Category Archives: 20 Mph Limits

Islington 20mph Everywhere

Posted on by
Reply

The London Borough of Islington is proposing to introduce a 20mph speed limit on all roads in the borough. At present their wide-area scheme does not cover a few main roads such as those roads controlled by Transport for London (typically “Red routes”), but Islington are introducing this change by simply introducing a “Consolidation Order” to extend coverage.

Transport for London now seem to be supporting the extension of 20mph speed limits to other major roads in places such as Tower Hamlets, Camden and the City of London. They will of course be enforced by the police as has already been taking place in Islington.

There has been no wider public consultation on these proposals but you can object to the Islington change by sending an email to public.realm@islington.gov.uk quoting Reference TMO/4296 before the 3rd July 2015.

We have already objected to this change on the following grounds:

  1. It is simply unreasonable to impose a 20mph restriction on main routes and will result in a considerable slowing of traffic and hence an increase in journey times.
  2. There will be no road safety benefit as a result of this change as it has been clearly demonstrated in other parts of London, and in the rest of the country, that introducing such limits does not reduce casualties. Indeed in some cases they have increased.
  3. This change pre-empts the results of a Government study which has been commissioned by the Department of Transport which is investigating the benefits (or otherwise) or wide-area signed-only 20 mph schemes.
  4. There has been no proper public consultation on this matter as there should be.

Roger Lawson

Greens Lose Brighton

Posted on by
Reply

A casualty of the recent elections was the loss of control of Brighton council by the Green Party. Brighton and Hove City Council was the only council in the country controlled by the Greens and their unpopular policies included the introduction of a wide-area 20 mph speed limit and raised parking charges (other councils please note!). The Council is now run by a minority Labour group who have also pledged to review some very expensive proposals to revise the A23 road which runs through the town to the sea front (the Valley Gardens project).

The New Statesman simply noted that the public had lost patience with the chaotic Green government, and reported that one Green councillor joined street protests to save a city centre tree, just weeks after she herself voted to fell it to make way for a cycle lane.

Roger Lawson

Croydon 20 mph Consultation

Posted on by
Reply

Croydon Council have launched a public consultation on a wide-area, signed-only, 20 mph speed limit for North Croydon. This is the first of several areas of Croydon which they intend to impose this speed limit upon in due course.

See https://www.croydon.gov.uk/transportandstreets/roadsafety/croydon-20mph-0?utm_campaign=redirect&utm_medium=alias&utm_source=20mph for more details on these proposals, but you will be wasting your time in responding if you live outside the designated area. The fact that a lot of the users of the roads within that area live outside it will be ignored in this consultation, plus of course all the visitors such as local delivery drivers.

We are strongly opposed to this proposal and are circulating a leaflet within the area affected urging residents to oppose it.

In summary this is what we say: many roads in the area already have speed humps to reduce traffic speeds and many of the injuries to pedestrians and cyclists in Croydon occur at low speeds on main roads. The road safety benefits of a wide area 20 mph limit will be minimal and there are no other real benefits.

Why make a change that is bound to lead to many more vehicles breaking the law by exceeding the speed limit? Don’t fall for the council’s anti-car propaganda. Do you really think that 20 mph is appropriate for roads such as Auckland Road, Grange Road and Northwood Road? Make sure you oppose the waste of money to create these 20 mph zones.

20 MPH IS TOO SLOW FOR A MAXIMUM LIMIT

Here are some detailed comments on the claims made by Croydon Council for the merits of their scheme, numbered as per their “Frequently Asked Questions” document on their web site:

