There have been repeated calls over the years for changes to the Chislehurst War Memorial junction so as to improve facilities for pedestrians. These demands have to date been rejected because of the impact on traffic flows on the high-volume traffic on Bromley Road. But the Council have now come up with a proposal for an additional signal-controlled pedestrian crossing on the A222 near the junction with Kemnal Road.
It may help some pedestrians such as those disabled but I suspect most will not bother to walk to the new crossing but continue to cross at the war memorial traffic lights. I also have concerns about the impact on traffic flows on Royal Parade and those crossing to/from the The Shaw and Kemnal Road. It’s also an expensive solution at over £200,000 when the road safety benefit may be small.
You can “follow” this blog by entering your email address in the box below. You will then receive an email alerting you to new posts as they are added.
It has been widely reported that Rishi Sunak is to announce new motorist-friendly policies that might inhibit the introduction of more LTNs, restrict more 20 mph speed limits and times of bus lanes might be relaxed. On BBC Radio Manchester he argued that prioritising driving was the best policy as the vast majority of journeys are made by car. He has that right at least so why are we spending billions of pounds on HS2 which will be used by very few people? It should surely be scrapped.
Mark Harper, Transport Minister, said this on Twitter: ”Too often the private car is vilified by Labour politicians and sneered at by the metropolitan bubble, when it has been one of the most powerful forces for personal freedom & economic growth”. But will this fine rhetoric which will no doubt be lapped up at the Conservative Party Conference this week be followed up by action to control local councillors who introduce silly speed limits. Or Sadiq Khan in London or Mark Drakeford in Wales (petition against default 20 limit in Wales now has more than 450,000 signatures but is still being ignored!).
If the Conservatives follow through on this agenda it will certainly win them some votes.
A20 Speed Limits
Meanwhile the latest imposition of an unreasonable speed limit has been imposed in the last few days on the A20 between Crittalls Corner in Sidcup and the BP service station/McDonalds before the Swanley M25 junction (eastbound only). The speed limit has been reduced to 40 from 70 and signs for average speed cameras put up and 40 repeater signs also so presumably this is a permanent change. It is unknown why this change has been made although it has been suggested that it is due to road flooding which requires some work on the road which may not be done until May 2024. However it is a ridiculously low speed limit for such a dual-carriageway.
The country is grinding to a halt because of unreasonable speed limits which will mean enormous numbers of drivers will get fines even when driving at safe speeds.
You can “follow” this blog by entering your email address in the box below. You will then receive an email alerting you to new posts as they are added.
Come September, roads in Wales in urban areas are to have the speed limit reduced to 20 mph, i.e. it will replace the 30 limit with a few exceptions. This was a decision made by the Welsh Parliament (the Senedd) but they have already received a petition of over 20,000 signatures objecting.
This is basically an irrational proposal that will not improve road safety or reduce road casualties. A DfT report showed there was no benefit in putting up 20 mph limit signs alone without road engineering measures and they are a waste of money.
In London we have the same irrationality with 20 limits being imposed on main A-roads in some cases. This is making it very difficult to drive in a normal but safe manner on London’s roads and is slowing bus journeys.
Of course there are some Bromley residents who would like 20 limits everywhere in the mistaken belief that road accidents would disappear. This is the response elicited by a question to the Committee: “Response to Question 11: By using 20 MPH zones where appropriate, rather than having a blanket policy, motorists are more likely to respond and drive in accordance with the speed limit. It is worth noting that the 30 MPH national limit was introduced in 1935 when there were 1.5 m vehicles and vehicle safety standards were rudimentary. There are now more than 41 million vehicles in the UK. In 1935 nearly 8,000 people died on UK roads, last year less than 1,700”.
Yes it’s true that before 1935 there was a national 20 mph limit on all roads. It was of course widely ignored and casualties fell when a more realistic limit of 30 in urban areas was introduced.
