one of them.


----------



## OvalhouseDB (Jun 14, 2018)

The car was still there this morning!


----------



## organicpanda (Jun 14, 2018)

OvalhouseDB said:


> The car was still there this morning!


it's no longer a car it's an edgy vibrant installation


----------



## CH1 (Jun 15, 2018)

"Our priority is to remove vehicles which are causing obstruction or danger to other road users or pedestrians or denying access to disabled drivers or the emergency services."

LB Lambeth website - Parking, transport and streets


----------



## teuchter (Jun 15, 2018)

CH1 said:


> "Our priority is to remove vehicles which are causing obstruction or danger to other road users or pedestrians or denying access to disabled drivers or the emergency services."
> 
> LB Lambeth website - Parking, transport and streets


If it was obstructing the road it'd be gone... it's only obstructing pedestrians though so who cares eh. They can just walk in the street and people in wheelchairs can stay at home.


----------



## cuppa tee (Jun 15, 2018)

teuchter said:


> If it was obstructing the road it'd be gone... it's only obstructing pedestrians though so who cares eh. They can just walk in the street and people in wheelchairs can stay at home.


The abandoned caravan on Brixton road stayed in the bus lane for nearly 2 months, is Coldharbour lane administered by lbl or by tfl


----------



## teuchter (Jun 15, 2018)

cuppa tee said:


> The abandoned caravan on Brixton road stayed in the bus lane for nearly 2 months, is Coldharbour lane administered by lbl or by tfl


LBL.
You can generally go around something in a bus lane ... the pavement is entirely blocked though.


----------



## Gramsci (Jun 15, 2018)

bimble said:


> This actually happened in my street (cars parked either side all the way along) whilst i was having a driving lesson few months ago: Football rolls into the road followed by small child chasing it. And people speed down here constantly. I was scared of cars before becoming a driver but so much more so now i'm one of them.



As you should have learnt from the opposition to Loughborough junction road closures it wasn't about rights of disabled or access for emergency vehicles. Gordon Grove and Padfield street are rat runs.

What the car lobby really want is the right to speed down roads.

I remember during the LJ road closures that drivers were pushing out the way the temporary bollards.

On Loughborough road pre road closures there are a couple of sections where road is narrowed. As traffic calming measure. Bollards are regularly vandalised/ broken.

People need to get it into there heads that the car lobby don't want any comprisise.

Ive heard that parents living near Padfield road are asking Cllrs to reinstate the Padfield closure. Good luck with that in the present climate.


----------



## Gramsci (Jun 15, 2018)

cuppa tee said:


> The abandoned caravan on Brixton road stayed in the bus lane for nearly 2 months, is Coldharbour lane administered by lbl or by tfl



TFL


----------



## mojo pixy (Jun 16, 2018)

mauvais said:


> If you insist on bringing politics into it, a set of unnecessarily restrictive legislation for no demonstrable benefit is authoritarianism.



Except that driving a car is not a right, it's a privilege. Hence the whole license thing. By not being allowed to drive nothing is _lost_, there are many other transport options in the world for someone who can't deal with the rules for driving their own vehicle.



Saul Goodman said:


> I really do fear that we're heading into Americanism. Where it's always someone elses fault.



As in "he just appeared in front of me m'lud, nothing I could do, not my fault, if I lose my license I'll lose my job!" etc.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Jun 16, 2018)

mojo pixy said:


> As in "he just appeared in front of me m'lud, nothing I could do, not my fault, if I lose my license I'll lose my job!" etc.




No, as in "I could do with a few quid. I think I'll walk in front of this car and blame the driver!"


----------



## mojo pixy (Jun 16, 2018)

There are easier ways to make money than having bones broken by vehicles. And btw if the car were moving at 20mph there'd almost certainly be no injury claim to make.

Also, dash cam. Dash cam + keep under the speed limit = happy days.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Jun 16, 2018)

Or you could be really smart and just not walk out in front of cars. But it seems that's too much to ask of some people.


----------



## organicpanda (Jun 16, 2018)

Saul Goodman said:


> Or you could be really smart and just not walk out in front of cars. But it seems that's too much to ask of some people.


and if they're heading for you on the pavement?


----------



## mojo pixy (Jun 16, 2018)

Also, rule 206 which is a bit of a catch-all of safety considerations that are often ignored by motorists; point 6 for example. I've lost count of the times I've been sent scampering across the remainder of a road I'm crossing by some driver who can't be arsed to turn carefully.

Rule 206 - the Annotated Highway Code

EtA, More on topic, iirc there are over a dozen bus stops and crossings around central brixton so no real excuse for more than 20mph anywhere round there, even at night. It's never really empty of pedestrians.

I've lived on Brixton Water Lane, Stockwell Rd and Sidney Rd (plus a couple of other roads further up Tulse Hill) and I imagine there are more cars now. Doubt the driving is better but don't honestly know.


----------



## bimble (Jun 16, 2018)

Saul Goodman said:


> Or you could be really smart and just not walk out in front of cars. But it seems that's too much to ask of some people.


My pedestrian behaviour has changed a lot since learning to drive i'm much more cautious. People are total morons though all the time walking into the road whilst its green for cars pushing a pram whilst looking at their phone etc.


----------



## colacubes (Jun 16, 2018)

bimble said:


> My pedestrian behaviour has changed a lot since learning to drive i'm much more cautious. People are total morons though all the time walking into the road whilst its green for cars pushing a pram whilst looking at their phone etc.


I’ve recently started driving more regularly after a long period of only driving a couple of times a year, and the thing that has been the scariest is people walking into the road without looking with a pram or dog in front of them. Proper shits me up and made me much more aware when I’m a pedestrian and walking the dog to look what I’m doing and not stare at my phone.


----------



## nemoanonemo (Jun 16, 2018)

Earlier today I had to jump out of the way of an arrogant motorist who was entering the car park entrance to Tesco on Acre Lane as I was already half way across the road. As he passed, he shouted at me out of the car window. I was too burdened by shopping to pursue the matter. Should have followed him into the car park and left a stiff note on his windscreen.


----------



## Mr Retro (Jun 16, 2018)

bimble said:


> My pedestrian behaviour has changed a lot since learning to drive i'm much more cautious. People are total morons though all the time walking into the road whilst its green for cars pushing a pram whilst looking at their phone etc.


Some cyclists are worse I find. They seem to have a cavalier attitude to their own safety that scares the shit out of me. One swerved in front of me last week to avoid a pothole. If I was going faster or was taking less care it could have been a serious outcome.


----------



## teuchter (Jun 16, 2018)

Mr Retro said:


> Some cyclists are worse I find. They seem to have a cavalier attitude to their own safety that scares the shit out of me. One swerved in front of me last week to avoid a pothole. If I was going faster or was taking less care it could have been a serious outcome.


It doesn't seem cavalier to prefer not to crash into a pothole.

This is the exact reason why you should never be driving close enough behind a cyclist that you couldn't stop in time if something happened, and also why you should always give cyclists lots of room when overtaking them.

From the cyclist's point of view it's why you should not be riding in the gutter of course

<100 page cyclist/motorist derail>


----------



## Mr Retro (Jun 16, 2018)

teuchter said:


> It doesn't seem cavalier to prefer not to crash into a pothole.
> 
> This is the exact reason why you should never be driving close enough behind a cyclist that you couldn't stop in time if something happened, and also why you should always give cyclists lots of room when overtaking them.
> 
> ...


But you shouldn’t take an exaggerated careless swerve to avoid one either. But I agree.  I treat cyclists as if they are on a horse. Most motorists treat them as a nuisance. Having lived 8 years in Amsterdam and to see how well treated they are there versus in London I wouldn’t be a cyclist here unless cars were banned off the road completely


----------



## colacubes (Jun 16, 2018)

teuchter said:


> It doesn't seem cavalier to prefer not to crash into a pothole.
> 
> This is the exact reason why you should never be driving close enough behind a cyclist that you couldn't stop in time if something happened, and also why you should always give cyclists lots of room when overtaking them.
> 
> ...



^This. I’m a cyclist as well as a driver and if you were worried about hitting them when they swerved you’re too close. Hitting a pothole when cycling could potentially have you off your bike and all the injuries that entails.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Jun 16, 2018)

organicpanda said:


> and if they're heading for you on the pavement?


Then all bets are off.


----------



## Mr Retro (Jun 16, 2018)

colacubes said:


> ^This. I’m a cyclist as well as a driver and if you were worried about hitting them when they swerved you’re too close. Hitting a pothole when cycling could potentially have you off your bike and all the injuries that entails.


My point is I wouldn’t have hit that cyclist because I was aware. Many others possibly would have as they don’t take such care. London is a scary place to be a cyclist. But I think many cyclists are very dangerous on the road, to themselves.


----------



## teuchter (Jun 16, 2018)

Mr Retro said:


> But you shouldn’t take an exaggerated careless swerve to avoid one either. But I agree.  I treat cyclists as if they are on a horse. Most motorists treat them as a nuisance. Having lived 8 years in Amsterdam and to see how well treated they are there versus in London I wouldn’t be a cyclist here unless cars were banned off the road completely



It's not in theory an exaggerated or careless swerve if it is within the lane you are travelling along. But yes, as a cyclist you do put yourself in danger if you assume that drivers are taking reasonable care and/or paying any attention to the highway code, unfortunately.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Jun 16, 2018)

teuchter said:


> It's not in theory an exaggerated or careless swerve if it is within the lane you are travelling along. But yes, as a cyclist you do put yourself in danger if you assume that drivers are taking reasonable care and/or paying any attention to the highway code, unfortunately.


If the cyclist was paying attention, he wouldn't have had to swerve, as he'd have seen the pothole much earlier.


----------



## SpamMisery (Jun 16, 2018)

In all honesty, I've seen drivers, cyclists and pedestrians behave terribly in near equal measure. Drivers slightly ahead on bad behaviour certainly, but all not without blame.

There will always be examples of bad behaviour from all camps. Basically, don't trust anyone else on the highways, byways, cyclepaths or pedestrianised areas


----------



## teuchter (Jun 17, 2018)

SpamMisery said:


> In all honesty, I've seen drivers, cyclists and pedestrians behave terribly in near equal measure. Drivers slightly ahead on bad behaviour certainly, but all not without blame.



The point is the massively disproportionate ability to harm others (rather than themselves) through their actions.


----------



## SpamMisery (Jun 17, 2018)

True, but the root cause of all the problems are people. Targeting drivers is the sensible and economical option, but it just creates an "us and them" argument on here and 100 other local fora. A campaign that doesn't apportion blame (even indirectly) is best.... but I accept almost certainly unachievable.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 17, 2018)

SpamMisery said:


> True, but the root cause of all the problems are people. Targeting drivers is the sensible and economical option, but it just creates an "us and them" argument on here and 100 other local fora. A campaign that doesn't apportion blame (even indirectly) is best.... but I accept almost certainly unachievable.


the root cause of all the problems is the current mode of production.


----------



## teuchter (Jun 17, 2018)

SpamMisery said:


> True, but the root cause of all the problems are people. Targeting drivers is the sensible and economical option, but it just creates an "us and them" argument on here and 100 other local fora. A campaign that doesn't apportion blame (even indirectly) is best.... but I accept almost certainly unachievable.


Would you say the same about drink driving?

I see no reason that wilful speeding in residential areas should be treated differently.

Why don't we treat speed limits in the same way that we treat blood alcohol limits - ie. not something where we tolerate individual drivers deciding they don't apply to them.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Jun 17, 2018)

Reduce the limit for a ban to 6 points, make said ban permanent with no prospect of a retest. Speeding problem solved for the vast majority of cases.


----------



## SpamMisery (Jun 17, 2018)

Wilful speeding is no different from drink driving to me and people breaking either law should a receive a kick in the balls of equal strength; but, unfortunately, wilful speeding is more socially acceptable.


----------



## teuchter (Jun 17, 2018)

Well, I don't see any way of it being made socially unacceptable without apportioning blame.


----------



## SpamMisery (Jun 17, 2018)

Then we must fight through the "us and them" dramas of U75 until it's resolved


----------



## alex_ (Jun 17, 2018)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Reduce the limit for a ban to 6 points, make said ban permanent with no prospect of a retest. Speeding problem solved for the vast majority of cases.



To be honest actually enforcing the ban at 12 points would probably work too.

Eg Thousands drive with 12 or more points

How has someone got 51 points and is still on the road ?

Alex


----------



## teuchter (Jun 17, 2018)

There's any number of things that could be done. Stricter points systems. Speed cameras. Speed recorders or limiters in cars. 20mph made the default limit in built up areas nationwide. Plus all the broader transport and planning policy stuff.

But such things are seen as infringements on the freedom of the motorist. I'm completely serious when I point out the parallels with the guns debate in the US.


----------



## mojo pixy (Jun 17, 2018)

Cars that cruise at over 60mph and have top speeds well over 100, being sold to people who live in places they can never legally go over 40, like most of most UK cities.

Fucking absurd.


----------



## sparkybird (Jun 17, 2018)

Once driverless vehicles are in use, this type of behaviour won't in theory be possible


----------



## teuchter (Jun 17, 2018)

sparkybird said:


> Once driverless vehicles are in use, this type of behaviour won't in theory be possible



Unfortunately I think it's going to be a long, long time before people can be persuaded that driverless technology means that we can remove human drivers from the roads. However good the driverless technology is. I reckon things will only change once you have a generation that doesn't need to get driving licences grow up. Would be very pleased to be proved wrong though.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Jun 17, 2018)

I think the solution is to put barriers along the edge of the footpaths, and designated, traffic light controlled crossing areas for pedestrians, and any pedestrian caught crossing a road anywhere but a designated crossing point should have their legs amputated.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Jun 17, 2018)

Saul Goodman said:


> I think the solution is to put barriers along the edge of the footpaths, and designated, traffic light controlled crossing areas for pedestrians, and any pedestrian caught crossing a road anywhere but a designated crossing point should have their legs amputated.


Or, a slightly better idea, fuck that.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Jun 17, 2018)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Or, a slightly better idea, fuck that.


But imagine how many lives would be saved every year if pedestrians weren't allowed to run into the road in front of cars!


----------



## mojo pixy (Jun 17, 2018)

Till about 10 years ago Brixton had barriers between road and pavement all over the place.

There's probably a good reason they were removed but I can't say I know what it is.

Also don't know what effect their removal had on accident stats; don't really care either, imo its up to drivers to avoid pedestrians and not the other way around.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Jun 17, 2018)

mojo pixy said:


> Till about 10 years ago Brixton had barriers between road and pavement all over the place.
> 
> There's probably a good reason they were removed but I can't say I know what it is.
> 
> Also don't know what effect their removal had on accident stats; don't really care either, imo its up to drivers to avoid pedestrians and not the other way around.


They were removed to make it easier for crazed religious people to plough vans into pedestrians.
And you're wrong.


----------



## alex_ (Jun 17, 2018)

sparkybird said:


> Once driverless vehicles are in use, this type of behaviour won't in theory be possible



Yes, no insurer in their right mind would write a policy where a law breaking computer was a possibility. 

I can see human driver insurance policies rising a lot once even a small percentage of cars are completely autonomous. 

The evidence that all the cameras and sensors on self driving cars will provide will be ridiculously detailed. You make a claim with an autonomous car involved and your insurer will see that in the 6 seconds before hand you were speeding and performing a dangerous manoeuvre ( or whatever ) unless you are whiter than white your insurer will refuse to insure you. 

“Yes mr Jones we will continue to insure you, your policy will now cost 28k per year”

Alex


----------



## mojo pixy (Jun 17, 2018)

Saul Goodman said:


> And you're wrong.



In my world, faster-moving things are supposed to avoid slower moving things (or slow right down to mix in with the slower-moving things). The opposite is dangerous and confusing.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Jun 17, 2018)

mojo pixy said:


> In my world, faster-moving things are supposed to avoid slower moving things (or slow right down to mix in with the slower-moving things). The opposite is dangerous and confusing.


In my world, people should accept responsibility for their own well-being. Transferring that responsibility onto someone who has no control over your actions is dangerous and confusing.


----------



## mojo pixy (Jun 17, 2018)

So no doctors or nurses or health and safety laws in your world then. Good luck! (You'll need it..)


----------



## teuchter (Jun 17, 2018)

mojo pixy said:


> Till about 10 years ago Brixton had barriers between road and pavement all over the place.
> 
> There's probably a good reason they were removed but I can't say I know what it is.
> 
> Also don't know what effect their removal had on accident stats; don't really care either, imo its up to drivers to avoid pedestrians and not the other way around.


They were removed as part of a general re-design to make it more pedestrian friendly and I think it was the right move.


----------



## teuchter (Jun 17, 2018)

mojo pixy said:


> So no doctors or nurses or health and safety laws in your world then. Good luck! (You'll need it..)


Ignore them, they are just here on a wind-up.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Jun 17, 2018)

teuchter said:


> I'm completely serious when I point out the parallels with the guns debate in the US.


They certainly have similarities.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Jun 17, 2018)

mojo pixy said:


> In my world, faster-moving things are supposed to avoid slower moving things (or slow right down to mix in with the slower-moving things). The opposite is dangerous and confusing.


Do you extend that same logic to people walking on train tracks?



teuchter said:


> Ignore them, they are just here on a wind-up.


You're the one on a wind-up. If you're not, then the hand-wringing you're doing about car drivers is scary.


