Labour Islington Council wants 20 mph speed limits

chrisn4 · December 2011

The Orwellian Labour Party, who run Islington council, are not content with frightening elderly people in their own homes, by threatening to fine them for not recycling.Now in future police may have the power to fine you for drving over 20mph.How do we know police won't change their minds and then the police do start fining people for driving over 20mph in future.Below is from The Islington Gazette.It's time to vote Conservative in Islington at local elections. Islington Council is “ready for a stand-up row” with Transport for London (TfL) over its bid to become the first council in the capital to introduce a 20mph speed limit on main roads. The proposal – agreed by the executive last night (Thursday) – would see the speed cap brought in on “principal” roads such as Essex Road, Blackstock Road, Hornsey Road and Caledonian Road. But the council’s Executive member for planning, regeneration and transport said he fears TfL could put the brakes on the scheme, which it has to approve because some of the roads form part of its “strategic road network”. Cllr Paul Convery said: “I am hoping they will not get in the way but there’s a real possibility they will block it. If they invoke that power, we will have a real stand-up row. We are ready for that row. There’s a high chance of a child or older person being killed if they are hit by a vehicle travelling at 30mph, but at 20mph it’s almost certain they will survive. I think we’ll be the first in the UK to do it.” The council hopes new signs will be enough to slow motorists down. It will not build speed bumps and police will not enforce the limit, just as they do not the 30mph maximum, or the 20mph cap in place on residential roads. The proposal has been welcomed by safety campaigners and hailed as a huge boost to a growing campaign to cut speeds to 20mph across the capital. Caroline Russell, chairman of Islington Living Streets, said: “It’s marvellous and let’s hope that Islington can show the way. The numbers seriously injured and killed on the borough’s roads have gone up in the past two years and this could halt that rise. It will save lives.” Only the busiest roads controlled by TfL rather than the council such as the A1, Seven Sisters Road and Camden Road will stay at 30mph. A TfL spokesman said: “TfL has long supported 20mph zones in residential areas, but certain sections of London’s road network are not suitable for 20mph zones. “The potential for new 20mph limits will vary by area and road type.”<A name=sharinganchor></A> <DIV class=in-page-actions> </DIV>

Brodiej · December 2011

This post could be interpreted as a moan chrisn4, and you don't like moaners. Please re-spin about how a change could be as good as rest...i.e. council change. Im with you though, it will be rather annoying not being able to 90mph down Hornsey Road anymore.

sparky · December 2011

Since the 20mph zone on Hanley road started, I am amazed how fast vehicles push themselves to the limit. Never mind the overtaking if someone dares to drive under 20mph.

chrisn4 · December 2011

B - its not a moan,its a serious issue - please pay attention at the back. In Richmond Park in SW London there is a 20mph speed limit throughout the park.What happens is that some people drive at 20mph causing a tailback of cars behind them.People get frustrated and then overtake several cars in front of them dangerously this didnt happen when it was a 30mph speed limit.Then speed up dangerously as they are frustrated at driving at 20mph.20 mph speed limits are counter productive.Also in Richmond park old bill do fine people for speeding. However this arguement could be proved wrong if you show how many crashes before 20mph speed limits put in and after 20mph speed limits put in.Anyone know what the figures are for crashes before n after 20 limits? Don't be naive and just believe what police and council say without questioning it. The police and the council say that people will not get a fine for driving at say 26mph.But once these 20mph speed limits are installed on main roads,and the 20mph limits are already on residential roads in Islington,then police and council might change their minds and say we will put in speed cameras and fine anyone driving at 26mph on Islington Roads. Imagine you are a 80 year old man,you have already been fined from Labour Islington Council for not recycling then you get a fine for speeding at 26mph. the council say that 20mph work on peoples conscience as they make people consider driving slowly - yes some people drive slowly and then the dangerous driver the white van man is so wound up by the slow drivers he puts his foot down

NorthNineteen · December 2011

Good. You don't need to go any faster in inner London.