Transport for London (TfL) have issued a press release claiming significant improvements in road safety since more 20 mph speed limits were introduced. The press release claims that collisions involving vulnerable road users have reduced by 36% and collisions involving death or serious injury have fallen by 25%.
The odd thing about this press release is that “collisions” are not recorded by the police, only road traffic accidents involving personal injury. In addition this claim is quite meaningless unless traffic volumes are measured at the same time and the impact of any other road safety measures such as road/junction improvements are taken into account.
TfL claim that it shows the Mayor’s Vision Zero plan is working but the last time we reported on this eighteen months ago we showed it was not. See https://tinyurl.com/3x3jvcr7
Regardless a report in the Daily Telegraph says that TfL is pushing ahead with lowering speed limits on many more roads in London. The majority of TfL controlled roads (red routes) will move from 30 mph to 20 mph limits.
Meanwhile the number of enforcement actions for speeding by the Metropolitan Police rose by 73% last year to 476,685, probably because 20 limits are not a natural speed to drive at on clear roads.
Comment: TfL claims contradict the authoritative study undertaken by the DfT which showed no statistically significant benefit from 20 mph speed limit zones. The TfL press release does not provide all the data and it is surely based on selective data and false analysis.
Vision Zero and reducing speed limits below what drivers consider as reasonable just seems to be an attack on driving in general with the aim of making life more difficult for those who need to drive. It’s unfair and is just another example of the anti-car mentality of TfL management.
You can “follow” this blog by entering your email address in the box below. You will then receive an email alerting you to new posts as they are added.
There have been many reports of fatal or serious accidents involving e-scooter riders. Are they safe or provide other benefits to offset the risks to users and to pedestrians with whom they often collide?
There have been a number of Government sponsored trials of e-scooters which are subject to specific regulations imposed on users and on the providers. There has recently been a report on the trials published by Arup (see link below) which answers some of the questions that might be asked. But it does not cover the widespread illegal use of e-scooters which are ridden recklessly, including on pavements and without the speed limit imposed on trial users, by people not registered in such trials.
The Arup report notes that based on their surveys of users e-scooters have acted as a mode of transport in-between walking and cycling in terms of average trip distance. In fact there was a large diversion from “active” travel modes of walking and cycling to e-scooter user and relatively less from private car use.
Based on analysis of STATS19 data the casualty rate is about 3 times that of pedal cyclists. That may be due to the relative inexperience of the users of e-scooters but the users also perceived them as less safe and 63% reported injuries which is a very high number. PACTS have reported 15 deaths to date involving e-scooters and a large number of accidents involve no other parties,
One objective of the trials was “to increase the availability of low-carbon transport options” but promoting cycling or walking appear to be safer options.
There are a number of interesting detail comments from users reported in the survey. Potholes and uneven road surfaces were a common problem while technical problems such as limited battery life were frequent complaints.
In summary the Arup report provides some interesting data but it is certainly not clear that the environmental benefits offset the negative safety aspects of e-scooters. Just like the more active promotion of cycling is leading to more road casualties, so will the use of e-scooters.
Moving people from walking will provide negative health benefits and it is not at all clear that there are other significant benefits provided by e-scooters. The Government must surely look at much tighter regulation or outright bans – particularly of unregistered users – if e-scooters are to be allowed.
You can “follow” this blog by entering your email address in the box below. You will then receive an email alerting you to new posts as they are added.
Transport for London (TfL) have published their latest report on Travel in London. It shows that Sadiq Khan’s Transport Strategy is a complete failure.
The Mayor has a target of 80% of journeys to be via active travel modes (which even includes bus journeys). But in fact the number or trips by walking and cycling was only 31% in Q3 2022. That is only slightly higher than the 27% in the pre-pandemic 2019 year.
People are still avoiding public transport because covid is still prevalent and more people have changed travel patterns to work partly from home or have flexible working hours which probably accounts for the small increase in walking/cycling. But it is clear that the overall use of active travel modes has not changed much in the last two years and any changes have been influenced more by the covid epidemic and higher taxes on private cars and higher public transport fares.
