All posts in the topic 20mph speed limit? (Short link)
Summary
- There are 23 posts — by 11 authors — in this topic.
- Latest post made by Pippa Gwilliam at Nov 12 10:54 UTC
Headington and Marston will be specifically consulted about the county council's 20mpm proposals at the meeting of the North East Area Committee to be held at St Andrew's Primary School at 6pm on Tuesday 16 September. The county council is consulting on whether to introduce a 20mph speed limit on: • all minor residential roads within the city of Oxford; • all unnumbered through-roads except where they are part of heavily-used bus routes into the city; • sections of A and B roads that pass through busy shopping areas (including the section of the London Road that passes through the Headington District Shopping Centre, but not the rest of the London Road in Headington). Full details here, plus an opportunity to fill in an online form with your views: http://www.oxfordshire.gov.uk/20limits There is already an Order bringing in a 20mph speed limit on the Headington Road from Pullens Lane to Headley Way: see http://www.oxfordshire.gov.uk/londonroad (click on "Background and consultation"). But the police were not very happy with that idea: see http://archive.oxfordmail.net/2008/1/3/213129.html
I attempted to find information on the internet concerning increased air pollution due to driving vehicles at a lower speed in a lower gear but found very little. It seems that most official documentation about 20mph zones chose to ignore this side effect. All vehicles with internal combustion engines will increase their air pollution when driven at a lower speed in a lower gear simply because they not designed with that in mind. Engines just do not work smoothly at low revs in a high gear, particularly when required to accelerate. How many of you have tried to drive in top gear at an indicated 20mph and then accelerate, its not comfortable. The perception that it might make it easier to cross a busy 20mph road is a little false as vehicles moving at slower speeds do so with a reduced gap between them. In effect the time slot between vehicles tends to be the same until they are nearly stationary. This would make it more difficult for people with slower reaction times to cross a road. Additional controlled crossings would be needed, but the side effect of this is increased pollution! There is an article at http://www.speedlimit.org.uk/twenty.html that puts the case against 20mph. I have NO connection with the author or the article. I dont agree with all of it but presumably like some other people 'I'm still sitting on the fence'. It's worth reading to help make up your own opinion. Derek PS How to enforce a 20mph should be a separate topic.
If you want the totally unvarnished truth about how rotten and politically
spiteful these much hated and idiotic twenty mile an hour zones are I suggest
like me you join the Association of British Drivers and visit their website,
they have a page devoted to the subject, or visit the website of Safe Speed a
pressure group begun by the late Paul Smith, I reccommend it.
But look at the statistics for what happens to people hit by cars at 20mph
rather than 40mph.
If this saves one life or reduces the severity of injuries for one person in a
road traffic accident it's worth it.
Count me as in favour!
Whatever else is decided on, I think it is essential that cars are slowed down
when going through busy shopping areas such as the London Road. Two people
have been killed in recent years nipping across from Kennett Road to Stephen
Road -- a 20mph limit might have saved their lives.
You mean, right next to the underpass that they were presumably too lazy to
bother to use?
London Road, AKA the A420 is, as it's name ought to suggest, a main arterial
road into the city, and not some backstreet for 'nipping across'. A proposed
20mph limit there is exactly why I'm minded to oppose it, because The Powers
That Be can't distinguish between the two (or, more likely I suspect they
can, and that the policy has nothing to do with safety and everything to do
with being 'anti car'). And I don't think it's as easy as 'inner A/B roads =
30, rest = 20' as there's trivially observable locations where that is
nonsensical.
There is *no* safe speed, the graph crosses at zero. Another approach might
be to fine people for jaywalking. In NZ, you can be fined $35 for crossing
the road if there's a marked crossing within 20 metres or on a red light. I
can't count the number of pedestrians I've nearly flattened turning right
from London Road onto Old High Street as they just 'nip across' on a red
man.
It simply does not follow that reducing speeds will cause less accidents -
for a variety of reasons - particularly that the roads are likely to be more
busy - not less.