----------



## bimble (Jun 17, 2018)

Has all of this bad driving & bad pedestrianing gotten worse in recent years ? I wouldn’t know about the cars but seems as if general self-absorbed fuckwittery in public space has definitely increased, people oblivious to others around them and just thinking only about themselves / their phones. Or does this belong in the 'things that make you realise you're old' thread.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Jun 17, 2018)

bimble said:


> Has all of this bad driving & bad pedestrianing gotten worse in recent years ? I wouldn’t know about the cars but seems as if general self-absorbed fuckwittery in public space has definitely increased, people oblivious to others around them and just thinking only about themselves / their phones. Or does this belong in the 'things that make you realise you're old' thread.


People walking around with their heads buried in their phones. These are the people who walk out in front of cars and blame the driver when they get hit. This thread seems to be teaming with those people


----------



## Gramsci (Jun 17, 2018)

Haven't looked at this thread for a few days.

See the motorist lobby have been posting up in last few days.

Confirms what I have said previously. There isn't a middle of the ground compromise between car drivers lobby and pedestrians/ cyclists.


----------



## Gramsci (Jun 17, 2018)

sparkybird said:


> Once driverless vehicles are in use, this type of behaviour won't in theory be possible



I listened to program recently on this. Driverless vehicles in cities are some time in future. On motorways it will come sooner. Driverless vehicles are being tested. Ur right in built up areas they will have to work on basis that pedestrians share road space.


----------



## Gramsci (Jun 17, 2018)

On cycling and potholes.

I spend my time cycling in West end and City. I concentrate first on pedestrians. Also keep aware of cars around me. 

Its not always possible to see potholes until nearly on top of them.


----------



## Gramsci (Jun 17, 2018)

SpamMisery said:


> Then we must fight through the "us and them" dramas of U75 until it's resolved



Just go away you troll.


----------



## mojo pixy (Jun 17, 2018)

Saul Goodman said:


> Do you extend that same logic to people walking on train tracks?



Amazingly, it turns out trains go more slowly through stations for the same reason as 20mph zones exist on roads, ie proximity of moving vehicles to unarmoured bystanders. And like car drivers, train drivers are able to slow and stop if they see someone or something on the tracks ahead. Whodathunkit etc.

I would add that railways are normally fenced off and signposted with stuff like,* Danger No Trespassing on the Railway* .. which may give a broad idea as to whether they're suitable places for people to walk. On the other hand last time I checked, roads weren't separated from sidewalks. This may give the impression that it's perfectly legal to walk on roads.

Whodathunkit etc x2


----------



## Gramsci (Jun 17, 2018)

I cycle on a daily basis. Yes people on phones walk straight off pavement in front of me. I have to concentrate more. I just deal with it.


----------



## teuchter (Jun 17, 2018)

mojo pixy said:


> Amazingly, it turns out trains go more slowly through stations for the same reason as 20mph zones exist on roads, ie proximity of moving vehicles to unarmoured bystanders. And like car drivers, train drivers are able to slow and stop if they see someone or something on the tracks ahead. Whodathunkit etc.



This is not true.

Trains can't stop in time. This is why railways are completely separated from the pedestrian realm.

But the comparison isn't even worth engaging with. Ignore the troll.


----------



## mojo pixy (Jun 17, 2018)

They can, it just takes longer for them to come to a halt 

You may be mistaking my facetiousness for earnestness. That's OK, I don't do written sarcasm well


----------



## Gramsci (Jun 17, 2018)

Saul Goodman said:


> I think the solution is to put barriers along the edge of the footpaths, and designated, traffic light controlled crossing areas for pedestrians, and any pedestrian caught crossing a road anywhere but a designated crossing point should have their legs amputated.



Actually something like this has been done in Bloomsbury. But in favour of pedestrians/ cyclists.

The whole stretch of road running across Bloomsbury from West end to Clerkenwell has been narrowed to one way street ( West to East) for cars. With segregated cycle lanes on both side of street. One going west one east.

This is now permanent. Its reduced car traffic through Bloomsbury. Its encouraged more cycling. Its also improved environment for pedestrians.

I use it and it works.

Its segregation of road space that puts pedestrians and cyclists first. Cars last.

As you think segregation of road users is good idea would you support this?


----------



## teuchter (Jun 17, 2018)

mojo pixy said:


> They can, it just takes longer for them to come to a halt
> 
> You may be mistaking my facetiousness for earnestness. That's OK, I don't do written sarcasm well



Oh. ok.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Jun 17, 2018)

teuchter said:


> ...Ignore the troll.


Anyone who doesn't agree with your Daily-Mail-esque hand-wringing hatred of everything is a troll.
I bet you're a proper curtain-twitcher, aren't you


----------



## mojo pixy (Jun 18, 2018)

Saul Goodman said:


> Anyone who doesn't agree with your Daily-Mail-esque hand-wringing hatred of everything is a troll.
> I bet you're a proper curtain-twitcher, aren't you



Why do this? What's the point?


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jun 18, 2018)

mojo pixy said:


> Why do this? What's the point?


Team Top Gear out to defend the poor motorists.


----------



## alex_ (Jun 18, 2018)

mojo pixy said:


> Amazingly, it turns out trains go more slowly through stations for the same reason as 20mph zones exist on roads, ie proximity of moving vehicles to unarmoured bystanders. And like car drivers, train drivers are able to slow and stop if they see someone or something on the tracks ahead. Whodathunkit etc.



I guess you don’t live anywhere near a railway which has a mixed fast/slow service - fast trains do not slow down through none stopping stations.

Alex


----------



## mojo pixy (Jun 18, 2018)

You're right, I've never seen a train go slowly through a station. Never ever seen that. Never seen a car, never seen a pedestrian, in fact I don't even


----------



## Saul Goodman (Jun 18, 2018)

mojo pixy said:


> Why do this? What's the point?


Because when some Daily-Mail-reading hand-wringing hater of everything curtain-twitcher calls me a troll for disagreeing with him, he can fuck the fuck off


----------



## alcopop (Jun 18, 2018)

alex_ said:


> I guess you don’t live anywhere near a railway which has a mixed fast/slow service - fast trains do not slow down through none stopping stations.
> 
> Alex


Three people killed  by a train at Loughborough station!


----------



## mauvais (Jun 18, 2018)

alcopop said:


> Three people killed  by a train at Loughborough station!


Loughborough Junction, not Loughborough.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Jun 18, 2018)

Gramsci said:


> I cycle on a daily basis. Yes people on phones walk straight off pavement in front of me. I have to concentrate more. I just deal with it.


Why don't you just run into them? 
As a cyclist, I'm sure you must have a camera strapped to your head. Just run into them, dive on the floor like a well trained footballer, reel around for a while and sue them.
And you're on a push bike. It's not like you're going to do any damage to them


----------



## snowy_again (Jun 18, 2018)

Do fuck off.


----------



## editor (Jun 18, 2018)

Saul Goodman said:


> Why don't you just run into them?
> As a cyclist, I'm sure you must have a camera strapped to your head. Just run into them, dive on the floor like a well trained footballer, reel around for a while and sue them.
> And you're on a push bike. It's not like you're going to do any damage to them


You're banned from this thread.


----------



## teuchter (Jun 19, 2018)

This seems promising in principle, although they are changes which will take a while and be met with some resistance I expect.

TfL is planning to cut road speeds as part of “ambitious” strategy to boost cycle safety



> Transport bosses are preparing an “ambitious” plan to boost the safety of cyclists and pedestrians on London’s roads.
> 
> Due to be published this Summer, the document will outline how Transport for London will deliver on two targets set down by Mayor Sadiq Khan – that 80 per cent of all trips are made on foot, by cycle or by public transport by 2041 and that no-one is killed or seriously injured on London’s roads by the same year.





> Reforms identified which will need government backing include amending the default urban speed limit to 20mph and updates to the Highway Code “to help people understand risk better and better reflect the needs of those cycling in an urban environment”.


----------



## Crispy (Jun 19, 2018)

Enforcement, enforcement, enforcement


----------



## T & P (Jun 19, 2018)

Now that the bunfight posts have ceased I will dare to raise an issue that might not be agreeable to most remaining contributions ITT, but one that I can at least hope we can discuss without undue accusations of petrolheadness or trolling.

Whereas an absolute zero casualty rate is not achievable in the foreseeable imo, any effort to bring the figures down is of course worth considering. But if the authorities are to seriously attempt such a target the will also need to address pedestrian road behaviour and awareness- something that in this country is pretty much non existent.

Gramsci was telling in the previous page about encountering pedestrians whilst on his bicycle stepping on the road in front of him without even the most cursory check for incoming traffic. It is certainly his duty to be alert for such hazards, but he sounded to me (correct me if I'm wrong Gramsci ) as saying it is not an issue and something he and other road users just accept without question. The thing is, he shouldn't. Be prepared for it, yes of course. Dismiss as acceptable behaviour from pedestrians, no ,not at all.

The official policy (or rather, lack thereof ) regarding peds in this country seems to be that they are absolved of any wrongdoing and are neither required nor even advised to take the most basic of precautions when crossing or stepping onto the road. Regardless of what the law might say about liability, it seems extraordinary to me that there are virtually zero government campaigns asking pedestrians to exercise due care. Zero casualties will remain a distant dream until the end of time for as long as peds are not required to do something as basic as look before stepping onto the road.

And if anyone believes the current legislation is appropriate and it is impossible for a pedestrian to be at fault  in a collision with a bike/ motor vehicle, I can assure you that there are plenty of scenarios where a road user can be travelling with the most diligence and attention and still hit a pedestrian without being their fault. If traffic laws in this country suggest that is not possible, then traffic laws in this country are a gigantic ass.

More importantly, it is not about who is right in the eyes of the law but how to minimise the chances of an accident. Every road user is taught to travel defensively and assume the worst regardless of whether they have priority. It seems insane to me that peds are exempt from even the most basic cautionary advice.


----------



## organicpanda (Jun 19, 2018)

T & P said:


> Now that the bunfight posts have ceased I will dare to raise an issue that might not be agreeable to most remaining contributions ITT, but one that I can at least hope we can discuss without undue accusations of petrolheadness or trolling.
> 
> Whereas an absolute zero casualty rate is not achievable in the foreseeable imo, any effort to bring the figures down is of course worth considering. But if the authorities are to seriously attempt such a target the will also need to address pedestrian road behaviour and awareness- something that in this country is pretty much non existent.
> 
> ...


at the risk of sounding like my parents, part of the problem is people walking heads down texting or whatever, combined with headphones people are in a world of their own with no idea of anything outside their screen. Quite how you deal with this (personally I walk into them if I'm feeling arsey and they're not too big) without draconian laws I don't know, maybe there should be an app or make it the responsibility of the phone manufacturers.


----------



## BigTom (Jun 19, 2018)

T & P said:


> Now that the bunfight posts have ceased I will dare to raise an issue that might not be agreeable to most remaining contributions ITT, but one that I can at least hope we can discuss without undue accusations of petrolheadness or trolling.
> 
> Whereas an absolute zero casualty rate is not achievable in the foreseeable imo, any effort to bring the figures down is of course worth considering. But if the authorities are to seriously attempt such a target the will also need to address pedestrian road behaviour and awareness- something that in this country is pretty much non existent.
> 
> ...



Every child at school (should) get pedestrian training in infant and primary school - I think there are modules in the current framework (which is called "togo and nogo" and whose central lesson is "stop, look, listen and think") up to year 6, last year of primary school, aged 9/10 (or is it 10/11?).
Back in my day we just were to to "stop, look and listen". No thinking involved or needed!

Pedestrians are also usually included in the winter "be bright, be safe, be seen" type campaigns but there's nothing on the Think! website aimed at pedestrians (which does all the UK govt official road safety campaigns afaik).

I'm not sure it's true to say that peds are exempt from the most basic cautionary advice but it's aimed at children, and traffic laws do not suggest it's not possible for a pedestrian to be at fault - we don't have any jaywalking laws but the traffic laws in this country do not in any way assume liability against the driver, only when a pedestrian is crossing a side road or pedestrian crossing do they have priority (e2a: and where there aren't pavements). Anywhere else they don't, and if a pedestrian steps out in front of you, it's about whether it was reasonable to stop. If you can show you were driving in a proper fashion and could not avoid the collision you won't be found at fault in the UK.

There are some countries that have presumed liability laws so you have to prove your innocence rather than the prosecution proving your guilt but those aren't automatic liability either.

No jaywalking laws just means that pedestrians are allowed to cross wherever and whenever they want, and not be restricted to formal crossings. They don't mean someone can just step out in front of traffic and it's the drivers fault if they get hit.

But yes, there are pedestrians who need to behave better. I wouldn't introduce jaywalking laws personally.


----------



## SpamMisery (Jun 19, 2018)

Tbf it's also partly human nature. I've had people, who I swear were looking right at me, step out in front of me when cycling, then look utterly surprised afterwards and very apologetic. People work on autopilot mostly so their brain is looking out for the car/bus/lorry and their associated sounds. Sometimes they genuinely don't see cyclists.


----------



## bimble (Jun 19, 2018)

Sorry SpamMisery no you have to change your profile pic back again to the morning suit toff. You have a rep to live up to here. Also no cycling .


----------



## Winot (Jun 19, 2018)

Neither of my kids (10 and 13; inner London comps) have had any pedestrian training.


----------



## SpamMisery (Jun 19, 2018)

bimble said:


> Sorry SpamMisery no you have to change your profile pic back again to the morning suit toff. You have a rep to live up to here. Also no cycling .



But it's a penny farthing. Surely that's acceptable?


----------



## SpamMisery (Jun 19, 2018)

bimble said:


> Sorry SpamMisery no you have to change your profile pic back again to the morning suit toff. You have a rep to live up to here. Also no cycling .



Also fixed the profile pic. Don't know what I was thinking.


----------



## bimble (Jun 19, 2018)

jolly good.


----------



## Gramsci (Jun 19, 2018)

T & P said:


> Now that the bunfight posts have ceased I will dare to raise an issue that might not be agreeable to most remaining contributions ITT, but one that I can at least hope we can discuss without undue accusations of petrolheadness or trolling.
> 
> Whereas an absolute zero casualty rate is not achievable in the foreseeable imo, any effort to bring the figures down is of course worth considering. But if the authorities are to seriously attempt such a target the will also need to address pedestrian road behaviour and awareness- something that in this country is pretty much non existent.
> 
> ...



How is it on thread about speeding and dangerous driving get posts about pedestrians?

Not the first time here.

To make it clear I as long time cyclist accept that pedestrians have precedence on roads. I'm not complaining about it. 

As for the "bunfight". Now you are starting it again. Trying to sound all reasonable.


----------



## Gramsci (Jun 19, 2018)

bimble said:


> Sorry SpamMisery no you have to change your profile pic back again to the morning suit toff. You have a rep to live up to here. Also no cycling .



Why are you encouraging Spam?


----------



## Gramsci (Jun 20, 2018)

teuchter said:


> This seems promising in principle, although they are changes which will take a while and be met with some resistance I expect.
> 
> TfL is planning to cut road speeds as part of “ambitious” strategy to boost cycle safety



Read this. All sounds good. But what Im not optimistic about is the "groundswell" of public support that Mayor wants to make this happen. And article isn't only about cyclists. Its about non car owning pedestrians using public transport as well.

Given posting here I not optimistic. Which isn't that out of line with what I hear offline.

Take this:



> Reforms identified which will need government backing include amending the default urban speed limit to 20mph and updates to the Highway Code “to help people understand risk better and better reflect the needs of those cycling in an urban environment”.



What would get more support in present climate is blaming pedestrians and cyclists for accidents.


----------



## T & P (Jun 20, 2018)

Gramsci said:


> How is it on thread about speeding and dangerous driving get posts about pedestrians?
> 
> Not the first time here.
> 
> ...



I certainly wasn't the one who made the first post in this thread about pedestrians, so I'm perhaps not the best person to answer your question.

And I don't know what makes you think my making that post is starting a bunfight. Other posters seem have been able to reply to it and make counterpoints and everything has remained perfectly civil and pretty far from any kind of bunfight. But perhaps next time instead of "trying to sound all reasonable" I should just dish out some cheap meaningless banter.


----------



## alex_ (Jun 20, 2018)

Gramsci said:


> What would get more support in present climate is blaming pedestrians and cyclists for accidents.



I can’t see where this is going to come from even the evening standard has campaigned for safer cycling.


----------



## Gramsci (Jun 20, 2018)

alex_ said:


> I can’t see where this is going to come from even the evening standard has campaigned for safer cycling.



From Joe public. Its now seen as them imposing on the ordinary Joe. 

Ive seen it in Loughborough junction.


----------



## Rocky Sullivan (Jun 21, 2018)

Walking down Milkwood Road at 8am this morning I witnessed a bronze- coloured Land Rover Evoque at 50-60mph on the right-hand side of the road. What a jerk. When the 20mph limit was introduced the Plod did put a speed trap on Milkwood at the back of Jessop School but that's long gone. What is the point of the limit if it's not enforced?


----------



## teuchter (Jun 25, 2018)

T & P said:


> Now that the bunfight posts have ceased I will dare to raise an issue that might not be agreeable to most remaining contributions ITT, but one that I can at least hope we can discuss without undue accusations of petrolheadness or trolling.
> 
> Whereas an absolute zero casualty rate is not achievable in the foreseeable imo, any effort to bring the figures down is of course worth considering. But if the authorities are to seriously attempt such a target the will also need to address pedestrian road behaviour and awareness- something that in this country is pretty much non existent.
> 
> ...



I didn't have time to respond to this at the time.

Firstly - I don't think it's true that attempts to 'address' pedestrian awareness are virtually non existent. And it's not true at all that pedestrians are absolved of responsibility regardless of circumstances. But others have already covered these points.