  1. What is this proposal about and how did it originate? The councils comments are misleading. The proposal arose as part of a Labour party manifesto for the council elections – in other words it was an idea thought up by politicians who might have little knowledge of road safety matters and as a simplistic solution to road safety problems. It also comments on the encouragement of walking and cycling, and the possible contribution to improving health and tackling obesity, but there is simply no firm scientific evidence in the public domain of 20 mph schemes having any impact on those.
  2. Is it safer to drive at 20 mph? In theory maybe, but in practice there is no evidence that imposing a lower speed limit improves road safety. Indeed the evidence is to the contrary. Before 1930 there was a blanket 20 mph speed limit across the whole of the UK. When it was removed, the accidents fell. The recent evidence on wide-area 20 mph schemes, particularly those imposed only by signs with no road engineering measures, is not supportive of the view that they are a cost-effective road safety measure. The Department of Transport (DfT) have recently commissioned a three year study into the effectiveness of 20 mph schemes because of this uncertainty, but Croydon Council are not willing to await the evidence as they have made their own minds up already.
  3. Would there be fewer collisions/casualties as a result of the scheme? They allege there would be when there is no evidence there actually will be. Their claims about the benefits of such a scheme in Portsmouth are grossly misleading. There was no statistically significant reduction on overall accidents and the KSI figures actually rose. It is very unclear that there was any real benefit in spending the £573,000 that the Portsmouth scheme cost – in other words, no justification that it was a cost effective scheme in comparison with other possible road safety measures.
  4. How much will it cost and is it worth it? The scheme for Croydon North alone will cost £300,000 with the whole of Croydon costing £1.5 million. They claim that they can justify the cost based on accident reductions (without any clear estimate of what the reductions might be so that a retrospective review of the benefits in Croydon North can be seen before extending it to other areas). In any case, and as we have already pointed out, the claimed benefits are unlikely to be achieved. Even the costs they imply might be saved by reducing accidents are misleading. The DfT figures for collisions relate to the “value” attached to an accident based on what people are willing to pay to avoid them. This is a very subjective and biased measure. The direct costs are much lower so there is no realistic chance of recovering the proposed expenditure by cost savings. They also again make claims about the cost savings to be achieved (such as to the NHS) from improved health as people are discouraged from driving, for which there is simply no supportive evidence.
  5. Is this scheme being funded from council tax revenues? They say “No”. This is grossly misleading. The funding is certainly coming from Transport for London (TfL), which is of course funded primarily by taxation, directly or indirectly. So for example, some of the funds come from the GLA Precept obtained from Local Authorities in London and some from central Government funding (again from the taxes the public pays). You are paying for this expenditure one way or another and some of it is coming from council tax revenues!
  6. Are other boroughs considering 20 mph speed limits? It is true that others are considering such limits or have introduced them. Many outer London boroughs have also rejected these proposals on the grounds that they are an expensive solution and there are better uses to tackle road safety for the available money. Would it not have been better to await the results of similar schemes already introduced to see what impact they have in reality? In the City of London, the 20 mph speed limit has had minimal impact, even though enforcement has been actively pursued. Regrettably councils such as Croydon are not interested in the evidence, but more in the concept while ignoring the negative aspects of their proposals for the ordinary road user.

Roger Lawson

20 Mph Speed Limits

Posted on by
Reply

Wide area 20-mph speed limits are being adopted by a number of London boroughs despite there being no evidence that they have any benefit whatsoever – indeed what evidence there is suggests exactly the contrary. However, some politicians and anti-car groups (such as cyclists commonly) continue to push for their use and make spurious claims about the impact they are likely to have. They also allege that drivers will not suffer any disadvantage as a result as journey times may not differ by much thereby ignoring the true reality, or that the 20-mph limit will not be enforced (which is not true in practice as recent reports from Islington and the City of London demonstrate).

We have issued a press release calling for no new 20-mph limits until proper research on the matter has been undertaken. This is what it said:

No new 20mph speed limits should be allowed until a Department for Transport study is published in 2017.   In 2014 the Department for Transport (DfT) began a three-year study into all the impacts of 20mph speed limits, including their effects on actual speeds, accidents, emissions and whether they encourage more people to walk or cycle.  We are a key stakeholder in the study and have supplied evidence to the consultants undertaking it.   In the meantime, the pressure group 20s Plenty for Us is increasing its efforts to have blanket 20mph speed limits established in as many towns and cities as possible.  We believe it is doing this because it realises that the study results are likely to undermine many of its claims for the ‘benefits’ of 20mph limits.  It knows that, once lower limits have been introduced, it will be very difficult to get them reversed.  Its ultimate aim is to have the default speed limit in all built-up areas reduced from 30mph to 20mph.  We have written to the Roads Minister, Robert Goodwill, to propose that a moratorium on all new 20mph speed limits should be brought into effect until the DfT study is published in 2017 and the true impacts of 20mph limits are known.   The campaign in favour of 20mph limits is nothing to do with road safety – it is an attempt at social engineering. Many of those leading the campaign are associated with left-leaning and environmentalist groups, with an ideological hatred of private motorised transport.  They are not representative of the general population.  These unelected, heavily biased individuals should not be allowed to tell people how to live their lives.   We believe that everyone has the right to choose the mode of transport that most suits them for each journey they make.  They should not be made to feel guilty for choosing to use a car.  Speed limits should be set for genuine road safety reasons and not to discourage car use.’   ENDS