I'm cynical enough to believe the decision has already been taken, and we're
witnessing yet another time and money wasting "consultation" process. It'll
get implemented, and meanwhile we'll continue to wonder why local businesses
that rely on a catchment area much bigger than the surrounding residences
continue to close down and move away to in- or out-of-town locations to be
replaced by services that can support themselves merely on the local
population - Starbucks, Costa, Dominos and Subway. So like as not, the
shopping area won't be busy for much longer.
On Fri, Sep 5, 2008 at 7:51 AM, Stephanie Jenkins <
I would put it a different way: I would say that the drivers in each case must have been going too fast to be able to stop in time. Can you honestly say you have never nipped across the road here? When I had driving lessons c.1970, the first thing I was taught was that the pedestrian had right of way at all times. How things have changed! I can find the report of one of the fatalities in the Oxford Mail, but not the other: http://archive.thisisoxfordshire.co.uk/2001/10/06/53360.html (The lady, who lived in Horwood Close, died soon after this.) I didn't realize this subject was going to be so controversial: I see so many 20's Plenty signs on windows and wheelie bins in central Headington I thought that everyone was like me and very keen to see the 20mph limit implemented. But it's interesting to hear the opposite point of view.
I completely agree with Non and see no reason for a 20mph speed limit.
Althought the accidents Stephanie talks about are tragic, and we should do all
we can to reduce risk, we should not be peanalising the car driver becasue the
pedestrian's 'choose' to take the risk of traffic dodging !
Also, as pointed out in Derek's post, a reduction in the speed limit would lead
to an increase in emissions, one for the 'Greener' Headington there !!!
I also drive through Headington a lot and hardly 'ever' manage to get to 30mph,
it's just to busy during most of the day so why bother wasting the money ?
Here's a thought to help the safety of all in Headington, how about making
Headington a 'cycle free' zone !
As many cyclists have no formal road training, many seem to lack road
awareness. I am sure many of you have seen cyclists repeatedy jumping light's,
riding on pavements, jumping crossings etc in Headington, I certainly have.
(but I'm not saying 'all' cyclists do this)
How about we have a 'park and walk', like a park and ride for bikes on the
outskirts of Headington. We could make Headington cycle free which would:
a) Make the roads safer for Drivers (and cyclists) in central Headington.
b) Make the pavements safer for pedestrians
c) Make the pedestrian crossing safer for all.
d) Free up the pavements from all the cycle racks which most seem to have bikes
locked and dumped on permenantly, especially outside Londis on the traffic
lights.
I'm sure this will be a very 'unpopular' proposal on the forum but I think it's
a great idea :-) !!!!!!
I'm for it on the residential streets of Headington as it should bring some
drivers down to c25mph whereas they happily nip along at 35mph, safe in some
Clarksonesque mindset that knows that speed is safe enough to avoid
prosecution. As I shepherd children about our streets, I'm ever so much
happier when I can get eye contact with a driver at a junction and have some
sense of where they're going and what they're doing.
It would be lunacy to replicate the situation that pertains along the Cowley
Road with 20mph for the thoroughfare and 30mph for the surrounding streets.
Where we live, a slice of the procession of cars that goes through our streets
are rat-running to speed up by a few minutes their trip across Oxford – we
should not provide incentives for that by keeping those streets at 30. I know
we can all find cheery anecdotes that can prove anything, but I did enjoy the
attitude of the driver this morning who jumped the red light on the pedestrian
crossing on Windmill road so that he could be 5 metres further on in the
semi-stationary queue of traffic rather than wait 2 mins for the lights to go
green again (and therefore be exactly where he would have been any way).
If the County give us a plebiscite – I vote 20mph.
I think some of you are missing the point.
I for one am not saying that reducing the speed limit reduces the number of
accidents. If a driver is not paying proper attention, or is not driving
properly or a pedestrian (especially a child) behaves irresponsibly then there
could well be an accident. The only advantage of lower speeds in this context
is that the driver may have longer to react - irrespective of "blame".
The point is that if a pedestrian does get hit by a car then the chances of
survival are greater at 20 than 30 than 40. I know that you can reduce this ad
absurdum to suggest that the optimum speed for cars is 5mph or less, but it
seems to me that in residential areas - whatever the classification of the road
- that 20mph is a good compromise.