I am all for teaching kids (well, anyone) more road awareness as pedestrians. But, I would come at it from a slightly different angle and call it assertiveness training. To be clear, I don't want to teach kids to be reckless and put themselves in danger. But I'd like them to be aware of their rights as pedestrians. Pretty much everything in the way our roads are designed trains all road users into a frame of mind that sees streets as roadways with some accommodations made for pedestrians. That's not how it should be - they should be streets made for pedestrians with accommodations made for road vehicles where necessary.

Pedestrians should be made confident in the knowledge that the highway code doesn't give drivers priority and that there is no such thing as jaywalking in this country. This doesn't mean that a pedestrian should feel free to step into the road without looking - that would be idiotic. It doesn't even mean that they should feel free to step into the road in an assumption that drivers are respecting the terms of their driving license, and sticking to speed limits and so on, because drivers don't and therefore it would be a foolish assumption to make. But pedestrians shouldn't be cowed into thinking that drivers should never be expected to slow down or stop for them, when there is plenty of time to do so. They should know that it's perfectly within their rights to cross the road somewhere where there's not a crossing, if they judge it to be safe.

They should be taught, for example, that vehicles are not allowed to stop on pedestrian crossings blocking the way and/or view of the signals, and they should feel free to give drivers who don't respect this some dirty looks. They should know that they have the right of way when crossing a road end at a junction, which doesn't mean that they shouldn't look, or attempt to cross when a driver is going too fast to stop, but they should confidently cross in a scenario where they can see a driver in the distance indicating to turn but who has plenty of time to see them.

A lot of this is similar to what is taught to cyclists - don't put yourself in danger unnecessarily but protect your right to use the road by riding assertively and confidently. In the long run, establishing that right not only makes the individual safer but makes things safer for all cyclists. The same principles should be applied to pedestrians. The more pedestrians there are out on the streets, the better the streets are for all pedestrians. Of course, all of this should be targeted in changes to the way we design streets too. I'm pleased to see that at least in London, some of these changes are already starting to happen, if only in fits and starts.

Outside of London I think things are less encouraging. In the countryside the car is king. At the weekend I was in a village in Hampshire, picture-postcard old english village with a narrow high street. At one end this funneled into a section that had no pavements at all. A two way road, so that two cars can pass each other, which is nice for the cars, but not for the pedestrians who get to choose which of those lanes they risk their lives walking in. This section of road could be given proper pavements, and traffic lights letting vehicles through in alternation. But that would hold up traffic, of course. Back along the main part of the high street, the narrow pavement on one side was almost fully blocked by cars parked up onto it. Room to squeeze past the cars as long as you aren't in a wheelchair or trying to push a pram. Why? because the roads space is apparently more precious than the pavement space. So people park to give cars plenty of room to maintain two way traffic, and pedestrians can take the hit. Meanwhile on the other side of the street there were parking spaces. But I watched an oversized Landrover pull into one of these, and place two wheels over the kerb. This again blocked a portion of the pavement; it was adjacent to a pub sign which meant that the gap he'd left wouldn't be enough for a wheelchair. His car was wider than the parking space but his judgement was that if it was going to spill over, it should spill into pedestrian space and not into the road space. This is the kind of thinking that I'd like to see kids not trained into. I'd like people to react to this kind of stuff in the same way they do to able-bodied people parking in disabled spaces, because it's effectively the same thing. Pedestrian assertiveness would train people to know that this isn't right, and maybe even say something to the driver, which I was too chicken to do at the time of course.


----------



## teuchter (Jun 25, 2018)

These guys are in Russia and take a slightly more militant approach to defending pedestrian space.

Could be fun trying something like this in Brixton.


----------



## a_chap (Jun 25, 2018)

teuchter said:


> Back along the main part of the high street, the narrow pavement on one side was almost fully blocked by cars parked up onto it. Room to squeeze past the cars as long as you aren't in a wheelchair or trying to push a pram. Why? because the roads space is apparently more precious than the pavement space. So people park to give cars plenty of room to maintain two way traffic, and pedestrians can take the hit.



A simple solution this this would be to decriminalise keying cars' paintwork when they are parked on the pavement 

I suggest motorists would then very quickly stop parking on pavements...


----------



## teuchter (Jun 25, 2018)

a_chap said:


> A simple solution this this would be to decriminalise keying cars' paintwork when they are parked on the pavement
> 
> I suggest motorists would then very quickly stop parking on pavements...



Yup


----------



## Gramsci (Jun 26, 2018)

So illegal illegitimate ( in eyes of the state) direct action is ok.

Rather than going through all the proper channels. And if they are wanting lobbying Cllrs and MPs to change legislation.


----------



## Gramsci (Jun 26, 2018)

I was out in the sticks today delivering an expensive artwork. Not that far out from London. Beautiful countryside with immaculate houses set in there own grounds. The standard Land Rover Evoque sitting in the drive. 

No pavements to be seen anywhere. Car is king there. 

I didn't see a single pedestrian.

There is a class issue over transport. Congestion charge , ultra low emmision zone , parking charges dont effect the wealthy.

The problem with changing transport to favour pedestrians in that it needs to be done in conjunction with a radical redistribution of wealth.

Otherwise its going to be seen and is already so ( Loughborough Junction road closures) as hitting the less well off first.


----------



## teuchter (Jun 26, 2018)

And yet again on Coldharbour Lane -

Crash closes Coldharbour Lane/Gresham Road junction


----------



## teuchter (Jun 26, 2018)

Meanwhile on the bottom of Herne Hill Rd

 

Seeing as 'LandSherrifs' business is trying to stop people being where they aren't supposed to be, you'd think they'd know better than to park on the pavement.


----------



## T & P (Jun 27, 2018)

Gramsci said:


> I was out in the sticks today delivering an expensive artwork. Not that far out from London. Beautiful countryside with immaculate houses set in there own grounds. The standard Land Rover Evoque sitting in the drive.
> 
> No pavements to be seen anywhere. Car is king there.
> 
> ...


The forthcoming Ultra Low Emissions Zone charge will extend to the N & S Circular boundaries from 2021. That is going to have a significant effect on car use in London. It applies 24/7 and a great many older vehicles will be liable to pay. Even some motorcycles will be affected. That will certainly will affect many lower income families who cannot afford not just upgrading their car, but having to do so to a relatively new model.


----------



## teuchter (Jun 27, 2018)

It'll affect many lower income families who can't afford a car at all and still have to breathe in all the air pollution from other people's vehicles - primarily owned by the more wealthy. Sooner the better. Roll on 2021.


----------



## teuchter (Jun 27, 2018)




----------



## teuchter (Jun 27, 2018)

By the way the Loughborough junction road closures/calming didn't involve any pricing-based measures. They weren't measures which you could buy your way around. That's why wealthy folk (many from outside the area) were involved in the agitations against them.


----------



## Twattor (Jun 27, 2018)

T & P said:


> The forthcoming Ultra Low Emissions Zone charge will extend to the N & S Circular boundaries from 2021. That is going to have a significant effect on car use in London. It applies 24/7 and a great many older vehicles will be liable to pay. Even some motorcycles will be affected. That will certainly will affect many lower income families who cannot afford not just upgrading their car, but having to do so to a relatively new model.


The day after Sadiq announced this i made a point of looking at reg numbers on the way to the station.  A significant proportion were over 15 years old.  In the car park of the estate over the road it is about 75%.  I can't see how this is anything but a regressive tax.

As an aside: what about the embodied energy in the car manufacture - masses of CO2 emissions and pollutants there - far more than produced in running an old car.  But cars are produced in another part of the world so that's their problem, right?


----------



## teuchter (Jun 27, 2018)

Twattor said:


> As an aside: what about the embodied energy in the car manufacture - masses of CO2 emissions and pollutants there - far more than produced in running an old car.  But cars are produced in another part of the world so that's their problem, right?



The answer is that it's most likely best to scrap a car of that sort of age, as far as CO2 emissions are concerned.

Is it more efficient to drive your car into the ground or ditch it for a better one? | Leo Hickman

And if T & P is right and it significantly reduces car use, then the benefits will be even greater.

As far as air pollution is concerned, obviously it depends on where the factories are located, what technology they have and so on, whether more people see the negative effects of air pollution there, compared to pollutants being pumped out directly into the street in a densely populated area here. Do you have any details or are you purely speculating?

I cleaned some windows yesterday...the amount of dirt that came off - air quality in London is terrible and something needs to be done about it.


----------



## CH1 (Jun 27, 2018)

teuchter said:


> The answer is that it's most likely best to scrap a car of that sort of age, as far as CO2 emissions are concerned.
> 
> Is it more efficient to drive your car into the ground or ditch it for a better one? | Leo Hickman
> 
> ...


There is an example at the end of the article you have quoted which I find nauseating as a non-driving non-car owner.

Apparently in the USA it is a reasonable decision to keep a 16 mpg "gas guzzler" rather than switch to a 32 mpg "fuel sipper". (ie Jeep vs Ford SUV) because it would take 15 years to reach break-even point.

Frankly I would have thought the current fashion for gas guzzlers for purported "safety" reasons - but actually for fashion and one upmanship is an example of market forces inconveniencing the population. It surely ranks with male trousers and jeans now almost universally constructed to slip down to expose the underwear, except that in the case of cars/SUVs we blithely accept mass poisoning of the air and consequent asthma, heart disease etc.


----------



## Winot (Jun 27, 2018)

Twattor said:


> The day after Sadiq announced this i made a point of looking at reg numbers on the way to the station.  A significant proportion were over 15 years old.  In the car park of the estate over the road it is about 75%.  I can't see how this is anything but a regressive tax.



You are effectively arguing that people on low income should pay less tax. I agree. Why should this 'rebate' be given only to people on low income that own cars?


----------



## cuppa tee (Jun 27, 2018)

......this thread has lost the plot its supposed to be about dangerous driving and noone so far has addressed a few factors that could be involved.....stolen vehicles, joyriders, vehicles being driven by people who are high or pissed, people driving without licenses, people driving while nutted on prescription drugs, people operating within the pressurised environment of the gig economy, people who are selfish/arrogant/entitled, people (men) taking steroids for that ripped look, people fleeing the long arm of the law, even the law themselves...the list goes on....London is an insane aggressive monetised and narcissistic environment and some people are going to behave accordingly whether they are in a car on a bike or even a horse and cart.


----------



## mojo pixy (Jun 27, 2018)

I think an important point, which I have mentioned, that is people driving cars that go over 100mph entirely in places with <40mph speed limits. That's completely absurd.

EtA, a car ad, yesterday...



Note the lack of pedestrians or any other road users. _This is what this car is meant for!_ or some shit. Not much of it in Brixton but that isn't going to stop people pretending.


----------



## cuppa tee (Jun 27, 2018)

mojo pixy said:


> I think an important point, which I have mentioned, that is people driving cars that go over 100mph entirely in places with <40mph speed limits. That's completely absurd.
> 
> EtA, a car ad, yesterday...
> 
> ...



Weren't Kia the mob who used to bung a free bike with every car sold ?


----------



## mojo pixy (Jun 27, 2018)

No idea, but a lot of car ads are like that - driving fast on empty roads, feel in control, feel dynamic. Car = Power, or another trope is Car = Fun.

In reality in most towns and cities for most of the day it's stop-start from junction to junction with traffic merging from here and there and a hundreds of people who clearly did _not _leave plenty of time for their journey. No power, no fun.

So we drive like arses to make the power and fun for ourselves, that we were promised in the ad. Fuck the fact the roads are full.


----------



## Gramsci (Jun 27, 2018)

Winot said:


> You are effectively arguing that people on low income should pay less tax. I agree. Why should this 'rebate' be given only to people on low income that own cars?



I don't agree with Twattor a lot but you are wrong here.

Ultra low emission zone is regressive tax.

As ive pointed out for the wealthy this might be irritation but they can go out and buy new car.

Its regressive. Full stop no argument. It can be argued that the cost benefit analysis for society as a whole is better with an ultra low emission zone. But lets not try to pretend this is not regressive.

For example. I know several "white van" men who don't really know what to do about this. Back in the real world most deliveries are done by people working on "self employed status". They are expected to provide there own vehicles. They just about get by hoping there vehicles don't break down to much. Its stressful for them.

Ita all very well well for liberal middle class to go on about air quality. As cuppa tee  points out a lot of people work in the "gig" economy.

They just get buy. Any further costs endanger there livelihood.


----------



## Winot (Jun 27, 2018)

I didn’t say that it wasn’t regressive Gramsci and I didn’t make light of the difficulties for individuals. 

Air pollution is killing tens of thousands of people in London. It needs to be sorted.


----------



## T & P (Jun 28, 2018)

Many car adverts are undoubtedly daft and stupid, but it would be wrong IMO to assume that the majority of drivers are so influenced by them they are incapable of differentiating between urban and empty countryside road conditions. Or so selfish and reckless they would be incapable to show restraint and drive sensibility in cities because their car can go so much faster on an empty road.

There are always a few twats about of course, but most of the drivers responsible for the kind of crashes we’ve seen in CHL this week have crashed because they’re reckless antisocial fuckwits, not because of any ads.


----------



## mojo pixy (Jun 28, 2018)

Advertising creates expectations, conscious or unconscious. I believe many of us have trouble managing those expectations in the face of cold reality, and they affect a lot of our behaviours in complex ways.

Car ads present entirely unrealistic road scenarios and aim to sell product based on that. I believe they affect more of us in more ways than we like to admit, mainly due to repeated exposure to the same message(s). Of course it's difficult to quantify (and from the industry's POV extremely deniable), but my instinct is not to lay this problem 100% at the feet of individual drivers. Like most social issues we face I believe the problems on the roads are structural and systemic, not just a case of _a few bad apples_.


----------



## mauvais (Jun 28, 2018)

Car adverts in the UK are already heavily restricted by the ASA, sometimes ridiculously so, and you're not allowed to show anything remotely resembling a sense of speed or of dangerous driving.


----------



## grosun (Jun 28, 2018)

Anyway, back to the original topic. I was driving on Denmark Hill on Saturday, HH->Camberwell direction. A man in a convertible BMW sat on my tail & honked at me for doing 20 when there are *clear* 20 marks on the road. Then near the hospital, an ambulance with lights flashing came in the opposite direction. I pulled in to the side to let it through. BMW guy saw this as an opportunity to overtake, blocking the ambulance for a few seconds. He had the cheek to give it a "thank you" wave. Unbelievable dickhead behaviour.

The 20 limit is widely ignored & those of us who do adhere to it regularly get hassle/abuse off people. I really don't understand why it's not enforced. Sure, it feels a bit boring, but you've got so much more time to react to unexpected things, and you don't actually arrive any later. My car (mostly driven in London, but occasional motorway trips) usually averages 15mph. Huge numbers of people have sped past me, only for me to catch them up at the next traffic light. You'd think sending out some people with speed guns would pay for themselves with fines, until people did start adhering, but presumably those with the power to do so are all scared of "war on motorists" headlines/tweets.


----------



## CH1 (Jun 28, 2018)

Yesterday about 5 pm a car (with passenger) not only jumped the lights: was not wanting to wait behind a P4 at the Gresham Road lights on red (junction with CHL as several posts above), said car overtook the bus at the red light - driving on the right hand side of Gresham Road, and dribving on the right hand side of the bollard turned right into Coldharbour Lane. Can't possibly have been able to see traffic coming in either direction on Coldharbour when they initiated this move.

Seems an even more risky manoeuvre that what led to the accident on Tuesday.


----------



## teuchter (Jun 28, 2018)

mauvais said:


> Car adverts in the UK are already heavily restricted by the ASA, sometimes ridiculously so, and you're not allowed to show anything remotely resembling a sense of speed or of dangerous driving.



There are plenty of adverts that show a 'sense of speed'.

There are also plenty of adverts that show cars doing wheelspins and suchlike, even if they might be careful to show it in environments that are not the public road.

Maybe car adverts should be allowed to show people having lots of fun, but with a health warning at the end, like you get on fag packets. Photos of crashes, injured cyclists, etc.


----------



## teuchter (Jun 28, 2018)

CH1 said:


> Yesterday about 5 pm a car (with passenger) not only jumped the lights: was not wanting to wait behind a P4 at the Gresham Road lights on red (junction with CHL as several posts above), said car overtook the bus at the red light - driving on the right hand side of Gresham Road, and dribving on the right hand side of the bollard turned right into Coldharbour Lane. Can't possibly have been able to see traffic coming in either direction on Coldharbour when they initiated this move.
> 
> Seems an even more risky manoeuvre that what led to the accident on Tuesday.


I've seen this kind of thing too.


----------



## mauvais (Jun 28, 2018)

teuchter said:


> There are also plenty of adverts that show cars doing wheelspins and suchlike, even if they might be careful to show it in environments that are not the public road.


Have you got an example?


----------



## T & P (Jun 28, 2018)

There are also plenty of car adverts that emphasise safety features, or simply concentrate on practical stuff such as comfort, boot space or fuel economy.

But it is also true that the odd car advert can focus on the performance side of things. This effort by Audi is so OTT it feels like a deliberate wind-up


----------



## mauvais (Jun 28, 2018)

T & P said:


> This effort by Audi is so OTT it feels like a deliberate wind-up


It was a while back now but I'm pretty sure it was a deliberate joke at the ASA's expense. Various Audi adverts were banned before & after.


----------



## teuchter (Jun 28, 2018)

mauvais said:


> Have you got an example?




or this one at 0.10


----------



## mauvais (Jun 28, 2018)

teuchter said:


> or this one at 0.10


Well, the good news for you is if you and you alone complain about them, they'll probably get banned.


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 2, 2018)

Last time I was at the Peckhamplex saw plenty of adverts for cars. Maybe cinemas is one place they can be shown. My partner remarked on it They emphasis "freedom" of having a car.

