|
Post by vjaska on Jan 15, 2022 16:00:25 GMT
What do you propose we have instead? Preferably someone elected by Londoners and not imposed on London by the Government. When you have a mayor, who according to many has no responsibility for any of Londom's failing and just whinges about them, then we might as well have it run by Central government. A mayor is responsible for what happens in London, or there is little point having him. So what is the point of a mayor who has no responsibility? You have seen this government right? So your suggesting to replace a poor mayor with a poor government - what a waste of everyone’s time
|
|
|
Post by SILENCED on Jan 15, 2022 16:09:24 GMT
When you have a mayor, who according to many has no responsibility for any of Londom's failing and just whinges about them, then we might as well have it run by Central government. A mayor is responsible for what happens in London, or there is little point having him. So what is the point of a mayor who has no responsibility? You have seen this government right? So your suggesting to replace a poor mayor with a poor government - what a waste of everyone’s time You might be correct, but is 2 poor levels of government better than 1? ... Probably be cheaper. Politicians are in it for themselves, they don't give a shite about the people the are supposed to represent. Corrupt from national to local government.
|
|
|
Post by greenboy on Jan 15, 2022 18:01:41 GMT
I have now given up on the N9 completely - I now take my chances with the speeding / poor driving lunatics on the A406 when on E shift - It's worth the risk / cost of driving rather than put up with the continued shite service (New years resolution) - just working on a solution to the shite service that SWR provide too. (probably an electric car) rather than the outrageous season ticket renewal cost in July for the absolutely dire shite service they provide I can see a huge increase in private transport in the next few months. Most people at my place are opting to drive to work during the Northern line closure. I dread to see the state of Tower Bridge over the next few months but it’s a risk people are happy to take rather than put up with the bus. I do think that the congestion charge boundary should be limited to, and not including London Bridge during the Northern Line closure to assist traffic flow. Is the Northern Line City branch closure really going to result in a big increase in car usage? A bit of an inconvenience but there are alternatives.
|
|
|
Post by greenboy on Jan 15, 2022 18:05:33 GMT
And as of tomorrow night the N9 will have an extra 25 minutes to get from Aldwych to Heathrow taking the total run time up to 1hr 50 minutes. That will definitely kill off any possibility of the route recovering. Not a chance I’ll be waiting half an hour to sit on a packed bus that’ll spend 25 minutes regulating to get back home from Heaven on a Saturday night (and I say this as someone who uses any opportunity to use the N9). It’s just unbelievable what is happening to TfL services these days under the premiership of Sadiq Khan. I think TfL should only be responsible for Trains, Underground, Buses and Trams in London. Maybe then all the money wasted on these ridiculous non-public transport related schemes can be used to restore a 20 minute frequency to an important night route. Also why the hell do 20mph speed limits apply at night? This is 100% the reason for operators dumping loads of running time on night routes (and day routes). I honestly believe London is on a steady decline to becoming a second rate city which is such a shame and I fully blame Johnson and Khan for initiating this madness. The 20mph on major roads is slow and counter productive frankly. My wife is a learner and she is already moaning about how slow / difficult it is to maintain 20 on bigger roads ( downham way for example is dual carriageway and 20!). Clear example of people framing policies having no clue of ground realities Downham Way isn't a dual carriageway, did you mean Whitefoot Lane? I know it's irritating but these roads do get a lot of speeding.