ActionVerb · December 2011

Has anyone been fined for not-recycling yet?

NorthNineteen · December 2011

Chris: http://www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downloads/20-mph-zones-and-road-safety-in-london.pdf See table 5 The evidence of not only a casualty but also a collision reduction are very clear.

andy · December 2011

@actionverb - good question. Because if no-one was, it might look like scaremongering.

chrisn4 · December 2011

n19 - thanks i will have a look at the link.Is it a fact that all over uk where 20mph speed limits are put in then there are less deaths on the road per year than when a 30mph speed limit? Mayorall candidate and Green Party lady,Jenny Jones (probably a museli and mung bean eating sandal wearer) wanted 20mph speed limits on all London bridges across the thames but Boris did not agree... Jenny then asked if he would consider reducing all the other bridges to 20mph as recommended in GLA reports. Boris politely pointed out the reports were old and outdated, in fact introduced by the previous administration. He said it is now widely believed that to introduce such a speed limit on London's bridges would add to congestion/air pollution. One only has to look at the mess around Tower bridge to see this statement holds up.

djmattyoung · December 2011

I can go faster than 20mph on my bike... eat my dust motorists

Papa · December 2011

It's worth remembering that the problem with 20mph speed limits when they were introduced in the Hanley Road etc, was the council's decision to impose speed bumps everywhere - ie on narrow roads that didn't need them like Regina Road. That was in direct contradiction to the findings of its consultation, which showed people voting against speed bumps [but hey, councils couldn't give a shit what residents think after all it's not like the local authority is there to reflect what the people living in the borough want.] The council, I believe did admit that they had to put in speed bumps to have a 20mph limit - so the consultation was fatally flawed. However, regardless of that farce which has now passed and was theoretically under the last administration, the big problem with the 20mph limit on Hanley Road is that some drivers obey it, while others ignore it and the latter includes idiots who then overtake those doing 20mph- as Sparky points out above. I've seen more near accidents from people overtaking those doing 20mph than I have with cars doing a steady 30mph.

NorthNineteen · December 2011

On average there are less deaths, but it is unlikely to be a 'fact' at every location as the sample size will often be very small and more than likely non-existant. I'm sure there are some accidents caused by introducing 20mph zones that wouldn't have happened otherwise especially with the kind of behaviour described above which thankfully is a minority. But if I was on my bike or crossing a zebra croossing I personally would rather be hit by a car doing 20mph than 30mph.

chrisn4 · December 2011

if statistics show that 20 mph speed limits cut deaths on roads where there is a 20mph limit does this necessarily mean that deaths on roads are reduced in total on all roads? What I mean is that drivers could be wound up and frustrated at driving at 20mph then when they leave the 20mph zone they speed up even more and have a crash due to being wound up by 20 mph speed limit later in their journey.Therefore in this case the 20mph speed limit would increase road deaths but no way of recording this on the statistics.I'm not saying this is the case but statistics dont always tell the true story in some cases. Also men can loose their driving liscence and loose their driving job for doing 26mph in islington if the police and the council and tfl decide to change their mind and fine people in future in 20mph zones.

NorthNineteen · December 2011

Read the report, it compared the statistics on surrounding roads which showed a small decline in collisions and casaulties, albeit less than the observed decline in the 20 mph zones.

chrisn4 · December 2011

if statistics show that on average there are less deaths/injuries in 20mph zones than 30 mph zones then perhaps the philosophical argument is : what would you rather have? less deaths or injuries on the road or more people potentially getting points on their driving liscence or loosing their driving liscence or loosing their driving job if the police/tfl/council do change their mind and fine people in future for driving 26 mph. What is the most morally bad thing. more deaths,injuries on road or people getting points on liscence or loosing their job Unless 20mph zones cause more crashes elsewhere due to drivers speeding up when leaving 20mph zone its difficult to decide because you cant prove if people leaving the 20mph zone cause more road deaths by speeding up when leaving the 20mph zone due to anger at slow coaches in the 20mph zone carry on