Its not just adverts. Its film like the Fast and Furious series for example. Having a car is a status symbol. Its ingrained in popular culture.

An anecdote. I was queuing in Superdrug in Brixton a while ago. The young women in front of me was on her mobile. She and friend were rating men on the kind of car they had. She then told her friend she wanted to buy a white BMW. Ending conversation saying she had to ring her mum to to say she would be back late as they were clubbing.

Cars are seen as sexy and are status symbols. So is speed. I don't think it can be denied that adverts feed into this.

Bit of a tangent but excellent program on buses today on radio. Comparing London ( good and still regulated by democratically controlled TFL) and abysmal outside London ( capitalist business run buses). Privatisation was brought in by Thatcher. Who famously regareded bus users as losers.

The program implies that only way to move away from car culture is good public transport.

In other parts of country there is transport debt. Only way to gain employment is owning a car one can't really afford. No car no job. As public transport is now post Thatcher minimal.

Transport is a class issue. Capitalism in one instance loves getting into new markets with privatisation.

The other instance is capitalism that relies on planned affordable transport for its workers. London would not function without it. London has TFL which regulates transport.


Programme here. Well worth a listen



BBC Radio 4 - Mind the Gap: Britain's Transport Divide, Buses


----------



## teuchter (Jul 2, 2018)

I've previously proposed nationalising all cars. Didn't seem too popular on urban75, where the idea that people shouldn't have the right to play with privately owned toys on public roads was too radical for just about everyone. Why's there so little discussion generally about ownership models for cars compared to railways or buses? I have my theories.


----------



## snowy_again (Jul 13, 2018)

Just leaving this here: Motorist arrested after pedestrian in 70s injured during collision in Herne Hill - Southwark News


----------



## grosun (Jul 13, 2018)

snowy_again said:


> Just leaving this here: Motorist arrested after pedestrian in 70s injured during collision in Herne Hill - Southwark News


I'd be willing to bet he/she was not doing 20


----------



## snowy_again (Jul 16, 2018)

Bicycle Collision

The url should really say 'cyclist injured by car driver performing illegal turn'.


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 16, 2018)

snowy_again said:


> Bicycle Collision
> 
> The url should really say 'cyclist injured by car driver performing illegal turn'.


Well it wasn't a car driver was it.

And I'm not sure her version is entirely accurate. What's this "illegal left" ? There isn't one. If the truck came under the bridge and turned left onto Milkwood, that's not illegal. If he'd come down Herne Hill and turned left, that's not illegal. If he'd come down HML and turned left to go under the bridge, that's not illegal, and if he was on Milkwood turning left, that's not illegal and she shouldn't have been inside him.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jul 16, 2018)

You can't turn left from milkwood, only right.


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 16, 2018)

sleaterkinney said:


> You can't turn left from milkwood, only right.



Ah. Ok.


----------



## snowy_again (Jul 16, 2018)

Spymaster said:


> Well it wasn't a car driver was it.
> 
> And I'm not sure her version is entirely accurate. What's this "illegal left" ? There isn't one. If the truck came under the bridge and turned left onto Milkwood, that's not illegal. If he'd come down Herne Hill and turned left, that's not illegal. If he'd come down HML and turned left to go under the bridge, that's not illegal, and if he was on Milkwood turning left, that's not illegal and she shouldn't have been inside him.



There's a few fails in this post, starting with pointless vehicle pedantry, then swiftly moves into a lack of understanding of the junction and associated victim blaming, rounded off nicely with a lack of knowledge of the Highway Code! But hey, it's only Monday morning!


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 16, 2018)

snowy_again said:


> There's a few fails in this post, starting with pointless vehicle pedantry, then swiftly moves into a lack of understanding of the junction and associated victim blaming, rounded off nicely with a lack of knowledge of the Highway Code! But hey, it's only Monday morning!


Except none of that is correct except with regards to the left turn out of Milkwood.


----------



## teuchter (Jul 16, 2018)

Spymaster said:


> Except none of that is correct except with regards to the left turn out of Milkwood.


Pretty sure it's all correct.


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 16, 2018)

teuchter said:


> Pretty sure it's all correct.


Impossible.


----------



## snowy_again (Jul 18, 2018)

Example#2 this week - Tuesday. 

Driver of hired car in Rymer Road hits a pedestrian. Then tries to flee from the scene of an accident. In doing so, they beached themselves on a bell bollard. Trying to reverse themselves off the bollard resulted in the car spinning around in circles. A bunch of onlookers then stopped the driver as they tried to run away. Police arrested driver etc. Car is still beached on bollard impeding the road etc.


----------



## teuchter (Jul 18, 2018)

Hopefully the pedestrian was ok?


----------



## snowy_again (Jul 18, 2018)

Yes, I was told.


----------



## teuchter (Jul 24, 2018)

Crash on Herne Hill Rd just now. Guy taking a junction too fast, smacked into two cars coming the other way. He legged it (this seems fashionable at the moment).

No-one hurt luckily.


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 24, 2018)

teuchter said:


> Crash on Herne Hill Rd just now. Guy taking a junction too fast, smacked into two cars coming the other way. He legged it (this seems fashionable at the moment).


Hopefully they’ll be able to identify him from the cycle he left at the crash scene.


----------



## teuchter (Jul 24, 2018)

teuchter said:


> No-one hurt luckily.



Looks like I spoke too soon, actually.


----------



## snowy_again (Jul 24, 2018)

Spymaster said:


> Hopefully they’ll be able to identify him from the cycle he left at the crash scene.



I know you're the joke Jeremy Clarkson on here, but can you not destroy this thread too? 

Isn't there a thread in the transport section where you can happily complain about cyclists to your heart's content?


----------



## a_chap (Jul 24, 2018)

Don't feed the troll...


----------



## teuchter (Aug 5, 2018)

Someone lost their life this morning in Stockwell. It's not entirely clear from the wording but it sounds like they might have been a pedestrian.

Either way an awful and avoidable death. But motorists must have their freedom.

Appeal following fatal collision in Lambeth


----------



## T & P (Aug 5, 2018)

teuchter said:


> Someone lost their life this morning in Stockwell. It's not entirely clear from the wording but it sounds like they might have been a pedestrian.
> 
> Either way an awful and avoidable death. But motorists must have their freedom.
> 
> Appeal following fatal collision in Lambeth


Not sure what you mean by ‘motorists must have their freedom’, unless you have exclusive information about this incident not available to the general public. But since we’re already speculating, I could speculate myself that the incident was likely caused by a reckless criminal with no regard for the law who would have been driving dangerously regardless of whether the speed limit was 30,20 or 10.

I’m all for discussions about toad safety in general but suggesting a particular fatal crash was caused by supposedly lax motoring laws when nobody has any details yet of how it happened feels pretty unsavoury to me.


----------



## teuchter (Aug 5, 2018)

There is a direct connection between lax enforcement, and people getting killed. That stands whatever the specifics of this case or others.

Every single day I see people speeding, and in every single one of those cases there is potential for someone to get killed.

I frequently see crashes at a junction a few steps from my front door. In several cases these have involved cars mounting the pavement. And each time I see these I know that someone could easily have been in the wrong place at the wrong time. And when I see that cast iron bollards concreted into the pavement are taken out, maybe you can understand where my imagination goes.


----------



## T & P (Aug 5, 2018)

teuchter said:


> There is a direct connection between lax enforcement, and people getting killed. That stands whatever the specifics of this case or others.
> 
> Every single day I see people speeding, and in every single one of those cases there is potential for someone to get killed.
> 
> I frequently see crashes at a junction a few steps from my front door. In several cases these have involved cars mounting the pavement. And each time I see these I know that someone could easily have been in the wrong place at the wrong time. And when I see that cast iron bollards concreted into the pavement are taken out, maybe you can understand where my imagination goes.


You’re still widely speculating and ignoring some very plausible facts. The pedestrian could have been hit by a joyrider in a stolen car who of course will always ignore the motoring laws altogether regardless of how strict they are and how strictly they are enforced. There could have beeo other circumstances that would have exonerated the driver of any wrongdoing, or failed to prevent the fatality if the driver had been travelling below 20 mph.

We simply don’t know at this stage, and trying to assert blame at this stage without knowing all the facts seems rather wrong to me. But each to their own.


----------



## mauvais (Aug 5, 2018)

teuchter said:


> There is a direct connection between lax enforcement, and people getting killed. That stands whatever the specifics of this case or others.


Unless you believe the only factor stopping people taking to the roads to enact a literal Death Race 2000 is the possibility of being done by road traffic police, that would inevitably be an _indirect_ connection, if one indeed exists.


----------



## snowy_again (Aug 6, 2018)

A week old:


----------



## teuchter (Aug 6, 2018)

snowy_again said:


> A week old:




Herne Hill Rd is one of the roads I where I routinely observe exactly this kind of driving, going on all the time, day and night. What's in that video is not exceptional.


----------



## Gramsci (Aug 6, 2018)

Cycling home tonight through Elephant & Castle in the cycle lane. Which is clearly marked. It was rush hour. Lots of cyclists in front of me and behind. Van next to me suddenly pulls across to turn left. No signal. He was busy chatting to his mate in van and clearly wasn't concentrating. 

As an experienced cyclist I was aware of this Muppet. 

When I said to him you have just almost knocked me off he got aggressive. Helped he had his mate with him.

I deal with this shit all fucking day.

I keep my cool despite temperature.

All the complaining about cyclists totally pisses me off.

Due to improved cycle lanes many more people are taking the socially caring green alternative.

Yet lot of posts on this forum lead to "whataboutery".

People who cycle in London are doing a good thing. Reducing pollution, reducing pressure on public transport, reducing pressure on road use.

The car lobby who come on this thread are tossers imo.


----------



## teuchter (Aug 6, 2018)

The Stockwell incident:

CCTV shows horrifying moments after woman killed in '90mph' hit-and-run



> Shocked witnesses said the blue  Mercedes C-Class was travelling at up to 90mph in a 30mph zone and tossed the victim 20 feet in the air.



I'm going to say it again - there is a direct connection between lax enforcement, where seemingly no effort whatsoever is made to enforce the 20mph limit - and a culture of driver behaviour that makes stuff like this more likely to happen.

Someone will try to argue that this extreme behaviour is outside of the realm of what the enforcement of 20 and 30mph limits affects. But I absolutely do not agree. It starts with it being acceptable to harass people for driving at the speed limit, because the limit is not enforced. And then people find that there's little that's likely to happen if you drive around at 50 or so at night or even in the day because it's become completely widespread. And that becomes normalised and then you get people going at 80 or 90 and not even stopping when they kill someone. I expect the driver of that car had the same reasoning as those who drive at 50 - it's an empty road, it's 4am, there's hardly anyone around. I'm a skilled driver and I can react. I've made my own judgement of the risk. Screw the speed-limit Nazis. And then someone's dead.


----------



## bimble (Aug 6, 2018)

Met police hunt 'stolen car' driver who nearly crashed into cyclists


----------



## teuchter (Aug 6, 2018)

bimble said:


> Met police hunt 'stolen car' driver who nearly crashed into cyclists


Equivalent to threatening people with a knife or a gun in my opinion; I wonder what he'll be charged with if they find him.


----------



## mauvais (Aug 6, 2018)

teuchter said:


> The Stockwell incident:
> 
> CCTV shows horrifying moments after woman killed in '90mph' hit-and-run
> 
> ...


Nothing about this is either normal or normalised. It's sociopathy. A total lack of enforcement wouldn't produce this or anything like this as the norm, especially in the longer term. Additionally, there's never been such a higher level of enforcement that would have deterred it - that is, your chances of getting caught may or may not be lower now, but they have never been sufficiently high to really put people off doing it if they so desired. But normal people don't.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Aug 6, 2018)

mauvais said:


> Nothing about this is either normal or normalised. It's sociopathy. A total lack of enforcement wouldn't produce this or anything like this as the norm, especially in the longer term. Additionally, there's never been such a higher level of enforcement that would have deterred it - that is, your chances of getting caught may or may not be lower now, but they have never been sufficiently high to really put people off doing it if they so desired. But normal people don't.


The point is breaking the speed limit is the norm and it's not policed. I've been on the motorway when there's been nobody under the speed limit.


----------



## mauvais (Aug 6, 2018)

sleaterkinney said:


> The point is breaking the speed limit is the norm and it's not policed.


I know that's the intended point. But even in the absence of any rules at all, the vast majority of people would regress to something that felt vaguely comfortable. Noone who would drive at double or triple the sensible speed for the conditions, or manifestly beyond their ability to control the car (and yes, it is obvious, not merely masked by delusion) is being held back by speed limits, by average people's behaviour or by the threat of punishment - with the possible exception of knowing that, in the worst case of being caught, sentencing is lenient. The two things are wholly separate, like you knowing you can probably get away with serious crime versus actually going round committing it.

And by the way, I'm not trying to say that a lack of enforcement is a good thing - I'd love to see more road policing. I hate these people with a passion. I'm just trying to tell you that it's a problem far beyond the conventional relationships between drivers and road traffic law. It's well into anti-social behaviour or worse.


----------



## Gramsci (Aug 6, 2018)

Edit


----------



## Gramsci (Aug 6, 2018)

mauvais said:


> I know that's the intended point. But even in the absence of any rules at all, the vast majority of people would regress to something that felt vaguely comfortable. Noone who would drive at double or triple the sensible speed for the conditions, or manifestly beyond their ability to control the car (and yes, it is obvious, not merely masked by delusion) is being held back by speed limits, by average people's behaviour or by the threat of punishment - with the possible exception of knowing that, in the worst case of being caught, sentencing is lenient. The two things are wholly separate, like you knowing you can probably get away with serious crime versus actually going round committing it.
> 
> And by the way, I'm not trying to say that a lack of enforcement is a good thing - I'd love to see more road policing. I hate these people with a passion. I'm just trying to tell you that it's a problem far beyond the conventional relationships between drivers and road traffic law. It's well into anti-social behaviour or worse.



This doesn't make sense.


----------



## Gramsci (Aug 6, 2018)

mauvais said:


> I know that's the intended point. But even in the absence of any rules at all, the vast majority of people would regress to something that felt vaguely comfortable. Noone who would drive at double or triple the sensible speed for the conditions, or manifestly beyond their ability to control the car[/b] (and yes, it is obvious, not merely masked by delusion) is being held back by speed limits, by average people's behaviour or by the threat of punishment - with the possible exception of knowing that, in the worst case of being caught, sentencing is lenient.



But you have just seen posted above examples of speeding.

Ru in London?

I live on Coldharbour lane/ Loughborough Junction. I regularly see speeding.

Ru saying 20mph should be scrapped?


----------



## mauvais (Aug 7, 2018)

Gramsci said:


> But you have just seen posted above examples of speeding.
> 
> Ru in London?
> 
> ...


How does any of this follow on from anything I wrote?


----------



## bimble (Aug 7, 2018)

I think mauvais is right, about the extreme cases. Some people murder random strangers even though enforcement against that behaviour is quite strict. The total number of speeding related deaths and injuries would definitely go down though if enforcement was taken seriously. Don't see any contradiction in both things being true. 
Driving around the area has made me revise significantly upwards my idea of what percentage of people are sociopaths though.


----------



## alex_ (Aug 7, 2018)

bimble said:


> I think mauvais is right, about the extreme cases. Some people murder random strangers even though enforcement against that behaviour is quite strict.



This is pretty rare, more than 80% known their victim.

Homicide in England and Wales - Office for National Statistics


----------



## bimble (Aug 7, 2018)

alex_ said:


> This is pretty rare, more than 80% known their victim.
> 
> Homicide in England and Wales - Office for National Statistics


Yes, I know. My example was a bit rubbish.


----------



## alex_ (Aug 7, 2018)

bimble said:


> I think mauvais is right, about the extreme cases. Some people murder random strangers even though enforcement against that behaviour is quite strict. The total number of speeding related deaths and injuries would definitely go down though if enforcement was taken seriously. Don't see any contradiction in both things being true.
> Driving around the area has made me revise significantly upwards my idea of what percentage of people are sociopaths though.



What’s depressing about this is that more  speed cameras and a lot more average speed cameras would completely fix this problem.

A thousand companies would do this for free with appropriate revenue share.

So this is a problem which is completely solveable with existing technology, and could be done for zero cost to the taxpayer and probably make some cash too.

But this apparently impinges on motorists liberties to break the law....

Alex


----------



## mauvais (Aug 7, 2018)

alex_ said:


> But this apparently impinges on motorists liberties to break the law....
> 
> Alex


What does this actually mean? Who or what is preventing installation of more cameras?

Take an easier example, red light cameras, because there's less general objection to these. Why don't we have one on every set of lights, perhaps PFI'd as you suggest?

Is it perhaps because of economics, like return on investment, rather than some imaginary lobby?


----------



## Winot (Aug 7, 2018)

mauvais said:


> What does this actually mean? Who or what is preventing installation of more cameras?
> 
> Take an easier example, red light cameras, because there's less general objection to these. Why don't we have one on every set of lights, perhaps PFI'd as you suggest?
> 
> Is it perhaps because of economics, like return on investment, rather than some imaginary lobby?



Local authorities are restricted as to where they can install cameras iirc. Have to prove it’s a place where there is high KSI stats.


----------



## mauvais (Aug 7, 2018)

Winot said:


> Local authorities are restricted as to where they can install cameras iirc. Have to prove it’s a place where there is high KSI stats.


Yes, but this is DfT guidance/force policy, not law.


----------



## Winot (Aug 7, 2018)

mauvais said:


> Yes, but this is DfT guidance/force policy, not law.