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Jan 15, 2022 18:34:37 GMT
The 20mph on major roads is slow and counter productive frankly. My wife is a learner and she is already moaning about how slow / difficult it is to maintain 20 on bigger roads ( downham way for example is dual carriageway and 20!). Clear example of people framing policies having no clue of ground realities Downham Way isn't a dual carriageway, did you mean Whitefoot Lane? I know it's irritating but these roads do get a lot of speeding. Making roads 20mph doesn’t stop speeding. A number of roads surrounding me are 20mph as part of Lambeth’s 20mph borough wide scheme and speeding is still a daily occurrence
|
|
|
Post by ronnie on Jan 15, 2022 20:49:01 GMT
The 20mph on major roads is slow and counter productive frankly. My wife is a learner and she is already moaning about how slow / difficult it is to maintain 20 on bigger roads ( downham way for example is dual carriageway and 20!). Clear example of people framing policies having no clue of ground realities Downham Way isn't a dual carriageway, did you mean Whitefoot Lane? I know it's irritating but these roads do get a lot of speeding. My bad, whitefoot lane indeed Both are wide enough to be 30 frankly. No one (apart from learners so they don’t drive faster by mistake on the test) drives at 20 frankly
|
|
|
Post by redbus on Jan 15, 2022 22:08:48 GMT
Downham Way isn't a dual carriageway, did you mean Whitefoot Lane? I know it's irritating but these roads do get a lot of speeding. Making roads 20mph doesn’t stop speeding. A number of roads surrounding me are 20mph as part of Lambeth’s 20mph borough wide scheme and speeding is still a daily occurrence These 20 mph limits are just the start. They are not generally enforced at present, but if there is a change to the law which may happen allowing councils to police these limits and keep the fines of any transgressors, you can be sure that will all change. The cynical amongst you can probably see the £ signs in the council's eyes! All comes under the road safety banner. What is really needed are appropriate speed limits for roads, with potentially lower speed limits at certain times of day, not necessarily borough wide limits. Better driver and pedestrian education would help massively, but that is expensive. You will have seen the mantra of lower speeds means safer streets, and so we are where we are whether or not there is a reduction in accidents following a reduced speed limit. Of course there are places where 20 mph is right, but let us not forget the increased pollution, use of fuel and CO2 by going at 20 instead of 30, made even worse with constant slowing and accelerating for humps. Please do not think I am against 20 mph limits, just that they are targeted correctly to actually save lives and injuries.
|
|
|
Post by M1104 on Jan 15, 2022 22:45:10 GMT
Downham Way isn't a dual carriageway, did you mean Whitefoot Lane? I know it's irritating but these roads do get a lot of speeding. My bad, whitefoot lane indeed Both are wide enough to be 30 frankly. No one (apart from learners so they don’t drive faster by mistake on the test) drives at 20 frankly Bushey Road in the Raynes Park area is just as bad, the dual carriageway section cut from 40 to 20 with the remaining section leading to the A3 Kingston-By-Pass reduced at least to a more sensible 30. Surprisingly Saint Helier Avenue in the Morden/Rose Hill area is still 40...at least for now anyway.
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Jan 16, 2022 0:05:42 GMT
Making roads 20mph doesn’t stop speeding. A number of roads surrounding me are 20mph as part of Lambeth’s 20mph borough wide scheme and speeding is still a daily occurrence These 20 mph limits are just the start. They are not generally enforced at present, but if there is a change to the law which may happen allowing councils to police these limits and keep the fines of any transgressors, you can be sure that will all change. The cynical amongst you can probably see the £ signs in the council's eyes! All comes under the road safety banner. What is really needed are appropriate speed limits for roads, with potentially lower speed limits at certain times of day, not necessarily borough wide limits. Better driver and pedestrian education would help massively, but that is expensive. You will have seen the mantra of lower speeds means safer streets, and so we are where we are whether or not there is a reduction in accidents following a reduced speed limit. Of course there are places where 20 mph is right, but let us not forget the increased pollution, use of fuel and CO2 by going at 20 instead of 30, made even worse with constant slowing and accelerating for humps. Please do not think I am against 20 mph limits, just that they are targeted correctly to actually save lives and injuries. Not at all, I think your post actually speaks a lot of sense
|
|
|
Post by snowman on Jan 16, 2022 7:50:02 GMT
My bad, whitefoot lane indeed Both are wide enough to be 30 frankly. No one (apart from learners so they don’t drive faster by mistake on the test) drives at 20 frankly Bushey Road in the Raynes Park area is just as bad, the dual carriageway section cut from 40 to 20 with the remaining section leading to the A3 Kingston-By-Pass reduced at least to a more sensible 30. Surprisingly Saint Helier Avenue in the Morden/Rose Hill area is still 40...at least for now anyway. Silly speed limits is one of the things that I was glad see back of when I moved to Wiltshire. The most common speed limit signs here are 50 or 40. It is rare to see 20 and if you do probably only for few hundred meters past a primary school, or where road wiggles past some old stone building. Here speed limits seem to be determined by risk, plenty of roads where limit changes 4 or 5 times in a mile as it goes up and down as appropriate. None of the reduce 40 to 20 and keep it at 20 for next 10 miles lark. Apparently Bath tried a lower limit and got rid of it soon after as accident rates rocketed as drivers became careless and frustrated and tried overtaking. In London all the mayor’s PR on lower limits is about serious injuries and deaths, never mentions quantity of accidents as it is known the rate goes up with these low limits, and most don’t even make any statistics as they are unreported.