Incidentally, if one blots one's copybook and gets a speeding ticket and is
allowed to opt for a 'driver education' session then the key message that's
hammered home is that people have a much better chance of survival when the car
is being driven at or below the speed limit. The point is made with pretty
graphic photographs and video clips. Coincidentally, I was talking to two
people last night who've both been through one of these courses. Both said that
the experience was very salutary.
Oh, and before any suggests I'm anti-car, I couldn't do my job without a car.
I'm also a pedestrian and a cyclist.
Actually we are having worse crashes at 20mph than we have at 30mph, the
statistics actually prove that the faster you drive the safer you actually are.
At 20mph 17% of people are injured and killed and at 30mph only 13% of people
are injured and killed so don't tell me that more lives will be saved by a
stupid zone where everyone will drive along gazing fixedly at their
speedometers, rather than paying attention to what is happening around them.
Speed Does Not Kill.
Well, one knows what they say about statistics.....
But Nicholas's statement is so generalised (as are many of the others) as to
be quite valueless as a support for any conclusion. If the decision is to be
statistically based (which itself is questionable - see the County's paper
in the Agenda for September's NEAC meeting) an exact statement of what was
measured and under what circumstances, and exactly what is being compared
with what needs to be analysed. Is the original paper on which his assertion
is based available?
Tony
While Nom is quite right to say that there is an underpass there now, isn't it
going to closed?
That's the danger of trying to gauge public opinion by consultation - the
polar extremes with all respond, and the vast majority, happy with the
status quo, won't. It's nothing new, but it's just as depressing - and leads
to my suspicion that the only time "consultations" are undertaken is in
order to tick some box and carry on an agenda regardless.
I can't unfortunately display my views on the subject in a pithy placard
because I think it's a complex subject in which blanket solutions don't
help.
I've traversed London Road several times. I'm also young, fit, have 20-20
eyesight and a good eye for discerning relative speeds. And if I'd been hit
it would have been *my fault*.
There are going to be irreconcilable differences here. We're all trying to
balance safety against utility and for some (particularly often for those
with a personal tragedy) the balance can never be enough. Some things I'd
point out (applying mainly to the major roads here)
- It's a simple physical fact that a London Road with a 20mph limit will be
busier and generate more pollution.
- This might actually make it harder to cross the road.
- The safety stats are inconclusive at best. It's perfectly possible for 20
zones to kill a higher proportion of pedestrians but also a much lower
overall number (e.g. It is said that the German Autobahns have some of the
most horrific accidents you'll ever see - just a much rarer event).
- It's a totally blunt instrument. At 8AM, London road is barely doing
10mph. And at 4AM, returning X90s and Oxford Tubes will be slowing down for
who, precisely?
- England has some of the safest roads in Europe (partially because of
getting traffic onto safer A roads rather than less safe minor roads;
something that as has been pointed out, things like the Cowley Road runs
entirely counter to). Are we *really* sure this is a good use of resources?
Drink (and drug) Driving that we thought was a done deal is back on the
increase...
Now -
- I *totally agree* that some residential streets would benefit from 25 or
20 limits, or they're already at a defacto 20 limit. Anyone turning right
from Wharton Road onto Margaret Rd of a morning would be insane to be going
anything more than a crawl. Ironically this is a hazard created mainly by
parents dropping little Johnny off at school making their fears of roads
that are dangerous to cross a self-fulfilling prophecy.
- There's a problem here though that you put the efficacy of such limits at
risk by applying such areas everywhere, because it just breeds contempt.
It's already observable in other examples:
* Unrestricted 'A' roads that enter villages; the 30 limit starting
hundreds of meters before the built-up area actually starts. So drivers
after a while notice this and no longer bother to slow down until much
later, 'guessing' at where the real hazards might start - they don't trust
the signage any more.
* Mobile phone handsets. It's dangerous to talk on a handset and drive.
We already had a perfectly serviceable law - driving without due care and
attention - to cover this. But the 'precautionary principle' said 'we need
to send a message that this isn't tolerated - create a new law, then it'll
be really clear'. What has become clear is that drivers can (and have) been
issued fixed penalties applied for making a call while stationary in an
unmoving traffic jam, something that the public does not feel is dangerous.