You asked why there aren’t more speed cameras. I gave you the answer. Essentially it’s politically unacceptable because of our pro-motorist culture.


----------



## mauvais (Aug 7, 2018)

Winot said:


> You asked why there aren’t more speed cameras. I gave you the answer. Essentially it’s politically unacceptable because of our pro-motorist culture.


That's not an answer as to how motorists' liberties prevent the deployment of cameras, it's a detail on how current policy works. The former could well lead to the latter but the evidence for that is lacking.

This is the 2007 guidance that heavily influences, but doesn't prescribe, current speed camera policy:

https://assets.publishing.service.g...chment_data/file/465165/dft-circular-0107.pdf

You can see how that translates into practice e.g. here (West Mids):

https://www.wmsafetycameras.co.uk/ajaxfilemanager/uploaded/File/wmprotocols01sep09.pdf

You could argue the approach is driven by political resistance to cameras or whatever, but I don't think that holds up very well; it's mostly budget restrictions and data-driven policy. One of the few brakes on whether you can install a camera is whether the police & Courts Service are willing to deal with the results.


----------



## alex_ (Aug 7, 2018)

mauvais said:


> What does this actually mean? Who or what is preventing installation of more cameras?



Right wing press

Eg The myths of average speed camera fines revealed - does changing lane REALLY work?

“This means you need to be paying attention all the time to avoid being caught out by the "yellow vultures"”

Pay attention all the time ?

Oh the humanity !


----------



## teuchter (Aug 7, 2018)

mauvais said:


> You could argue the approach is driven by political resistance to cameras or whatever, but I don't think that holds up very well; it's mostly budget restrictions and data-driven policy. One of the few brakes on whether you can install a camera is whether the police & Courts Service are willing to deal with the results.



If speed camera fines don't cover the cost of dealing with the 'results' - increase the fines.


----------



## bimble (Aug 7, 2018)

Ignore the tone of the articles, and these are not about speeding, but it appears lambeth is not that afraid of fining drivers for breaking the law.
London's bus lane blackspots revealed | This is Money
Drivers fined £7.3m by CCTV cars
Could also just be that we have London's worst drivers.


----------



## alex_ (Aug 7, 2018)

teuchter said:


> If speed camera fines don't cover the cost of dealing with the 'results' - increase the fines.



Considering that an augmented reality tape measure is included in the next version of iOS - I can’t see why the guts of a cheap speed camera would cost more than 500 quid.

Alex


----------



## teuchter (Aug 7, 2018)

mauvais said:


> Noone who would drive at double or triple the sensible speed for the conditions, or manifestly beyond their ability to control the car (and yes, it is obvious, not merely masked by delusion) is being held back by speed limits, by average people's behaviour or by the threat of punishment -



You simply state this as if it's fact - I don't buy it at all.


----------



## mauvais (Aug 7, 2018)

alex_ said:


> Considering that an augmented reality tape measure is included in the next version of iOS - I can’t see why the guts of a cheap speed camera would cost more than 500 quid.
> 
> Alex


Mostly because it needs to produce evidence that will stand up in court.


----------



## teuchter (Aug 7, 2018)

alex_ said:


> Considering that an augmented reality tape measure is included in the next version of iOS - I can’t see why the guts of a cheap speed camera would cost more than 500 quid.
> 
> Alex


Likewise black box recorders and speed limiters are completely feasible technologies that could be required in new cars.


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 7, 2018)

teuchter said:


> You simply state this as if it's fact - I don't buy it at all.


There's research to back him up. If you de-restrict roads people don't all suddenly start driving as fast as their cars will allow. There are plenty of stretches of road where there would be practically no chance of getting caught speeding but everyone doesn't drive them at 150 mph. Most people drive at a speed that they feel safe at which, unsurprisingly, often seems to be at or around speed limits (except on motorways iirc). There's a lot more to road planning than 'lower limits, safer roads'.


----------



## teuchter (Aug 7, 2018)

So, on the issue of whether speed cameras pay for themselves - in response to mauvais ' suggestion that it's budgetary rather than political issues that stop more cameras being installed - I looked up this report:

www.speedcamerareport.co.uk/4_year_evaluation.pdf

In there there is a fair bit of discussion of cost recovery. Their conclusion is that in cost terms there's a net benefit:



> 4. The funding mechanism and partnership arrangements have worked well
> 
> In the fourth year, the programme had released around £96million per annum (in England, Wales and Scotland) for local partnerships to invest in safety camera enforcement and supporting education. Prior to cost recovery, fines accrued wholly to the HMT Consolidated Fund. In the fourth year, we have estimated that the benefits to society, in terms of the value of casualties saved, were in the region of £258million4 per annum.


 (page 8)

So does their assessment take into account the follow-up costs to police and the courts? As far as I an see yes it does:



> Under the rules of cost recovery, all eligible costs associated with camera enforcement and the processing of fixed penalty notices were recoverable by members of the partnership (police, local authorities, Magistrates’ Courts).
> Any surplus over and above these costs was returned to HMT Consolidated Fund. At the end of each year, partnerships were required to submit audited accounts showing that only costs relating to camera enforcement had been claimed. Only when a clear audit certificate had been issued did a partnership receive final payment to cover its costs. To date, all partnerships have received clear audit certificates. Figures for costs and income, covered in this section, were obtained from these audit certificates.


 (page 82)

Essentially all the 'partnerships' recovered their costs with a surplus being paid to HMT.

The report also makes the important point about costs associated with crashes and injuries. So the actual revenue from the cameras is only part of the 'benefit' side of the financial equation. The cost of dealing with the aftermath of crashes are significant. Once they are factored in there's a very substantial benefit to the public purse of enforcement. But even without that, the cameras pay for themselves.

The reasons there aren't more cameras are mainly political.


----------



## mauvais (Aug 7, 2018)

Yes, the current cameras on average pay for themselves and related road traffic initiatives, but then it could be argued that this is a product of siting guidelines. If a new wave of cameras don't catch enough people - or as a wider benefit prevent enough casualties - then obviously it stops happening.

Costs per se are also not necessarily the problem with the police & courts, which is volume of work in relation to the overall public good - i.e. not clogging up the courts with motoring offences.


----------



## teuchter (Aug 7, 2018)

Spymaster said:


> There's research to back him up. If you de-restrict roads people don't all suddenly start driving as fast as their cars will allow. There are plenty of stretches of road where there would be practically no chance of getting caught speeding but everyone doesn't drive them at 150 mph. Most people drive at a speed that they feel safe at which, unsurprisingly, often seems to be at or around speed limits (except on motorways iirc). There's a lot more to road planning than 'lower limits, safer roads'.



There's zero evidence of your claim, in that opinion piece, relating to American roads, you link to. 

What that article is talking about is risk of motor vehicles being involved in accidents, related to prevailing speed. On American highways. It ignores the implications for pedestrians and other users. It's entirely irrelevant to what we're discussing here.


----------



## teuchter (Aug 7, 2018)

mauvais said:


> Yes, the current cameras on average pay for themselves and related road traffic initiatives, but then it could be argued that this is a product of siting guidelines. If a new wave of cameras don't catch enough people - or as a wider benefit prevent enough casualties - then obviously it stops happening.
> 
> Costs per se are also not necessarily the problem with the police & courts, which is volume of work in relation to the overall public good - i.e. not clogging up the courts with motoring offences.


Volume of work problem is the same as a cost problem. Provide more court staff if necessary, with the revenue generated, which the report says is sufficient. If we approach a point of diminishing returns, thanks to siting guidelines, then we review the situation. Is there any evidence at all that we are approaching that point?


----------



## alex_ (Aug 7, 2018)

mauvais said:


> Yes, the current cameras on average pay for themselves and related road traffic initiatives, but then it could be argued that this is a product of siting guidelines. If a new wave of cameras don't catch enough people - or as a wider benefit prevent enough casualties - then obviously it stops happening.
> 
> Costs per se are also not necessarily the problem with the police & courts, which is volume of work in relation to the overall public good - i.e. not clogging up the courts with motoring offences.



They also appear to be eye wateringly expensive - 12.5k first year, 8.5k thereafter. Which will affect this a lot.

You only clog up the courts if offences end up there.

The other way to do this would be via insurance.

Introduce a new grade of zero cost motoring offence, for low end speeding. Cost drivers in the pocket via insurance costs.

Alex


----------



## RoyReed (Aug 7, 2018)

alex_ said:


> Cost drivers in the pocket via insurance costs.


For that they'd have to be insured in the first place. I wouldn't mind betting that a lot of the motorists who've been talked about in this thread are uninsured.


----------



## Teaboy (Aug 7, 2018)

alex_ said:


> The other way to do this would be via insurance.
> 
> Introduce a new grade of zero cost motoring offence, for low end speeding. Cost drivers in the pocket via insurance costs.
> 
> Alex



Driving records including penalty points are already factored into insurance premiums, this is already happening.


----------



## alex_ (Aug 7, 2018)

Teaboy said:


> Driving records including penalty points are already factored into insurance premiums, this is already happening.



Only if you get caught


----------



## mrs quoad (Aug 7, 2018)

alex_ said:


> They also appear to be eye wateringly expensive - 12.5k first year, 8.5k thereafter. Which will affect this a lot.


For a camera? In criminal justice terms, that strikes me as pretty darned cheap.


----------



## Gramsci (Aug 7, 2018)

mauvais said:


> How does any of this follow on from anything I wrote?



I'm asking straightforward question as a Lambeth resident who lives on busy road.

Do you object to Lambeth council 20mph speed limit?  Do you think it should be scrapped? Its not an unreasonable question.

I support it.


----------



## alex_ (Aug 7, 2018)

mrs quoad said:


> For a camera? In criminal justice terms, that strikes me as pretty darned cheap.



A mass produced camera for 30 grand over three years ?

Cheap ?

If that cost includes the cost of someone sending out fines it seems a bit better.

Alex


----------



## alex_ (Aug 8, 2018)

Gramsci said:


> I'm asking straightforward question as a Lambeth resident who lives on busy road.
> 
> Do you object to Lambeth council 20mph speed limit?  Do you think it should be scrapped? Its not an unreasonable question.
> 
> I support it.



You’d have to be completely insane to not support it.

Aws


----------



## SpamMisery (Aug 8, 2018)

alex_ said:


> A mass produced camera for 30 grand over three years ?
> 
> Cheap ?



Welcome to the world of government procurement.


----------



## snowy_again (Aug 8, 2018)

Last week:


----------



## alex_ (Aug 8, 2018)

SpamMisery said:


> Welcome to the world of government procurement.



Hopefully that includes the entire cost of running them, with the only additial cost being the stamps for the fine - but who knows !

Alex


----------



## T & P (Aug 8, 2018)

I’ve never understood why the authorities have to wait until there have been several serious accidents at a spot before they can erect a speed camera. I can understand the government’s desire to control the number of cameras that get approved for installation, but the decision to approve them should be based on risk assessment and prevention, rather than wait for repeated carnage at a spot before deciding it could benefit from a camera.


----------



## cuppa tee (Aug 8, 2018)

snowy_again said:


> Last week:



That gentleman looks like he shouldn't be allowed out on a kiddies trike without supervision...


----------



## SpamMisery (Aug 9, 2018)

alex_ said:


> Hopefully that includes the entire cost of running them, with the only additial cost being the stamps for the fine - but who knows !
> 
> Alex



I would imagine its something like that but may or may not include police staff time. Usually these figures are arrived at by dividing sum of the contract by the number of, in this, cameras. That normally includes things like through-life support and they might have included police staff time, they might not.


----------



## teuchter (Aug 9, 2018)

alex_ said:


> Hopefully that includes the entire cost of running them, with the only additial cost being the stamps for the fine - but who knows !
> 
> Alex


Where did those numbers come from, anyway?


----------



## alex_ (Aug 9, 2018)

teuchter said:


> Where did those numbers come from, anyway?



BBC website but I now can’t find it.

This 

Gatso Speed Cameras Explained and How They Work

says 20k urban / 40k country.

Alex


----------



## bimble (Aug 15, 2018)

These have just been driven into and knocked into the street, again, by someone in a hurry. It happens all the time.  (loughborough junction).


----------



## teuchter (Aug 15, 2018)

We need to invent some kind of something that leaves a traceable record of such collisions on the culprit's vehicle, so that the cost of constantly fixing all these things can be recovered from drivers' insurance instead of public money. A bit like the ink that explodes all over bank robbers.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 15, 2018)

teuchter said:


> We need to invent some kind of something that leaves a traceable record of such collisions on the culprit's vehicle, so that the cost of constantly fixing all these things can be recovered from drivers' insurance instead of public money. A bit like the ink that explodes all over bank robbers.


or you could use cctv / anpr to get a licence number


----------



## snowy_again (Aug 15, 2018)

That film / data gets deleted, or isn't shared despite public requests though...


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 15, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> or you could use cctv / anpr to get a licence number


This is a Lambeth thread, remember. Most of these cars are probably nicked.


----------



## mrs quoad (Aug 15, 2018)

bimble said:


> These have just been driven into and knocked into the street, again, by someone in a hurry. It happens all the time. View attachment 144069 (loughborough junction).


_Festina lente, _ennit


----------



## Gramsci (Aug 15, 2018)

Spymaster said:


> This is a Lambeth thread, remember. Most of these cars are probably nicked.



The issue you are referring to is in Loughborough Junction.

The cars that go through it are middle class people going through a working class area to get to there nice houses in south London.


----------



## Gramsci (Aug 15, 2018)

teuchter said:


> We need to invent some kind of something that leaves a traceable record of such collisions on the culprit's vehicle, so that the cost of constantly fixing all these things can be recovered from drivers' insurance instead of public money. A bit like the ink that explodes all over bank robbers.



I was going down Loughborough road this week. There is the old road narrowing traffic calming measures in the road.

This week in morning saw workers fixiing the lighted plastic bollards again. Coming back up today noticed the bollards on one had been knocked out and had disappeared.

This started during the road closures.

Its happening so regularly now I think it is deliberate.

Personally I find it rather aggressive.


----------



## Rushy (Aug 16, 2018)

I saw Becca Thackeray (HH greens) out with two community safety officers and a speed camera on Railton Road about 5.30 this afternoon. Opposite the junction with Leeson.


----------



## bimble (Aug 24, 2018)

This is kind of interesting, suggests its not just the drivers or the speed of them but also partly the roads themselves? Brixton has a few really bad junctions imo. Half of London car crashes take place in 5% of the city’s junctions


----------



## snowy_again (Aug 24, 2018)

I suspect it's a bit pointless to blame the roads, and not the car drivers using them...


----------



## Winot (Aug 24, 2018)

Redesign of junctions usually means redesigning them so that drivers can't drive at dangerous speeds. In fact in the link provided by bimble it suggests that the way to 'redesign' Oxford St is to pedestrianize it.


----------



## teuchter (Sep 1, 2018)

It's not unusual for junction redesigns - to make them safer - to be met with 'war on the motorist' complaints when people find they can't go as fast, or have to stop at traffic lights that weren't previously there, and so on.


----------



## editor (Sep 3, 2018)

The junction - and traffic lights - between Coldharbour Lane and Gresham Road (outside Barrier Block) seems to cause lots of problems for some drivers.


----------



## teuchter (Sep 4, 2018)

Today. Car going too fast and not looking properly coming out of the junction. This happens regularly here. Luckily it only hit the lorry's fuel tank and not a cyclist or someone trying to cross the road.

This along with Padfield rd is part of a popular cut-through route between Coldharbour Lane and Milkwood Rd avoiding the traffic lights on CHL. This is why a closure on Padfield Rd was included in the attempt at traffic calming in LJ. It got shouted down with all the rest of them. Lambeth abandoned it even though it wasn't part of the most controversial measure and it didn't close off any routes, just would have made people use the traffic light controlled junctions instead.


----------



## Crispy (Sep 4, 2018)

The generous pavement radius doesn't help. All the other roads along there have sharp corners, which discourage fast turns.


----------



## teuchter (Sep 4, 2018)

Crispy said:


> The generous pavement radius doesn't help. All the other roads along there have sharp corners, which discourage fast turns.


True. That's a good point.


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 7, 2018)

teuchter said:


> View attachment 146067
> 
> 
> This along with Padfield rd is part of a popular cut-through route between Coldharbour Lane and Milkwood Rd avoiding the traffic lights on CHL. This is why a closure on Padfield Rd was included in the attempt at traffic calming in LJ. It got shouted down with all the rest of them. Lambeth abandoned it even though it wasn't part of the most controversial measure and it didn't close off any routes, just would have made people use the traffic light controlled junctions instead.



Ive heard some people living near Padfield road have approached local Cllr to have it reinstated.


----------



## teuchter (Sep 8, 2018)

Barely three days passed and yet another one at that same junction, late last night. These particular idiots didn't even need another car to crash into; they simply took the corner way too fast and crashed into the curb. They were laughing about it too; speeding around at night is just a fun game if you know no-one's going to do anything about it.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 2, 2018)

I'm not registered to view but if anyone who is, fancies C&P-ing the article please do so.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/f46e4cd2-c294-11e8-b39e-4a881a3e11



> Almost nine in ten drivers ignore 20mph zones, prompting claims that the mass introduction of lower speed limits is a waste of time.
> 
> The Department for Transport said that 86 per cent of cars broke the limit in 20mph zones last year. It coincided with a sharp increase in deaths and injuries on the slowest roads.
> 
> Research carried out using automatic traffic counters showed that cars travelled at an average of 26mph on 20mph roads. Almost a fifth were caught at 30mph or more. Non-compliance with the zones appears to be on the rise, with figures showing that only 81 per cent of cars broke the limit in 2016.