You can see the actual London mode share trends in the chart above.
The targets for active travel physical activity are not being met. The report says “results suggest that the proportion of Londoners achieving the target decreased during the pandemic, with quarterly estimates ranging from 33 to 37 per cent”.
These numbers did not stop some media reports claiming that cycling had increased by 40%. This is a complete lie based on using selective data. Cycling still only accounts for about 3% of all trips and is heavily influenced by weather conditions. The UK went through a very dry period this year but the last two months have been the exact opposite and is not in the above data.
Public transport use remains low and significantly below the pre-pandemic level which is a major problem for TfL’s finances as they rely on fare income particularly from buses. The Mayor was going to reduce the bus network to save money but has now taken a U-Turn on that idea which he will surely live to regret.
TfL are forecasting a greater shift to on-line shopping with people making fewer and more local shopping trips. They also foresee an increase in LGV trips associated with home deliveries except in central London and a drop in HGV trips due to reduced construction, general haulage and retail activity. The trend to have few private car trips in London will continue, replaced by the use of taxis, PHVs and internet shopping delivery vehicles.
Vision Zero
The TfL report also gives some data on road casualties. Here again the Mayor’s “Vision Zero” policy is not working. The figures are distorted by the reductions in vehicle traffic during the pandemic but the report says: “2021 was an unusual year with large changes in the composition of people regrettably killed or seriously injured. This was largely due to new travel patterns in the wake of the pandemic. Motorcycling and pedestrian fatalities were significantly lower by historic standards but cycling fatalities and serious injuries increased”.
The Mayor’s promotion of cycling has actually resulted in relatively small increases in cycling but large increases in KSIs involving cyclists. Cycling is intrinsically more dangerous than other transport modes but cyclists won’t listen. The Mayor is unlikely to reach the targets for KSIs in 2022.
The increase in cycling speeds promoted by cycling fanatics and supported by cycle superhighways together with increases in electric bikes and e-scooters are proving to be negative influences.
Summary
A very disappointing report showing the negative trends on mobility in London. Will the Mayor change his stance? We doubt it because his Transport Strategy was always based on dogma rather than rational analysis.
You can “follow” this blog by entering your email address in the box below. You will then receive an email alerting you to new posts as they are added.
I have asked the Council to provide information on what public consultation took place on this proposal and a copy of the Traffic Management Order (TMO) used to impose it (which was not published anywhere so far as I can see). They provided the latter but were very evasive about the former even though they claim they received 23 responses. I am pursuing it further.
But I have sent in an objection to the TMO as follows and I suggest readers do the same.
I refer to “The Wandsworth (Prescribed Routes) (20mph Speed Limit) Experimental Order 2021”
Please note our objections to this Order for the following reasons:
1. The 20-mph limit on the roads concerned is likely to have very little, if any, impact on road casualties. I quote from a recent article in the Daily Mail: “Researchers from Queen’s University Belfast, Edinburgh University and the University of Cambridge collected data on traffic collisions, casualties, driver speed and traffic volume before a 20mph limit was introduced, as well as one and three years afterwards.
Their study encompassed 76 streets in the city centre, and they compared data with that collected from nearby streets where the restrictions did not apply. Analysis showed that when compared with the sites that had retained their speed limits, a 20mph speed limit was associated with little change in short or long-termaccident statistics.
Small reductions in road traffic collisions of 3 per cent and 15 per cent, respectively, were observed one and three years after the policy took effect. But there was no statistically significant difference over time, the researchers said.
Similarly, casualty rates fell by 16 per cent and 22 per cent, respectively, one and three years after implementation – but these reductions also weren’t statistically significant”.
3. The roads on which you are enforcing the 20 limit are inappropriate for a 20 limit. For example Wimbledon Park Road is a straight and relatively wide road which drivers will not perceive as needing a 20 limit. Is there really a road safety problem in this road?