|
|
|
Post by wirewiper on Jan 16, 2022 11:37:11 GMT
Bushey Road in the Raynes Park area is just as bad, the dual carriageway section cut from 40 to 20 with the remaining section leading to the A3 Kingston-By-Pass reduced at least to a more sensible 30. Surprisingly Saint Helier Avenue in the Morden/Rose Hill area is still 40...at least for now anyway. Silly speed limits is one of the things that I was glad see back of when I moved to Wiltshire. The most common speed limit signs here are 50 or 40. It is rare to see 20 and if you do probably only for few hundred meters past a primary school, or where road wiggles past some old stone building. Here speed limits seem to be determined by risk, plenty of roads where limit changes 4 or 5 times in a mile as it goes up and down as appropriate. None of the reduce 40 to 20 and keep it at 20 for next 10 miles lark. Apparently Bath tried a lower limit and got rid of it soon after as accident rates rocketed as drivers became careless and frustrated and tried overtaking. In London all the mayor’s PR on lower limits is about serious injuries and deaths, never mentions quantity of accidents as it is known the rate goes up with these low limits, and most don’t even make any statistics as they are unreported. content.tfl.gov.uk/speed-emissions-and-health.pdf"Key points" (page 4 of the report): "The health benefits of slowing traffic as part of the Healthy Streets Approach will dwarf any dis-benefits. Most of these benefits will come from supporting a shift to walking and cycling. "Congestion can increase local air pollution but it is complex. Even where congestion increases local air pollution, the health impacts are likely to be negligible and outweighed by the health benefits of slowed traffic. "20mph zones do not appear to worsen air quality and they dramatically reduce road danger. They also support a shift to walking and cycling, generate less traffic noise and reduce community severance. "In 20mph zones vehicles move more smoothly with fewer accelerations and decelerations. This driving style produces fewer particulate emissions. "Speed bumps generate small, local increases in emissions, but the health impacts are likely to be negligible. They dramatically reduce road danger and support the Healthy Streets Approach. The air quality impacts of protected cycle lanes have not yet been evaluated, but they are not expected to increase air pollution."