NorthNineteen · December 2011

If they didn't speed they wouldn't get points on their license. And you can prove that people don't cause more collisions/casulties in areas immediately outside the 20 mph zones by looking at the Stats19 data for the roads just outside the 20 mph zone, as has been done in the link above. In fact, the evidence suggests the opposite, drivers continue their safer driving once exiting the 20mph zone.

chrisn4 · December 2011

n19 - you say "you can prove that people dont cause more collisions outside 20mph zones" i dont agree a man might be 20 miles away from the 20 mph zone before he crashes and the psycological cause of the crash was that he feel agitated in the 20mph zone and then crashes as he has been annoyed by people driving at 15 mph in the 20 mph zone 45 minutes ago.this crash would not show up on your survey stats There have been loads of drivers got speeding tickets on one london bridge over the thames in the past that had a 20mph speed limit.Then they have to go home to their wife and tell her the boss has sacked him for getting 12 points on his liscnece if he was on 9 points before due to all the speed cameras in london. liscened taxis,black cabs,are in danger of loosing their job because of 20mph cameras.what is a black cab driver going to do to feed his kids if he looses a job he has done for 30 years due to islington council speed cameras also the 20 mph zone can have a damaging effect on the economy as drivers can get points on their liscence then loose their job. just because old bill and council say they wont fine you now isnt relevant. drivers feel under pressure to speed from their bosses who are on the mobile phone telling their workers to hurry up and get deliveries done etc so workers have to speed or fear loosing their jobs.

Ali · December 2011

Twenty is Plenty If it is 20 people go at 25 if it is 30 they go at 35 I would rather get hit by a car at 20 than 30

jona · December 2011

I think a man who spends 45mins being agitated by another driver and then crashes should probably find a job that doesn't require long periods of driving, tbh.

Arkady · December 2011

Chris - given that you have been presented with scrutinised evidence that suggests that your argument is wrong, do you have any actual counter-evidence, or are you just speculating? Because on its own your speculation is irrelevant. If the evidence suggests that reducing the speed limit saves lives then that outweighs the other (again, guessed-at) risks that you mention. I’d be more interested in seeing some stat analysis on what damage speed reduction would do to the economy, as then one could get into the horrors of pricing human lives – e.g. is it worth knocking a few million from London’s GDP in exchange for saving a few hundred lives? On a related topic (given that congestion has been raised), I was interested to see that Osborne’s infrastructure splurge involves four interesting London transport projects: 1) The Battersea Northern Line extension 2) New Thames crossing between Silvertown and the Greenwich Peninsular 3) New Thames crossing at Gallions Reach 4) Additional Thames Crossing at Dartford It hasn’t been made clear exactly what the crossings will consist of, but if road crossings then they should also include DLR provision.

chrisn4 · December 2011

arkady - or is your speculation irrelevant? do you have any evidence to prove that deaths on the roads are not caused many miles away from 20 mph zones after the drivers are agitated by slow coaches in 20mph zones.i am saying the evidence doesnt necessarily say 20 mph zones save lives as people crash outside zones later,can you prove or show evidence that that is wrong,that people dont crash 20 miles outside 20mph zone? jona - you must think all black cab drivers should get a new job - they all get wound up to a certain extent which can lead to crashing most of them crash the cab at some point due to agitation or tiredness etc.

Ali · December 2011

These are proposals that are not fully funded by the Government and require oodles of private money I think !