----------



## teuchter (Jan 12, 2019)

Police hunt driver after woman in her 20s killed in 'hit-and-run' in Lambeth

Another pedestrian killed in Brixton.

How many more before people take this seriously?


----------



## Winot (Jan 15, 2019)

Driving without insurance, failed to clear windscreen so couldn’t see, hit pedestrian on zebra crossing and killed her. Prosecuted for ‘careless’ rather than ‘dangerous’ driving so only 10 months in prison. 

Man who killed doctor by careless driving jailed


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Jan 15, 2019)

Winot said:


> Driving without insurance, failed to clear windscreen so couldn’t see, hit pedestrian on zebra crossing and killed her. Prosecuted for ‘careless’ rather than ‘dangerous’ driving so only 10 months in prison.
> 
> Man who killed doctor by careless driving jailed


Should be manslaughter


----------



## Winot (Jan 15, 2019)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Should be manslaughter



Agreed but the problem is getting juries to convict. And if they won’t convict for dangerous driving then they aren’t going to for manslaughter.


----------



## teuchter (Jan 15, 2019)

Unbelievable that you can kill someone, and not only get such a short sentence but be allowed to drive again.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 15, 2019)

teuchter said:


> Unbelievable that you can kill someone, and not only get such a short sentence but be allowed to drive again.


it's unbelievable that after decades of short laughable sentences being handed down for killing someone while driving that anyone's surprised when such sentences are handed out


----------



## Winot (Jan 15, 2019)

teuchter said:


> Unbelievable that you can kill someone, and not only get such a short sentence but be allowed to drive again.



Yep Chris Boardman was saying on Twitter that with the proposal to do away with short prison sentences the state should be banning more drivers for life. I agree.


----------



## snowy_again (Jan 15, 2019)

Never stops people from driving without a licence though does it?


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jan 15, 2019)

Team Top Gear will be in shortly to take the piss.


----------



## Winot (Jan 15, 2019)

snowy_again said:


> Never stops people from driving without a licence though does it?



True, but the proposal was that that _should_ carry a prison sentence.

It's all academic really. The authorities haven't got the balls to face down the motorist culture.


----------



## BigTom (Jan 15, 2019)

Winot said:


> Agreed but the problem is getting juries to convict. And if they won’t convict for dangerous driving then they aren’t going to for manslaughter.



Definitely but the CPS are also at fault here for not trying to prosecute dangerous driving charges. They've created a feedback loop whereby the difficulty of getting juries to convict dangerous driving charges (where the driving falls "far below" the standard that is to be expected, rather than "below" the standard in careless driving charges) means very few dangerous driving charges and CPS setting their own precedents - next time something similar comes up the CPS solicitor will see that previously it's been charged as careless and go with that.

West Mids Police have been calling for the wording of the laws to be changed for a couple of years at least now, because juries see someone driving badly and think "I can drive like that sometimes" and so don't consider the standard of driving to be below what they expect (the one that springs to mind here is the one where a van driver drove onto a pavement to park and killed a 4 year old girl riding a scooter on the pavement and was cleared by a jury who presumably felt that since they often park on pavements, they could see themselves doing this so the van driver wasn't driving below their standard of driving, despite it being against the law to drive onto a pavement).
Unfortunately DfT decided to go for a review of cycling laws rather than driving laws so we won't see any reform here anytime soon.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Jan 15, 2019)

What’s needed:

Anyone who kills someone with a car is on a manslaughter charge.
Drink driving conviction means loss of license for life as well as prison sentence.
12 points limit reduced to 9, and that’s for life. Once you lose your license that’s it. No second chance.
Get caught driving without a license and face minimum of 5 years in prison.


Driving isn’t a right, it should be a hard kept privilege. If someone loses their job/livelihood because they’re reliant on a vehicle but can’t drive safely then fuck them.


----------



## mojo pixy (Jan 15, 2019)

More or less, but deaths aside, a convicton for careless driving should be a year's ban, and it should be made clear the first time that the second time will be for life. _Dangerous _driving, no second chance, you're on the bus for ever. At the very least you've got to take lessons and the whole test (inc. theory) again.

Driving without a licence, one finger off per conviction. Probably got about six chances before you realistically can't drive any more anyway


----------



## teuchter (Mar 1, 2019)

Latest idiocy in Loughborough Junction. I hope no-one was hurt. (Courtesy of xsunnysuex )


----------



## xsunnysuex (Mar 1, 2019)

teuchter said:


> I hope no-one was hurt. (Courtesy of xsunnysuex )


When I first went passed ambulance,  police and fire service were all there.  No idea if anyone was hurt.


----------



## Cold Harbour (Mar 1, 2019)

xsunnysuex said:


> When I first went passed ambulance,  police and fire service were all there.  No idea if anyone was hurt.


The temporary lights along CHL seem to have enraged some drivers, who speed up after them, although there are permanent lights just up the road. To be honest even the pedestrian crossings along there are hairy sometimes...you can never just trust a green man.


----------



## teuchter (Mar 1, 2019)

xsunnysuex said:


> When I first went passed ambulance,  police and fire service were all there.  No idea if anyone was hurt.


What time was that - did this happen in daylight or was it last night?


----------



## xsunnysuex (Mar 1, 2019)

teuchter said:


> What time was that - did this happen in daylight or was it last night?


This morning around 10am ish.


----------



## teuchter (Mar 1, 2019)

Last year I was witness to an accident in LJ. Car crashed turning into a junction crashed straight into one waiting to turn out. Fairly obviously going too fast and not paying attention. The driver legged it from the scene.

It went to court, I could have been called as a witness but (thankfully) wasn't.

Just the other day I got a letter confirming the charges. So for running away from an accident scene, having no insurance, and 'driving without due care and attention', he gets a fine of £245 and just 12 months' disqualification. Seems pretty feeble to me.


----------



## alex_ (Mar 1, 2019)

teuchter said:


> Last year I was witness to an accident in LJ. Car crashed turning into a junction crashed straight into one waiting to turn out. Fairly obviously going too fast and not paying attention. The driver legged it from the scene.
> 
> It went to court, I could have been called as a witness but (thankfully) wasn't.
> 
> Just the other day I got a letter confirming the charges. So for running away from an accident scene, having no insurance, and 'driving without due care and attention', he gets a fine of £245 and just 12 months' disqualification. Seems pretty feeble to me.



Cheaper than car insurance


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Mar 1, 2019)

Saw a bus stop in Stockwell completely destroyed this morning by a driver who'd somehow managed to drive off the road and onto the pavement. How the fuck do these idiots manage this shit?


----------



## SpamMisery (Mar 1, 2019)

teuchter said:


> Last year I was witness to an accident in LJ. Car crashed turning into a junction crashed straight into one waiting to turn out. Fairly obviously going too fast and not paying attention. The driver legged it from the scene.
> 
> It went to court, I could have been called as a witness but (thankfully) wasn't.
> 
> Just the other day I got a letter confirming the charges. So for running away from an accident scene, having no insurance, and 'driving without due care and attention', he gets a fine of £245 and just 12 months' disqualification. Seems pretty feeble to me.



Is that a normal penalty? Seems like they missed a few zeros off the fine and/or disqualification. I wonder how much was spent in police time and court costs etc


----------



## BigTom (Mar 2, 2019)

I'm guessing nobody was hurt, first offence, pled guilty, very sorry your honour don't know what i was thinking, won't happen again, type thing.
Fine needs to be larger than the cost of insurance, 12 month ban seems not unreasonable if there was a guilty plea. Given some of the sentences/charges/not guilty verdict we've seen, this one is just another light sentence for the list. Due care and attention is 3 points and £60 fine as standard iirc, i'd think leaving the scene of a collision would be treated more harshly than in this case.


----------



## Cold Harbour (Mar 2, 2019)

[QUOTE="BigTom, post: 15953604,]Due care and attention is 3 points and £60 fine as standard iirc, i'd think leaving the scene of a collision would be treated more harshly than in this case.[/QUOTE]


And if you leg it you're either drunk, off your head or driving without insurance/paperwork etc. The penalty for running off should be much harsher.


----------



## alex_ (Mar 2, 2019)

Cold Harbour said:


> And if you leg it you're either drunk, off your head or driving without insurance/paperwork etc. The penalty for running off should be much harsher.



I can’t see how a ban for someone already driving without insurance is any deterant at all.


----------



## Winot (Mar 2, 2019)

alex_ said:


> I can’t see how a ban for someone already driving without insurance is any deterant at all.



Yeah agreed - at that point it’s got to be prison.


----------



## teuchter (Mar 2, 2019)

Really what's needed is just a strictly enforced 20mph limit. Do people for speeding, before they cause an accident and/or kill someone, instead of waiting for these things to happen and having to throw a load of police/court resources at it at that point. If people on the whole just didn't feel at liberty to speed around the place, then we'd have many fewer cars on pavements smashed into lampposts and bus stops and fewer crashes where we have to decide what the punishment should be for fleeing the scene or driving without insurance. 

Write to your councillors about this. Make it a political issue.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Mar 6, 2019)

Great news, Atlantic road and Railton road are horrendous to cycle down.


----------



## Rushy (Mar 7, 2019)

Anyone know what those little green "button lift" symbols represent?


----------



## alex_ (Mar 7, 2019)

Rushy said:


> Anyone know what those little green "button lift" symbols represent?



Kids play area - it’s a swing


----------



## teuchter (Mar 7, 2019)

Brixton will continue to suffer from inadequate ski uplift infrastructure then.


----------



## Rushy (Mar 7, 2019)

alex_ said:


> Kids play area - it’s a swing



Not an MRT chair lift then.


Not sure about the playground in the St Matthews Peace garden. Such a horrible place to hang out as it is right next to the 4 lane A23. The swings currently on the other side are more sheltered from the main road and still largely only used by drunk adults. 

I do wish they had closed Effra Road down the eastern side of the church as originally proposed when Windrush Square was refurbished, except perhaps to buses. That would transform the church gardens into a really fantastic asset for central Brixton.


----------



## Crispy (Mar 7, 2019)

IIRC, the CHL junction layout is designed so that closing Effra Road for temporary events is easy, with traffic diverted round the back of the Church. A permanent closure wouldn't be all that complicated. It was residents on Saltoun, Kellet and Mervan Roads who wanted car access.

I don't see why you couldn't just close the bit immediately between Windrush Square and the garden. You could still get onto the roads in question from the North by going round the church first.


----------



## snowy_again (Mar 7, 2019)

Does anyone know what the purple shaded areas mean? They're on housing estates...


----------



## thebackrow (Mar 7, 2019)

snowy_again said:


> Does anyone know what the purple shaded areas mean? They're on housing estates...



I’d hazard a guess that they show the housing estates. Notably, nearly all of them are already configured so that you can’t rat run through them


----------



## snowy_again (Mar 7, 2019)

thebackrow said:


> I’d hazard a guess that they show the housing estates. Notably, nearly all of them are already configured so that you can’t rat run through them


But they're not all the estates in Lambeth, and in some areas (Southwyck etc.) are bigger than the estate itself?


----------



## thebackrow (Mar 7, 2019)

snowy_again said:


> But they're not all the estates in Lambeth, and in some areas (Southwyck etc.) are bigger than the estate itself?


I thought Southwyck House was built to shelter the low rise estate behind it (which looks like it was built at the same time) from the elevated motorway that would have run down Coldharbour Lane if the Ringways Motorway project had gone ahead. It looks to me as if they’ve just included all of it.

Which do you see are missing (that are inside the red boundary line for the scheme)?  They’ve definitely missed the Bonham estate in Brixton HIll ward and the one to the north of the Academy.


----------



## snowy_again (Mar 7, 2019)

I'm not clear whether the shading means they'll be doing additional stuff in those estates? But then I've not bothered asking Will Norman or Lambeth Cyclists.


----------



## teuchter (Mar 7, 2019)

Someone's just got knocked off their bike on herne hill road at the padfield rd junction. They apparently aren't seriously hurt but there's an ambulance there. Can see from the position of the car that it was pulling out from padfield rd. That's one of the rat runs that was cut off in the road closures but then reopened when lambeth chickened out. People have been asking for it to be reinstated. I regularly watch cars turning in and out of there too fast and take especial care when I cross there. I wouldn't be surprised if that rat run wasn't something to do with the crash outside coop last week too. That junction is the other end of it.


----------



## Rushy (Mar 7, 2019)

Crispy said:


> IIRC, the CHL junction layout is designed so that closing Effra Road for temporary events is easy, with traffic diverted round the back of the Church. A permanent closure wouldn't be all that complicated. It was residents on Saltoun, Kellet and Mervan Roads who wanted car access.
> 
> I don't see why you couldn't just close the bit immediately between Windrush Square and the garden. You could still get onto the roads in question from the North by going round the church first.



To be honest that is what I thought was eventually proposed (Brixton road to Saltoun closure) but the counter argument was that pedestrians using the square were safer with constant streaming traffic.


----------



## cuppa tee (Mar 7, 2019)

Saw some terrible aggressive driving today, guy came out of a side road onto Brixton Rd at high speed without giving way and headed towards Brixton tailgating, bibbing like a mad bastard, trying to pass the car in front by any means necessary before swinging a right down crewdson road which must be all of 100 yards from where he first joined the A23. I see similar most days but what made this different was the fact it was zip car, considering these are primarily for short urban journeys why aren't they fitted with speed limiters, 30mph should be adequate for a built up environment.


----------



## Gramsci (Mar 7, 2019)

sleaterkinney said:


> Great news, Atlantic road and Railton road are horrendous to cycle down.




Looked at the Twitter replies to the twitter account you posted. The twitter account you posted was from the Will Norman
@willnorman Mayor of London's Walking & Cycling Commissioner. So of course he's going to be excited about it.

This reply is to the point. When the last TFL / Council scheme was done- the Windrush square- there ended up being a lot of opposition to it. Due to it being top down with little account taken of residents views. The original plan was to close Effra road. Linking Windrush square and and St Matthews. Due to ham fisted "consultation" by Town Centre Supreme leader Council officer No Negrini, now big fish in Croydon, well organised residents got that ditched.

I'm concerned no one locally has been asked about this. I've seen what happens in LJ when things are attempted to be imposed from above.


----------



## thebackrow (Mar 7, 2019)

Relevant piece from Guardian today by Monbiot - 

Cars are killing us. Within 10 years, we must phase them out | George Monbiot


----------



## T & P (Mar 8, 2019)

cuppa tee said:


> Saw some terrible aggressive driving today, guy came out of a side road onto Brixton Rd at high speed without giving way and headed towards Brixton tailgating, bibbing like a mad bastard, trying to pass the car in front by any means necessary before swinging a right down crewdson road which must be all of 100 yards from where he first joined the A23. I see similar most days but what made this different was the fact it was zip car, considering these are primarily for short urban journeys why aren't they fitted with speed limiters, 30mph should be adequate for a built up environment.


Zipcars are also used, and frequently so, for 2-3 hour trips that include journeys on A-roads and motorways around London. A 30 mph speed limiter is not a viable option. Certainly not a 'blanket' one that doesn't change when the car is travelling on faster roads.

A smart speed limiter that adjusts automatically to the local speed limits would however work a treat. I am sure the techonology already exists to implement such devices, but I think we're at least a decade or two away before we see it being introduced.


----------



## Mr Retro (Mar 8, 2019)

Last week near my house a guy overtook somebody on a curve in a 20mph limit area outside a school. 

I think the penalty if caught should be draconian. Thing is the chance of being caught is near to zero.


----------



## Winot (Mar 8, 2019)

T & P said:


> A smart speed limiter that adjusts automatically to the local speed limits would however work a treat. I am sure the techonology already exists to implement such devices, but I think we're at least a decade or two away before we see it being introduced.



The problem as ever is not technological it is political. There is little political inclination to introduce anything that smacks of being a 'war on the motorist'. For example, a system that could be implemented easily would be average speed cameras in every 20mph zone with fines which paid for the cameras. But it won't happen, at least not till the culture changes or we have politicians with balls.


----------



## Chilli.s (Mar 8, 2019)

cuppa tee said:


> considering these are primarily for short urban journeys why aren't they fitted with speed limiters, 30mph should be adequate for a built up environment.



Anyone with half a brain can see that this would be a sensible easy solution, except our noble leaders.


----------



## alex_ (Mar 8, 2019)

Chilli.s said:


> Anyone with half a brain can see that this would be a sensible easy solution, except our noble leaders.



For an all in rental company like zip car its a complete no brainer, less speed will certainly equal lower insurance which equals lower fees.

Alex


----------



## T & P (Mar 8, 2019)

But at present a complete impossibility unless it was a smart limiter that adapts to the speed limit of the road/ area you’re travelling through. Otherwise they’d have to limit usage of zipcars to within inner London only, which would lose Zipcar a great amount of business as lots of people use them on journeys through 40, 50, 60 and 70 mph roads around outer London.


----------



## thebackrow (Mar 8, 2019)

T & P said:


> Zipcars are also used, and frequently so, for 2-3 hour trips that include journeys on A-roads and motorways around London. A 30 mph speed limiter is not a viable option. Certainly not a 'blanket' one that doesn't change when the car is travelling on faster roads.
> 
> A smart speed limiter that adjusts automatically to the local speed limits would however work a treat. I am sure the techonology already exists to implement such devices, but I think we're at least a decade or two away before we see it being introduced.



Maybe sooner than you think - 
All New Cars To Have Speed Limiters Fitted, Rules European Parliament

Pretty easy to retro fit such a system as well - it's basically just a GPS SatNav and a Cruise Control (which in many cars can be set a as a limiter).  Potentially could be as simple as a software update at service...