4. The ability of the Council to enforce such a limit via the issue of PCNs rather than have police pursue a prosecution suggests the motive for the scheme is to enable the Council to collect money from fines rather than to improve road safety.
5. We have studied the relevant Acts of Parliament referred to in the TMO and we cannot see that they enable enforcement of the 20 limit in this way by Wandsworth Council. London Councils certainly have powers to enforce parking restrictions, road closures and certain other traffic offences but we do not see that this extends to 20-mph speed limits. Please point out exactly which provisions in those Acts are being relied upon.
You can “follow” this blog by entering your email address in the box below. You will then receive an email alerting you to new posts as they are added.
The Holborn gyratory in London has been the scene of some fatal accidents to cyclists so the London Borough of Camden is proposing some changes to improve safety. But the changes proposed are somewhat trivial in nature although they are likely to reduce the capacity of the roads and hence increase traffic congestion and air pollution. There is no information provided on any modelling of traffic flows that might have been done.
The changes include the right turn lane on Kingsway northbound being changed into a right turn only into Remnant Street which is surely a bit odd.
These changes might benefit cyclists but they prejudice all other road users. More substantive changes are surely required to really solve the road safety problems in this area.
You can “follow” this blog by entering your email address in the box below. You will then receive an email alerting you to new posts as they are added.
The Times have published an article headlined “Police veering wildly on 20 mph limit” which covers the variation in speed enforcement across the country. In London fines have been rising rapidly as the Metropolitan Police have doubled patrols in 20 mph zones and have a target to enforce against one million drivers. But in other parts of the country the number of 20 mph speeding offences in minimal.
London taxi drivers, known to be some of the safest drivers on the roads, have been badly hit particularly after the previous excess tolerance was reduced by 1 mph. The Licensed Taxi Drivers Association said they had been inundated with requests for legal assistance from drivers with previously clean licences, given penalty points for breaching a 20 mph limit.
Lilli Matson, who oversees the “Vision Zero” strategy for Transport for London (TfL), is quoted in the Times article as saying “the fines went to the Treasury and no profits were taken from speed awareness courses”. This is grossly misleading. Police forces generate surpluses from such courses which they spend on all sorts of things including more cameras. See our Ampow campaign for more evidence on this at: https://www.freedomfordrivers.org/speed-awareness-courses
Comment: Having a target for offences identified and prosecuted is wrong. It incentivises the police to find offences that may have no relevance to road safety while there is no evidence that taking a speed awareness course improves a driver’s safety. It’s just another perverse attack on motorists, particularly in London pursued by TfL, where 20 mph limits are now being installed on main roads. See link below on how Vision Zero is failing to achieve any improvement in road casualty statistics mainly because there is an irrational belief that cutting traffic speed will help.
You can “follow” this blog by entering your email address in the box below. You will then receive an email alerting you to new posts as they are added.
A proposal from the City of London Corporation for 15 mph speed limits in the City have been blocked by central Government. The Department for Transport (DfT) said it would be hard to enforce such a limit as not all cars have speedometers marked with 5 mph markings and speedometers are not accurate enough.
The City Corporation is still planning to put up 15 mph limit signs but they can legally be ignored.
Comment: This is an enormous waste of money as traffic in the City rarely exceeds 15 mph. At least someone in the DfT has some common sense. Putting up signs would not have made any difference to road safety figures. But we still have Transport for London (TfL) imposing 20 mph speed limits on main roads in London which is slowing traffic and is totally unnecessary plus widely ignored. Driving even at 20 mph consistently is not at all easy in modern cars so it’s just another imposition on drivers by the cycling fanatics in TfL who seem to wish everyone slowed down to their speed.
There is no evidence that putting up 20 mph speed limit signs has any road safety benefit.
You can “follow” this blog by entering your email address in the box below. You will then receive an email alerting you to new posts as they are added.