NorthNineteen · December 2011

Arkady, it already has been valued. I'll give you a few off my head (all in 2002 prices): - the value of saving a life is £1.5m - the value of stopping a serious injury is £150k - the value of time of a driver undertaking leisure is £4.50 per hour - the value of time of a business person driving is £26 per hour - the value of time of a business person using a train is £37 per hour

NorthNineteen · December 2011

There also isn't any evidence on the toast eating habits of those who have been delayed in the 20 mph zones. Driving in 20 mph zones would lead to frustration and agitation which means when these people have some toast they are distracted so don't put it in the slot correctly leading to the toast getting stuck. Due to the agitation they are more likely to use a knife to get the toast out but with their mind preoccupied forget to turn off the toaster resulting in death by electric shock. Won't someone think of the toast related deaths.

NorthNineteen · December 2011

Ali: I think £5bn in the short term is coming from government sources and some of the schemes will be fully funded by public sector money. But yes, the aspiration is to unlock more private sector money from major infrastructure schemes.

Arkady · December 2011

@ Chris - That’s not how knowledge works though, is it. I don't choose to believe in a giant clone of your penis orbiting Betelgeuse on the basis that I can't prove that it doesn't exist. The evidence that we *do* have does not support your argument. I *speculate* that if drivers do not cause a significant number of accidents when increasing speed from 20 to 30 (which we do know) then they are unlikely to cause accidents 20 miles further down the road. That doesn’t sound logical to me, or make sense from my experience of being a driver. What I’m asking is do you have any evidence to back up your position? Because that's what it would take to be relevant and to change minds. @Ali - quite right, but the government seems to be smoothing the way, bringing forward capital, reducing relevant taxes, etc. Promising, anyway. @N19 - fascinating. So we would have a basis to do the calculation already if we knew what GDP a 20-mph limit would knock off the economy.

NorthNineteen · December 2011

It's a calculation Islington would have done (or should have done - FOI anyone...?) but you would need more information including the speed profiles across the Borough.

Brodiej · December 2011

Why are people walking in the middle of the road anyway? Use crossings and traffic lights and it won't matter if i come down the road in an F1 car full of Shell VPower. @Northnineteen. A point well raised reference the toaster. If we're looking reducing death rates then im sure pedestrians and roads are way down the list. What about... 1. Ladders - introduce a ladder license, so that all ladder usage has been fully risk assessed and only trained ladder climbers can use ladders. 2. Pieces of food that are too big leading to choking - make it a criminal offence to eat items of food with a cubic volume greater than 0.034m3. 3. Leaving the house - statistics show that you are more likely to die if you leave the house, so by everyone staying indoors we save 53 lives a year 4. Talking about the merits of BBM - statitsics show talking about BBM till you're blue in the face can lead to death by boredom for around 10-12 individuals per annum. Making your points repeatedly can increase death rates by 50%. 5. 20mph limits is Islington - Statiscally shown to encourage rioting and subsequent deaths by rioting

chrisn4 · December 2011

i am eating hot buttered toast and marmalade and drinking a cup of tea that is a fact not speculation,,, arkady - i think your logic maybe a bit on the weak side on this one: before electricity was discovered say a man (or a bird) said "i believe that one day electricity will be used to light houses" and he describes electricity are you saying that because he cant prove by evidence that electricity exists that his speculation is irrelevant? speculation is only irrelevant if you can prove that it is incorrect.and you cant prove it is incorrect that people wont crash later in their journey due to 20 mph zone winding them up and making them make time by putting their foot down and running over a cyclist... carry on

ActionVerb · December 2011

<div><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance</a></div><div> </div><div>This is effectively a repeat of the recycling fines thread. A notion is raised, and continually repeated based on nothing other than guesswork. </div>

chrisn4 · December 2011

actionverb - are you guessing that my arguement isnt true,as you cant prove my arguement isnt true... arkady - if someone says they believe in God or are an atheist or a an agnostic,are you saying that because you cant prove that their beliefs are true then their beliefs are irrelevant speculation.Just because you cant prove something is true doesnt mean it isnt true.

Howdy, Stranger!

Categories

In this Discussion

Top Posters

Labour Islington Council wants 20 mph speed limits

Comments