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Jan 16, 2022 13:12:48 GMT
Silly speed limits is one of the things that I was glad see back of when I moved to Wiltshire. The most common speed limit signs here are 50 or 40. It is rare to see 20 and if you do probably only for few hundred meters past a primary school, or where road wiggles past some old stone building. Here speed limits seem to be determined by risk, plenty of roads where limit changes 4 or 5 times in a mile as it goes up and down as appropriate. None of the reduce 40 to 20 and keep it at 20 for next 10 miles lark. Apparently Bath tried a lower limit and got rid of it soon after as accident rates rocketed as drivers became careless and frustrated and tried overtaking. In London all the mayor’s PR on lower limits is about serious injuries and deaths, never mentions quantity of accidents as it is known the rate goes up with these low limits, and most don’t even make any statistics as they are unreported. content.tfl.gov.uk/speed-emissions-and-health.pdf"Key points" (page 4 of the report): "The health benefits of slowing traffic as part of the Healthy Streets Approach will dwarf any dis-benefits. Most of these benefits will come from supporting a shift to walking and cycling. "Congestion can increase local air pollution but it is complex. Even where congestion increases local air pollution, the health impacts are likely to be negligible and outweighed by the health benefits of slowed traffic. "20mph zones do not appear to worsen air quality and they dramatically reduce road danger. They also support a shift to walking and cycling, generate less traffic noise and reduce community severance. "In 20mph zones vehicles move more smoothly with fewer accelerations and decelerations. This driving style produces fewer particulate emissions. "Speed bumps generate small, local increases in emissions, but the health impacts are likely to be negligible. They dramatically reduce road danger and support the Healthy Streets Approach. The air quality impacts of protected cycle lanes have not yet been evaluated, but they are not expected to increase air pollution." Sorry but I don’t think that report has been researched properly - take the line about 20mph reducing road danger, that only happens if people follow it but in the real world, this doesn’t happen. I can walk out of my house, choose any of the first three roads I come across be they side or main road and about 30 seconds of waiting before someone is doing more than 20 and it’s not a one off. Same with speed bumps - some are built like mountains and on top, they are easily effected by wear & tear making them become quite dangerous in the process.
|
|
|
Post by Eastlondoner62 on Jan 16, 2022 14:20:26 GMT
Silly speed limits is one of the things that I was glad see back of when I moved to Wiltshire. The most common speed limit signs here are 50 or 40. It is rare to see 20 and if you do probably only for few hundred meters past a primary school, or where road wiggles past some old stone building. Here speed limits seem to be determined by risk, plenty of roads where limit changes 4 or 5 times in a mile as it goes up and down as appropriate. None of the reduce 40 to 20 and keep it at 20 for next 10 miles lark. Apparently Bath tried a lower limit and got rid of it soon after as accident rates rocketed as drivers became careless and frustrated and tried overtaking. In London all the mayor’s PR on lower limits is about serious injuries and deaths, never mentions quantity of accidents as it is known the rate goes up with these low limits, and most don’t even make any statistics as they are unreported. content.tfl.gov.uk/speed-emissions-and-health.pdf"Key points" (page 4 of the report): "The health benefits of slowing traffic as part of the Healthy Streets Approach will dwarf any dis-benefits. Most of these benefits will come from supporting a shift to walking and cycling. "Congestion can increase local air pollution but it is complex. Even where congestion increases local air pollution, the health impacts are likely to be negligible and outweighed by the health benefits of slowed traffic. "20mph zones do not appear to worsen air quality and they dramatically reduce road danger. They also support a shift to walking and cycling, generate less traffic noise and reduce community severance. "In 20mph zones vehicles move more smoothly with fewer accelerations and decelerations. This driving style produces fewer particulate emissions. "Speed bumps generate small, local increases in emissions, but the health impacts are likely to be negligible. They dramatically reduce road danger and support the Healthy Streets Approach. The air quality impacts of protected cycle lanes have not yet been evaluated, but they are not expected to increase air pollution." That report has just proved itself to be a load of garbage with the 3rd point regarding accelerations and decelerations. 20mph no doubt causes much more traffic, London has traffic lights everywhere and give way schemes everywhere. It will be impossible to reach that, and then that also goes into a fact where cars are always taking off and maxing out in 3rd (or so) gear which can actually produce a lot more harmful emissions which the report completely ignores. All that 20mph limits are doing is leading to car drivers driving more dangerously to overtake cars following the unbearable speed limits, alongside also making buses unbearable at the same time.