----------



## alex_ (Mar 8, 2019)

T & P said:


> But at present a complete impossibility unless it was a smart limiter that adapts to the speed limit of the road/ area you’re travelling through. Otherwise they’d have to limit usage of zipcars to within inner London only, which would lose Zipcar a great amount of business as lots of people use them on journeys through 40, 50, 60 and 70 mph roads around outer London.



This is hardly rocket science, it’s satnav crossed with cruise control.


----------



## cuppa tee (Mar 8, 2019)

alex_ said:


> For an all in rental company like zip car its a complete no brainer, less speed will certainly equal lower insurance which equals lower fees.
> 
> Alex


Good to see someone has not fallen for the  car '_club_' green wash nonsense


----------



## Chilli.s (Mar 8, 2019)

T & P said:


> But at present a complete impossibility unless it was a smart limiter that adapts to the speed limit of the road/ area you’re travelling through.



Exactly! Even an idiot like me can see it wouldn't be too dificult to rig up every car on the road in a short time. It might just decrease immissions too. Could make transport quicker as flow alters to suit etc. etc. Massive fines for fiddling with the box.  Learners unable to go crazy fast. the advantages are huge.


----------



## T & P (Mar 8, 2019)

alex_ said:


> This is hardly rocket science, it’s satnav crossed with cruise control.


I agree, but as Winot pointed earlier the biggest challenge at the moment is not technological but political (and financial).

The cost of installing GPS- controlled interactive speed limiters (a big proportion of zipcars don’t have cruise at all) or the required software in their fleet would be very substantial, much more so if it was a compulsory feature as it would have to be absolutely fault-proof to avoid any potential legal issues (you can bet that any collision or accident that happened at a time when the limiter had allowed the car to travel at, say, 30 mph in a 20 street would be blamed on zipcar by the driver regardless of the circumstances of the accident).

AFAIK no car hire/ car fleet in the world has yet implemented a functioning interactive limiter that reacts and changes according to location. I’m sure once they become commonplace and proven-technology enough all car hire/ car club companies will adopt it. But I can’t see zipcar being the first to take the plunge. And there is absolutely no way imo the potential savings on insurance costs to them would be greater than the costs of introducing such technology in their fleet. As it is, car hire companies tend to generate juicy profits from insurance fees and claims anyway.

I think autonomous cars will be provide the first realistic opportunity of working interactive speed limiters. But retrofitting them in ordinary non-autonomous cars is a financial nonstarter.


----------



## cuppa tee (Mar 8, 2019)

T & P said:


> I agree, but as Winot
> AFAIK no car hire/ car fleet in the world has yet implemented a functioning interactive limiter .


.....and yet the fiat we rented on our holidays had a big red warning light that came on when one went over the local speed limit. I assumed this was recorded so speeding fines could be dished out upon return of the vehicle......


----------



## T & P (Mar 8, 2019)

cuppa tee said:


> .....and yet the fiat we rented on our holidays had a big red warning light that came on when one went over the local speed limit. I assumed this was recorded so speeding fines could be dished out upon return of the vehicle......


Yes, many built-in sat navs do this. Warning about speed limits will be a simple ask within the parameters of a functioning GPS when you think about it.

But devices that actually control functions of a car and have the power to override its human operator are a different ballgame. An in-car gps is no different in essence from Google Maps on your phone. It measures things and gives out information. But you cannot just wire it to a one of zipcar’s existing Polos’ engine and make it control its speed. You need additional hardware and software. And the cost of retrofitting it would certainly cost far more than any potential savings in insurance premiums.


----------



## alex_ (Mar 9, 2019)

T & P said:


> I agree, but as Winot pointed earlier the biggest challenge at the moment is not technological but political (and financial).
> 
> The cost of installing GPS- controlled interactive speed limiters (a big proportion of zipcars don’t have cruise at all) or the required software in their fleet would be very substantial, much more so if it was a compulsory feature as it would have to be absolutely fault-proof to avoid any potential legal issues (you can bet that any collision or accident that happened at a time when the limiter had allowed the car to travel at, say, 30 mph in a 20 street would be blamed on zipcar by the driver regardless of the circumstances of the accident).
> 
> ...



I think you are over complicating this - it doesn’t need to be bulletproof, all liability would still be with the driver. 

Good luck with “The speed limiter let me speed officer therefore this is zipcars fault” 

Even if a limiter was as simple as “in a town the limit is x, within 100 meters of an A road the limit is y, within 100 meters of a motorway the limit is 70” youd take out a lot of risk.

Cheap devices with gps cost less than 50 quid and they have a user interface. I can’t see why something a lot clever than I describe above wouldnt cost 100 quid in bulk, in cars with any sort of cruise control.

Also re zipcar - the insurance is included, reducing their insurance costs makes them money.

Alex


----------



## Chilli.s (Mar 9, 2019)

Responsability could be all on the driver. If car is not compatable with the device then device reports any speeding, fine issued. shazam... no more speed cameras, income streem for whoever, more road safty.


----------



## nick (Mar 11, 2019)

alex_ said:


> Good luck with “The speed limiter let me speed officer therefore this is zipcars fault”
> Alex


For what it's worth, I vaguely remember reading in the news many years ago about Arthur Scargill getting off a speeding fine on the basis that the cruise control on his jag was faulty


----------



## mauvais (Mar 11, 2019)

alex_ said:


> I think you are over complicating this - it doesn’t need to be bulletproof, all liability would still be with the driver.
> 
> Good luck with “The speed limiter let me speed officer therefore this is zipcars fault”
> 
> ...


What could _possibly_ go wrong with integrating aftermarket third party "Cheap devices with gps [that] cost less than 50 quid" into the control system of a load of vehicles?


----------



## mauvais (Mar 11, 2019)

thebackrow said:


> Maybe sooner than you think -
> All New Cars To Have Speed Limiters Fitted, Rules European Parliament
> 
> Pretty easy to retro fit such a system as well - it's basically just a GPS SatNav and a Cruise Control (which in many cars can be set a as a limiter).  Potentially could be as simple as a software update at service...


I'm hoping none of you lot are engineers.


----------



## thebackrow (Mar 12, 2019)

mauvais said:


> I'm hoping none of you lot are engineers.



I think you're misunderstanding how modern cars work - this isn't some jerry rigged cable attached to the engine, it's all electronic.The physical bits of the install (removing any bits of the dashboard or steering wheel to fit manual controls) will the most difficult.  A tested and approved bit of electronics will connect to the comms bus that runs through the car and links to the engine management system then enabled through a software update done by the dealer.  I'm not saying your mum could do it, but the tech is simple and connecting it to the car is just a matter of plugging it in. 

Cruise control
retro fit cruise kit  £50ish
Gra Cruise Control Retrofit Kit Steering Column Switch Cable Loom Set VW Golf for sale online | eBay


----------



## mauvais (Mar 12, 2019)

thebackrow said:


> I think you're misunderstanding how modern cars work - this isn't some jerry rigged cable attached to the engine, it's all electronic.The physical bits of the install (removing any bits of the dashboard or steering wheel to fit manual controls) will the most difficult.  A tested and approved bit of electronics will connect to the comms bus that runs through the car and links to the engine management system then enabled through a software update done by the dealer.  I'm not saying your mum could do it, but the tech is simple and connecting it to the car is just a matter of plugging it in.
> 
> Cruise control
> retro fit cruise kit  £50ish
> Gra Cruise Control Retrofit Kit Steering Column Switch Cable Loom Set VW Golf for sale online | eBay


I know how cars work, ta. I'm just glad you're not in charge of em.

Safety-critical system - Wikipedia


----------



## alex_ (Mar 12, 2019)

mauvais said:


> I know how cars work, ta. I'm just glad you're not in charge of em.
> 
> Safety-critical system - Wikipedia



None of us are suggesting we build it - but that the core components are commonly available and cheap.

I’m sure the manufacturers will have prototypes available already if the eu are possibly going to make it manditory in 3 years. I can see them giving it to zipcar, in exchange for access to the data produced.

Alex


----------



## mauvais (Mar 12, 2019)

alex_ said:


> None of us are suggesting we build it - but that the core components are commonly available and cheap.
> 
> I’m sure the manufacturers will have prototypes available already if the eu are possibly going to make it manditory in 3 years. I can see them giving it to zipcar, in exchange for access to the data produced.
> 
> Alex


They will absolutely not retrofit anything. It would not be cheap, and to think otherwise would be to gloss over a huge number of issues.

This is integration into safety critical systems and it would need to be type approved on each vehicle before anyone (like insurers or lawyers) took it remotely seriously. This is never going to happen.

Aside from that, companies like Zipcar have very little to gain from the capability, and quite a lot to lose.


----------



## alex_ (Mar 12, 2019)

mauvais said:


> They will absolutely not retrofit anything. It would not be cheap, and to think otherwise would be to gloss over a huge number of issues.
> 
> This is integration into safety critical systems and it would need to be type approved on each vehicle before anyone (like insurers or lawyers) took it remotely seriously. This is never going to happen.
> 
> Aside from that, companies like Zipcar have very little to gain from the capability, and quite a lot to lose.



Companies like zipcar buy thousands of new cars per year, and I’d imagine turn over their whole fleet every three years. In three years the capability will be manditory.

Alex


----------



## mauvais (Mar 12, 2019)

alex_ said:


> Companies like zipcar buy thousands of new cars per year, and I’d imagine turn over their whole fleet every three years. In three years the capability will be manditory.
> 
> Alex


Sure, if it becomes mandatory fitment or even common as OEM equipment. But that isn't what we've been talking about, which is retrofit.


----------



## alex_ (Mar 12, 2019)

mauvais said:


> Sure, if it becomes mandatory fitment or even common as OEM equipment. But that isn't what we've been talking about, which is retrofit.



One person has said that, everyone else has just pointed out how cheap they are.

Alex


----------



## teuchter (Mar 15, 2019)

Speed limiters should have been on cars for years already, even if all they did was set 70 as a maximum. The reason they haven't been is down to the petrolhead lobby who think they should be able to make their own decisions about what speed is safe. Years of evidence show that allowing drivers to judge safe speed by themselves results in thousands of people being killed and injured every year but we don't change anything. The technology is now ready to warn about and apply local limits but I bet it'll be a long wait until it gets applied universally in the UK. I reckon it'll basically take a generation or so dying out and younger drivers growing up with a different attitude to how much freedom they should be allowed over the control of their vehicle without their psyche and self identity being irreparably compromised. I hope to be proven wrong.


----------



## mauvais (Mar 15, 2019)

Have you got any evidence for your idea of it being generational?

Also: the maximum speed limit is higher than 70mph in much of the world.


----------



## teuchter (Mar 15, 2019)

I think that as technology makes cars more autonomous (which is going to be a slow process as far as I can see), it will become normal to new drivers that they cannot control all functions of their vehicles. I reckon the trend towards leased or short term rented vehicles will also have an impact on how people view their cars.


----------



## technical (Mar 15, 2019)

Car put a reasonable dent in a house this afternoon on corner of Elm Park and craster rd. Still can’t quite work out how driver managed it


----------



## Gramsci (Mar 15, 2019)

mauvais said:


> Have you got any evidence for your idea of it being generational?
> 
> Also: the maximum speed limit is higher than 70mph in much of the world.



A comparison could be to drink driving.

When I was much younger I remember people boasting about how much they could drink and still just about drive home.

I don't think its socially acceptable to do that now.


----------



## Rushy (Mar 27, 2019)

All new UK cars to have speed limiters by 2022 under EU plans which will be mirrored in the UK.


----------



## teuchter (Mar 27, 2019)

> The speed limiter is one of a range of safety features to be made mandatory from 2022, along with automated emergency braking, electronic data recorders and *improved visibility built into lorries for drivers to see vulnerable cyclists and pedestrians around the vehicle*.



Another thing that should have been done ages ago.


----------



## Ol Nick (Mar 31, 2019)

teuchter said:


> Another thing that should have been done ages ago.


You say that, but suppose it's 10pm and I'm driving up Dulwich Road on my way back from distant Surrey doing 20 because it's the limit and because it's a narrow road with lots of pedestrians. Well if we all had speed limiters, how's the bloke who's been tailgating me for 5 minutes going to overtake me near Effra Parade and speed off to the lights at Brixton Water Lane? He's not. And then he's going to only be the second car at the lights and what's that going to do to his self-esteem?


----------



## teuchter (Apr 3, 2019)

This is Russia, not Lambeth. And some might say it's an extreme example. But when I see cars on the pavement, smashed into lamposts and garden walls, and watch drivers happily mount the pavement to get around obstructions, whether that's the planters that were installed to block the roadway during the road closure experiment, or the other week when someone had got knocked off their bike, and was still lying on the road, and drivers were hooting at me, on the pavement, to get out of their way as they bypassed that accident scene - I don't think the mindset of this guy is very far away from many drivers currently to be found in the Brixton area.


----------



## Winot (May 8, 2019)

This is now up:

About Brixton Liveable Neighbourhood


----------



## teuchter (May 8, 2019)

Winot said:


> This is now up:
> 
> About Brixton Liveable Neighbourhood



Should probably have its own thread. In fact let me do that now.


----------



## teuchter (May 8, 2019)

Brixton Liveable Neighbourhood - improvements for pedestrians and cyclists


----------



## teuchter (Jun 5, 2019)

TfL unveils plans to impose 20mph limit on key central London routes



> Bold plans to cut the speed limit on main roads in central London to 20mph were unveiled today.
> 
> 
> It comes after an “unacceptable” 128 road deaths and 2,256 serious injuries in the last three years across the capital where speed was a “contributory factor”.
> ...


----------



## a_chap (Jul 1, 2019)

Let's pay a £10 bounty per prosecuted motorist


----------



## Rushy (Jul 1, 2019)

a_chap said:


> Let's pay a £10 bounty per prosecuted motorist


To be honest, I don't think £10 is either here nor there. People would report offenders if there was an easy process which they believed would be taken notice of. Also more credible if there is no financial incentive.


----------



## alex_ (Jul 1, 2019)

a_chap said:


> Let's pay a £10 bounty per prosecuted motorist



That’s a PFI people here might support !


----------



## thebackrow (Jul 3, 2019)

a_chap said:


> Let's pay a £10 bounty per prosecuted motorist


isn't somewhere in the US doing this successfully?


----------



## teuchter (Feb 25, 2020)

Data analysis - pedestrian Deaths on pavements — Project Pedestrian - exploring footway fatalities
					

548 pedestrians were killed by drivers in the supposed safe haven of pavements or verges in the last 13 years, with the oldest and youngest in society disproportionately at risk, a new analysis of collision data can reveal.   Between 2005 and 2018, 8.6% of the 5,835 pedestrian deaths in England, Sco




					www.projectpedestrian.com
				






> *548 pedestrians were killed by drivers in the supposed safe haven of pavements or verges in the last 13 years, with the oldest and youngest in society disproportionately at risk, a new analysis of collision data can reveal.*
> 
> Between 2005 and 2018, 8.6% of the 5,835 pedestrian deaths in England, Scotland and Wales occurred on pavements, the University of Westminster’s Active Travel Academy, a new academic think tank, has found. The majority (542) were killed by drivers of motor vehicles, with six pedestrian-cycle footway collisions.
> 
> ...


----------



## teuchter (Feb 25, 2020)

This is tomorrow by the way; I might go along









						Difference Festival - Are Cars the New Tobacco?
					

Are Cars the New Tobacco?




					www.eventbrite.co.uk


----------



## Winot (Feb 25, 2020)

teuchter said:


> This is tomorrow by the way; I might go along
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Laura Laker is very good.


----------



## teuchter (Mar 21, 2020)

Crystal Palace this afternoon.


----------



## T & P (Mar 21, 2020)

Fuck me. What speed was that car travelling at?


----------



## teuchter (Mar 21, 2020)

I do wonder if these kinds of idiots are going to take the distraction caused by coronavirus - and empty streets - as an opportunity to do even more stupid stuff than usual.


----------



## alex_ (Mar 22, 2020)

teuchter said:


> I do wonder if these kinds of idiots are going to take the distraction caused by coronavirus - and empty streets - as an opportunity to do even more stupid stuff than usual.



just what the nhs needs


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 22, 2020)

teuchter said:


> Crystal Palace this afternoon.
> 
> View attachment 202670


Parking's a bit off


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 22, 2020)

teuchter said:


> This is tomorrow by the way; I might go along
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Did you pop along?


----------



## teuchter (Mar 22, 2020)

Pickman's model said:


> Did you pop along?


It was sold out, when i went to book a ticket.


----------



## Winot (Mar 24, 2020)

teuchter said:


> I do wonder if these kinds of idiots are going to take the distraction caused by coronavirus - and empty streets - as an opportunity to do even more stupid stuff than usual.



There have been a higher than usual number of motor vehicles going the wrong way down our one way street.


----------



## salem (Mar 24, 2020)

Interesting to come across this thread almost immediately after reading this article









						Brixton Hill death: Man admits killing woman as he fled police
					

Pedestrian Anisha Vidal-Garner died when she was hit by a car in south London.



					www.bbc.co.uk


----------



## teuchter (Apr 5, 2020)

While Lambeth are telling people off for sunbathing, I've been watching a small number, but significant proportion of, drivers who seem to be taking the unusually clear streets as an invitation to speed around with abandon. Most of them are young men with expensive/fast cars and I don't believe they are attending emergencies. This afternoon I saw one talking on his mobile at the same time.