Roger Lawson

20 Mph Enforcement in Islington

Posted on by
Reply

Islington now has a 20 m.p.h. limit on all roads under its control.  This now includes all main roads (formerly it was just residential ones) but excluding Tfl controlled ones like the A1 Holloway Road.  This is perceived by most residents to be nothing more than anti-car gesture politics on the part of Islington council.

This borough-wide restriction has now been in force for about a year or so.  The police have said it is an unnaturally slow speed on main roads and they have not got the time or resources to enforce it.  According to one local resident, on the main roads it is widely disregarded, not just by private motorists, but by buses, police cars not on response calls, council vehicles etc.  However, the police have recently been pushed into giving this Islington council policy some teeth, namely by the one Green councillor.

They are now setting up the odd speed trap with hand-held radar guns. One person was caught doing 27 m.p.h. on her way into work, incurring a £100 fine and three points on her licence.  This was on a bus route, and it’s worth noting that the speed trap was set up near a bus stop, so speeding buses would be slowing down on its approach and the police would therefore not have to pull them in.

Comment: It is often claimed by the advocates of wide-area 20 mph schemes that it will have little practical impact on residents and the police would be unlikely to enforce an unreasonable limit, partly because the technology has not been certified to do so and partly because they do not have the resources. The experience in Islington just shows that this is not the case. If a 20-mph limit is introduced you will in due course be forced to adhere to it, whether it is reasonable for the road conditions or not.

Roger Lawson

No End To, Rather An Intensification of the War on the Motorist

Posted on by
Reply

Drivers had been promised no re-emergence of moves to impose road user charging under the current administration. But by stealth, buried in the bowels of the Infrastructure Bill (currently making its way through Parliament) are measures which: (a) facilitate the privatisation the Highways Agency, and (b) pave the way for the sell-off of the UK road network to private interests, and the subsequent imposition of road user charging.

The threat of a mandatory imposition (by EU diktat) of the fitment of Black Boxes remains. Big Brother external control and monitoring of your driving.

The Government is active in supporting Driverless Car technology: the ultimate extension of external control – you become a passenger in your own vehicle – but still responsible for it if the technology fouls up! (Even Toyota have distanced themselves from this particular piece of crass idiocy).

The much-publicised Motorway Speed Limit increase has been quietly ditched – another example of a commitment made but retracted. A raft of major road speed limit reductions were being propose, ostensibly due to EU clean air diktats; when it was government itself that retarded the decline in emissions: by (a) discouraging catalysed petrol vehicle sales in favour of lower CO2-, but higher NOx-, SO2- and particulate-producing diesel; and (of much greater significance), by (b) persistently failing to regulate adequately the emissions of the worst polluters: public service, and older goods vehicles. Modern private diesel cars have very low emissions – particularly those with DPFs (Diesel Particulate Filters).

Speed Camera Partnerships effectively remain totally unregulated. This is despite incontrovertible evidence that the casualty-reducing benefits claimed for their “electronic highwaymen” prove to be non-existent after Regression To The Mean is taken into account. Of course, turkeys would never vote for Christmas; and instead of seeking reductions in prosecution numbers by lobbying for sensibly-set speed limits, the Partnerships have now switched focus to try to divert as many drivers as possible away from accepting fixed penalties and onto “Speed Awareness” courses – from which both the Partnership and the course organisers each take a tasty rake-off. The Shakespearean words: “Rotten”, “State” and “Denmark” come to mind…….

Ill-informed local politicians are promoting the proliferation of 20mph limit zones (with a few notable exceptions like Worthing – due to overwhelming public opposition ). This is despite the road safety evidence being damningly negative; with deaths and serious injuries consistently being worse than those in comparable nearby areas where 30mph has been retained.

All these developments have to be countered at both local and national levels if we are to prevent things getting markedly worse for drivers than is already the case. You can help by joining in and making your voice, views and opinions heard.