|
|
|
Post by Frenzie on Jan 16, 2022 14:43:06 GMT
content.tfl.gov.uk/speed-emissions-and-health.pdf"Key points" (page 4 of the report): "The health benefits of slowing traffic as part of the Healthy Streets Approach will dwarf any dis-benefits. Most of these benefits will come from supporting a shift to walking and cycling. "Congestion can increase local air pollution but it is complex. Even where congestion increases local air pollution, the health impacts are likely to be negligible and outweighed by the health benefits of slowed traffic. "20mph zones do not appear to worsen air quality and they dramatically reduce road danger. They also support a shift to walking and cycling, generate less traffic noise and reduce community severance. "In 20mph zones vehicles move more smoothly with fewer accelerations and decelerations. This driving style produces fewer particulate emissions. "Speed bumps generate small, local increases in emissions, but the health impacts are likely to be negligible. They dramatically reduce road danger and support the Healthy Streets Approach. The air quality impacts of protected cycle lanes have not yet been evaluated, but they are not expected to increase air pollution." That report has just proved itself to be a load of garbage with the 3rd point regarding accelerations and decelerations. 20mph no doubt causes much more traffic, London has traffic lights everywhere and give way schemes everywhere. It will be impossible to reach that, and then that also goes into a fact where cars are always taking off and maxing out in 3rd (or so) gear which can actually produce a lot more harmful emissions which the report completely ignores. All that 20mph limits are doing is leading to car drivers driving more dangerously to overtake cars following the unbearable speed limits, alongside also making buses unbearable at the same time. Very interesting you mention dangerous driving because I’ve seen so much more overtaking on the roads in Richmond and Ealing since the 20 limits, more often in the middle of the night when I’m on my way home from work. It occurs to me that it’s a lot easier to overtake someone doing 20 mph than it is someone doing 30 mph, especially on smaller windier roads, so perhaps emboldens more people to commit to such a manoeuvre. Usually, if I’m driving at the 20 speed limit, I whack the cruise control on and sure enough there’s someone tailgating within a few minutes. One of the worst I’ve had is a police officer charging up behind me while I was following a 285 at around 11 pm and was completely dazzled by their lights in the rear view mirror from them being far to close. I was just astonished by the behaviour of a so called professional.
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Jan 16, 2022 16:54:30 GMT
That report has just proved itself to be a load of garbage with the 3rd point regarding accelerations and decelerations. 20mph no doubt causes much more traffic, London has traffic lights everywhere and give way schemes everywhere. It will be impossible to reach that, and then that also goes into a fact where cars are always taking off and maxing out in 3rd (or so) gear which can actually produce a lot more harmful emissions which the report completely ignores. All that 20mph limits are doing is leading to car drivers driving more dangerously to overtake cars following the unbearable speed limits, alongside also making buses unbearable at the same time. Very interesting you mention dangerous driving because I’ve seen so much more overtaking on the roads in Richmond and Ealing since the 20 limits, more often in the middle of the night when I’m on my way home from work. It occurs to me that it’s a lot easier to overtake someone doing 20 mph than it is someone doing 30 mph, especially on smaller windier roads, so perhaps emboldens more people to commit to such a manoeuvre. Usually, if I’m driving at the 20 speed limit, I whack the cruise control on and sure enough there’s someone tailgating within a few minutes. One of the worst I’ve had is a police officer charging up behind me while I was following a 285 at around 11 pm and was completely dazzled by their lights in the rear view mirror from them being far to close. I was just astonished by the behaviour of a so called professional. Your experience of overtaking is exactly the same I've witnessed and I don't even drive - Effra Road is a good example where when traffic is light, the road becomes a Need for Speed/Fast & Furious race track and that's with two speed cameras on it at either end and we aren't talking about a lengthy road, it's easily walkable within 5-10 minutes end to end. Speed bumps on roads particularly used by buses should be removed - there's a section of Half Moon Lane near North Dulwich Station where 37's have to slow right down for each bump because Southwark decide to install a type of bump where not only must you slow right down but the top of the bump is thin so the vehicle seems to thud down worse than other types of bumps. Compare this to when I would ride the 37 when I was a kid where the 37 was such a good journey and it's no wonder people are looking for quicker alternatives.
|
|