(When have I been observing this? Mainly whilst sitting in the evening sun on my doorstep, which due to the usual level of traffic is not normally all that appealing, but now it's quite a nice way of seeing that other people exist whilst not leaving the house, and it turns out that quite a lot of people smile and greet you when walking past, one of those things that comes out of making streets actually pleasant for people rather than cars...but anyway)

Some of these people speeding around at the moment are going to put themselves or someone else in an A&E department entirely unnecessarily. The twenty's plenty campaign are putting their weight behind a call to bring in a 20mph speed limit in all residential areas nationwide at least for the duration of this crisis, to reduce the burden on hospitals. I'm fully in support of it, unsurprisingly.









						We Support Emergency 20mph Limit to ‘Lower the Baseline’ NHS Load
					

We quite simply campaign for 20mph to become the default speed limit on residential and urban streets.




					www.20splenty.org


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 5, 2020)

Ive noticed on my bit of CHL some car drivers are using the lack of traffic on road to speed. And I don't mean doing thirty in twenty zone. Ive seen some drivers put their foot down in my bit of the road.


----------



## sparkybird (Apr 6, 2020)

Yup, me too. I just can't believe these selfish fuckers who are putting not only themselves, but others and the NHS at risk. But of course they think they are safe drivers and there is no telling them otherwise, unless you want to get a mouthful of abuse


----------



## teuchter (May 21, 2020)

Apparently there is some attempt to do something about the speeding currently going on.









						Police across UK launch three-week blitz on speeding drivers to keep cyclists and others safe
					

As lockdown restrictions ease, campaign aims to protect vulnerable road users




					road.cc


----------



## teuchter (May 21, 2020)

Here are some speeds recorded in London yesterday.






> Day 2 of National Speeding Campaign. Traffic Police in #London enforced 142 offences.
> 
> Zone highs
> 20/50
> ...


----------



## teuchter (Jun 7, 2020)

Here we go again.



Interesting that the Coldharbour Police twitter says they "won't make judgement on cause" but then implies that TfL need to fix the road.

The cause is nearly always careless driving - road design is there to attempt to mitigate careless driving. 

Speed limits are also there to mitigate careless driving, and it's the police who are supposed to enforce them. I know they say they are short of funding to do so.


----------



## organicpanda (Jun 7, 2020)

as the two people hit by the car were probably on the road when the car hit them I can understand their reticence to comment on this particular case but they are not wrong to say that Coldharbour Lane and Gresham Road needs sorting, I am surprised no one has died in an accident yet, cars regularly accelerating up to 40 - 50 mph just on that one stretch, especially with the reduced traffic due to lockdown. is this road controlled by TFL or Lambeth? either way they have ignored the problems here for far too long


----------



## thebackrow (Jun 8, 2020)

teuchter said:


> Interesting that the Coldharbour Police twitter says they "won't make judgement on cause" but then implies that TfL need to fix the road.



That is an odd comment isn't it.  It's a Lambeth Road anyway - TfL roads are shown on http://content.tfl.gov.uk/tfl-base-map-master.pdf


----------



## Gramsci (Jun 17, 2020)

organicpanda said:


> as the two people hit by the car were probably on the road when the car hit them I can understand their reticence to comment on this particular case but they are not wrong to say that Coldharbour Lane and Gresham Road needs sorting, I am surprised no one has died in an accident yet, cars regularly accelerating up to 40 - 50 mph just on that one stretch, especially with the reduced traffic due to lockdown. is this road controlled by TFL or Lambeth? either way they have ignored the problems here for far too long



Its Lambeth. I found this out when trying to get a collapsed manhole cover fixed.

I had a long email exchange between Lambeth, TFL and myself.

I had emailed Lambeth first. They insisted it was TFL responsibiity.

TFL were helpful and took the trouble to explain to Lambeth CHL is Lambeth responsibility.

Why Lambeth were not aware I don't know.

I agree speeding is a problem on that stretch of road. Its supposed to be 20mph. Its not enforced.


----------



## Gramsci (Jun 17, 2020)

teuchter said:


> Here we go again.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




It would be more helpful of police if the police accident investigators took a look at what happened and worked out why.

Saying to TFL ( its Lambeth road btw not TFL) that they ought to sort it out is meaningless.

Its also the police job to enforce speed limits. If they think this is such a dangerous road they should be out on it.

This is a straight stretch of road with clear sightlines. So I would like to know why this has happened twice on one spot.


----------



## organicpanda (Jun 17, 2020)

Gramsci said:


> It would be more helpful of police if the police accident investigators took a look at what happened and worked out why.
> 
> Saying to TFL ( its Lambeth road btw not TFL) that they ought to sort it out is meaningless.
> 
> ...


it's actually the third time in 4 years, 1st was New Years Eve, drunk driver lost control not much damage done. 2nd was 2 years ago, driver claimed he swerved to miss a dog at 2.30 in the morning, narrowly missed 4 pedestrians as it hit the wall, no insurance. 3rd was 2 weeks ago, driver hit 2 girls who were in the road before hitting the wall, one girl in hospital. All three cars were coming from Loughborough so had to cross the road to hit the wall, they were not turning left as has been said by councillors and police. the one factor that unites them all is they were all going too fast.
the only time you will ever see police on this bit of road is when you have 10 - 12 police spot checking cars, in 20+ years I have yet to see them stop a white driver. The Coldharbour councillors are full of concern and saying they will do something about it and then silence. this part of the road is in serious need of speed camera's/speed bumps/traffic calming measures before someone gets killed. We have a system of buck passing with no-one prepared to take responsibility.


----------



## editor (Jun 27, 2020)

organicpanda said:


> it's actually the third time in 4 years, 1st was New Years Eve, drunk driver lost control not much damage done. 2nd was 2 years ago, driver claimed he swerved to miss a dog at 2.30 in the morning, narrowly missed 4 pedestrians as it hit the wall, no insurance. 3rd was 2 weeks ago, driver hit 2 girls who were in the road before hitting the wall, one girl in hospital. All three cars were coming from Loughborough so had to cross the road to hit the wall, they were not turning left as has been said by councillors and police. the one factor that unites them all is they were all going too fast.
> the only time you will ever see police on this bit of road is when you have 10 - 12 police spot checking cars, in 20+ years I have yet to see them stop a white driver. The Coldharbour councillors are full of concern and saying they will do something about it and then silence. this part of the road is in serious need of speed camera's/speed bumps/traffic calming measures before someone gets killed. We have a system of buck passing with no-one prepared to take responsibility.


It looks like Lambeth (or the cops) have leaned on that shithole of a car wash to clean up their act and put bollards outside their fence to stop cars parking all over the pavement (and thus making it more dangerous for pedestrians and drivers). Net result: wanker drivers parking all over the pavement, but now a further bit out.


----------



## organicpanda (Jun 27, 2020)

editor said:


> It looks like Lambeth (or the cops) have leaned on that shithole of a car wash to clean up their act and put bollards outside their fence to stop cars parking all over the pavement (and thus making it more dangerous for pedestrians and drivers). Net result: wanker drivers parking all over the pavement, but now a further bit out.


so if they are parking on the pavement why aren't they towing them away? Still waiting to hear from our Coldharbour councillors who were so quick to say something must be done and then did nothing


----------



## teuchter (Jun 29, 2020)

Huge increase in speeding drivers during London lockdown
					

Met Police figures show a rise of 71% in those breaking the limit on London's roads in April.



					www.bbc.co.uk
				






> Det Supt Andy Cox of the Metropolitan Police said many drivers caught speeding during the early weeks of lockdown did not expect officers to be patrolling near-deserted roads.
> 
> "Early on, for some people driving at extreme speeds, they would be really surprised to see us there," he said.
> 
> ...


----------



## teuchter (Jun 30, 2020)

I've always been a bit under the impression that it's not really worth reporting dangerous driving to the police, even if you have it on video. That might be wrong though. I think things have changed.



It's not just cyclists' helmet cams that have the potential - I think this means decent footage from a mobile phone will do.

There are certain walks I do - for example along Milkwood Road from Loughborough Junction to Herne Hill - where it's almost guaranteed that I'll see someone tearing along way too fast, or overtaking around the traffic islands. Might start to make a habit of having my phone camera open and ready to film. Likewise walking back along Coldharbour Lane at night.


----------



## Rushy (Jun 30, 2020)

teuchter said:


> I've always been a bit under the impression that it's not really worth reporting dangerous driving to the police, even if you have it on video. That might be wrong though. I think things have changed.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You can sit on St Matthews Road and film cars going through the "modal filter" all day if you fancy! Like shooting fish...


----------



## thebackrow (Jul 11, 2020)

Anyone know what happened outside the town hall last night? Looks like a crash took out the lights on the pedestrian crossing.


----------



## teuchter (Jul 28, 2020)

This is the guy who killed a pedestrian on Brixton Hill earlier this year whilst speeding away from police at 62mph on the wrong side of the road and ignoring traffic signals.









						Barrister’s son jailed for killing university student in hit-and-run
					

Quincy Anyiam, 27, was also banned from driving for a total of 11 years




					www.standard.co.uk
				




Leaving aside the sentence of 7 years for killing someone - apparently he is only banned from driving for 11 years.

How in any way can it be justified that he should ever be allowed in charge of a vehicle again?

What a completely hopeless signal to send out. How is anyone who feels happy to drive at 30 or 40 in a 20 zone going to be deterred from doing so when they know that even if they go twice that speed and kill someone they'll get a relatively short sentence and not even get a lifetime ban?


----------



## madolesance (Jul 28, 2020)

teuchter said:


> This is the guy who killed a pedestrian on Brixton Hill earlier this year whilst speeding away from police at 62mph on the wrong side of the road and ignoring traffic signals.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


With an offence like that there should never be the option to hold a driving licence again.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 1, 2020)

Happened a few weeks ago but these are the remains of a car that obviously went straight across the pavement and most of the way through the fence along the top side of Ruskin Park. Not even a main road, looks like they came down one of the side roads way too fast and completely failed to turn the corner at the junction.


----------



## editor (Oct 1, 2020)

There's still plenty of speeding along Coldharbour Lane on the rare moments when the road decongests enough for some twat to hurtle along 500 metres at high speed and then slam on the brakes for the lights.


----------



## Jesterburger (Oct 5, 2020)

teuchter said:


> Leaving aside the sentence of 7 years for killing someone - apparently he is only banned from driving for 11 years.
> 
> How in any way can it be justified that he should ever be allowed in charge of a vehicle again?
> 
> What a completely hopeless signal to send out. How is anyone who feels happy to drive at 30 or 40 in a 20 zone going to be deterred from doing so when they know that even if they go twice that speed and kill someone they'll get a relatively short sentence and not even get a lifetime ban?



The government have been talking about eventually maybe getting round to change the law on that for six years now but still haven't got anywhere - it's astonishing you get much shorter sentences for killing someone with a car than you do in any other way.






						Why increasing maximum sentences for killer drivers doesn’t fix the problem | Cycling UK
					

Killer drivers to receive life sentences was Monday’s headline, in advance of the UK Government’s White Paper ‘A Smarter Approach to Sentencing’, which was published on Wednesday. If you’re wondering whether you’ve heard this before, it’s likely you have, because successive governments have been...




					www.cyclinguk.org


----------



## teuchter (Jun 4, 2022)

Coldharbour Lane near the junction with Loughborough Park.



There's constantly speeding along this bit of Coldharbour Lane. Especially at night. Here's a car that was evidently out of control, crossing approaching traffic, a zebra crossing, and the pavement that's supposed to be safe for pedestrians. I wonder if it would have gone further if it hadn't taken out the zebra crossing lamp. Ahead is the little seating area between the ends of Loughborough Park & Shakespeare Rd.

Still no evidence of anything meaningful being done about speeding in what's supposed to be a 20mph area.


----------



## Gramsci (Jun 5, 2022)

Yes on that section of CHL there is a lot of speeding. Also see some aggressive driving. If car is going right speed one behind comes up right behind and tries to overtake. Must be intimidating if one is trying to keep to 20mph. More speeding at night. Mopeds are the worse than cars re speeding.

Its not so bad in daytimes using that crossing. It's well used in mornings by children going to the secondary school behind Barrier Block. I almost think it should have a lollipop person like in Loughborough road in mornings.


----------



## CH1 (Jun 6, 2022)

teuchter said:


> Coldharbour Lane near the junction with Loughborough Park.
> 
> View attachment 325532View attachment 325533
> 
> ...


I've got a suggestion - try doing a car free zone, like St John's Road Clapham Junction has had for the last 11 years:
Whilst access is available from the A306/A3207 and A3/Northcote Road junctions, *vehicular access to St Johns Road is prohibited except by cyclists, buses and loading/unloading vehicles requiring access*.15 Mar 2011

Should warm the cockles of the merry souls on the LTN thread!


----------



## Jimbeau (Jun 6, 2022)

teuchter said:


> Coldharbour Lane near the junction with Loughborough Park.
> 
> View attachment 325532View attachment 325533
> 
> ...


Surprised to see that car still there this morning. Didn't it crash Monday night/Tuesday morning last week?


----------



## teuchter (Jun 6, 2022)

Jimbeau said:


> Surprised to see that car still there this morning. Didn't it crash Monday night/Tuesday morning last week?


Don't know - I just happened to see it on Saturday.

It doesn't seem unusual for crashed cars to sit on the street/pavement for some time. I don't know if that means insurance companies are arguing about who should retrieve it ... or is an indication that no insurance was held.


----------



## Jimbeau (Jun 6, 2022)

teuchter said:


> Don't know - I just happened to see it on Saturday.
> 
> It doesn't seem unusual for crashed cars to sit on the street/pavement for some time. I don't know if that means insurance companies are arguing about who should retrieve it ... or is an indication that no insurance was held.


Running a quick check on the reg shows it has current tax, insurance and MOT. Perhaps it fell prey to the jubilee weekend slow-down.

I cycle up Loughborough Park each morning, but was only at work Mon-Tue last week. Might even have been there since last Mon, I can't quite recall now.


----------



## editor (Jun 6, 2022)

Here's the second crash. The driver must have been driving at considerable speed. The car is still completely  blocking the pavement after several days.











						The dangers of Coldharbour Lane, Brixton, with two pavement car crashes in a week
					

Over the last  week, no less than two vehicles have crashed along Coldharbour Lane, highlighting the continuing problem with speeding cars along this busy road.



					www.brixtonbuzz.com


----------



## editor (Jun 6, 2022)

Jimbeau said:


> Running a quick check on the reg shows it has current tax, insurance and MOT. Perhaps it fell prey to the jubilee weekend slow-down.
> 
> I cycle up Loughborough Park each morning, but was only at work Mon-Tue last week. Might even have been there since last Mon, I can't quite recall now.


Yeah it was there last Monday night.


----------



## CH1 (Jun 6, 2022)

Jimbeau said:


> Running a quick check on the reg shows it has current tax, insurance and MOT. Perhaps it fell prey to the jubilee weekend slow-down.


Does that cover joy riding?


----------



## Jimbeau (Jun 6, 2022)

CH1 said:


> Does that cover joy riding?


Could be that. Could be on false plates. Who knows?


----------



## organicpanda (Jun 7, 2022)

editor said:


> Here's the second crash. The driver must have been driving at considerable speed. The car is still completely  blocking the pavement after several days.
> 
> View attachment 325822
> 
> ...


that's the third accident around Valentia Place in 5 years, all around the same date


----------



## teuchter (Jun 7, 2022)

It happened on a weekend I was away so didn't see it myself but I believe a car ended up flipped on the pavement on Herne Hill Road a few weeks back. Again, at a location where crashes happen regularly. I have seen several that ended up on the pavement within the last 2 or 3 years.


----------



## ChrisSouth (Jun 8, 2022)

teuchter said:


> It happened on a weekend I was away so didn't see it myself but I believe a car ended up flipped on the pavement on Herne Hill Road a few weeks back. Again, at a location where crashes happen regularly. I have seen several that ended up on the pavement within the last 2 or 3 years.


Herne Hill, or Herne Hill Road? It's getting increasingly difficult - thankfully, to speed on Herne Hill Road due speed cushions, pedestrian lights and the volume of parked cars. The key speeding place is from Coldharbour Road upto about Padfield Road  - I've seen a few nasty ones on this lower bit over the years.  But also at the top at the traffic lights by Red Post Hill is a bit of a crash-spot.


----------



## teuchter (Jun 8, 2022)

ChrisSouth said:


> Herne Hill, or Herne Hill Road? It's getting increasingly difficult - thankfully, to speed on Herne Hill Road due speed cushions, pedestrian lights and the volume of parked cars. The key speeding place is from Coldharbour Road upto about Padfield Road  - I've seen a few nasty ones on this lower bit over the years.  But also at the top at the traffic lights by Red Post Hill is a bit of a crash-spot.


Herne Hill Road.

Coldharbour Lane to Padfield road is bad as you say, but I'd say a bit further too. There are a lot of incidents around the junction with Wanless Rd. A lot of people use Padfield Rd to avoid the traffic lights at the bottom of Herne Hill Road, so they negotiate Padfield Road at some speed, onto Herne Hill Road and then many also turn onto Wanless Rd to access Milkwood Rd towards Herne Hill. A fair bit of this could be prevented by making Padfield Rd a no-through road or even making it right hand turn only at the top. In fact it was briefly blocked during the LJ road closure experiments but this was then reversed.

The speed cushions on Herne Hill Road don't really help at all in my opinion. At least along that bottom bit. Because they don't go right across the road it's easy for drivers just to straddle them (especially with the ever increasing size of vehicles) which just encourages people to drive in the middle of the road at speed.


----------



## editor (Jun 8, 2022)

The car was still blocking the pavement yesterday afternoon


----------



## teuchter (Jun 9, 2022)

The other crashed car still there and now accompanied by a bit of pavement parking, precisely located where the tactile paving can lead visually impaired people straight into the van after crossing the road.


----------