So - net result is a contemptuous public and I still see just as many phones
on ears as I did before. An opportunity to do good has been lost.
So - here's the thing. I think I'm pretty close to the average view; neither
a boy-racer nor a risk-adverse parent; this could be good, if applied well,
but I'm just totally unconvinced that the council is neutral enough to do
it. And I think drivers traveling up London Road are going to be introduced
to a 20mph limit that they, plainly put, don't agree with. And this has
implications well outside that one section of road.
On Fri, Sep 5, 2008 at 10:12 AM, Stephanie Jenkins <
I have not looked closely as to which part of said road is to be made 20 mph
but, if it contain a bus lane why is this needed? These designated lanes are
incorporated to speed up and hasten bus traffic because the general traffic
flow is too slow for the bus Companies! Smacks of politics to me!
Slowing cars down with the 20 mph limit will encourage more people to jay walk,
and I envisage the pedestrian/ 'cyclist accident ratio to increase because it
will have no effect on the 'cyclist whatsoever.
20 mph in Headington is something of nothing and should be left at 30 mph or,
reduced to 10 mph through the shopping area this to allow pedestrians and all
types of traffic to mingle with an onus placed on pedestrian priority.
As for the underpass this should be designated a national monument given the
goodwill and effort by so few to improve Headington's worth.
I resent having what is actually fact called an assertion, it is not an
assertion it is fact as reported by the late Paul Smith of Safe Speed, a well
respected Road Safety Engineer. Anyone can go on the website of Safe Speed and
check the facts for themselves. This information is backed up by the
Association of British Drivers, and is supported by a good number of senior
serving Police Officers. Twenty miles an hour on London Road cannot be legally
applied because the Street Lights are set to a certain distance apart to signal
a legal thirty zone, to legally bring in a twenty zone you would need to move
the street lights closer together, i cannot imagine the council paying for that
somehow.The lowest limit a Police Officer is allowed to enforce is 30mph that
is the law of the land. Basically the 20zone is really just an anti car
restraint measure by political bigots and nothing whatever to do with road
safety.
It looks as though 20mph speed limits may be implemented in the summer, as two-thirds of people responding to the recent survey were in favour of them: http://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/news/headlines/3803356.Survey_backs_20mph_limit_across_city/ Here is a recap on how this could affect Headington, as it's not straightforward. The county council consulted on whether to introduce a 20mph speed limit on: • all minor residential roads within the city of Oxford; • all unnumbered through-roads except where they are part of heavily-used bus routes into the city; • sections of A and B roads that pass through busy shopping areas (including the section of the London Road that passes through the Headington District Shopping Centre, but not the rest of the London Road in Headington). There is already an Order bringing in a 20mph speed limit on the Headington Road from Pullens Lane to Headley Way: see http://www.oxfordshire.gov.uk/londonroad (click on "Background and consultation").
Yup. On the basis of _380_ people being "in favour". Democracy in action. How "being in favour" is determined I don't know. When I filled it in, it didn't actually *ask* if I was in favour or not, merely what I thought the costs and benefits might be. I'd love to know how my response was interpreted. Ah well. It's "merely" £300,000. On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 11:48 AM, Stephanie Jenkins <stephanie.jenkins@gmail.com> wrote: > It looks as though 20mph speed limits may be implemented in the summer, as two-thirds of people responding to the recent survey were in favour of them: > http://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/news/headlines/3803356.Survey_backs_20mph_limit_across_city/ > > Here is a recap on how this could affect Headington, as it's not straightforward. The county council consulted on whether to introduce a 20mph speed limit on: > > • all minor residential roads within the city of Oxford; > > • all unnumbered through-roads except where they are part of heavily-used bus routes into the city; > > • sections of A and B roads that pass through busy shopping areas (including the section of the London Road that passes through the Headington > District Shopping Centre, but not the rest of the London Road in Headington). > > There is already an Order bringing in a 20mph speed limit on the Headington Road from Pullens Lane to Headley Way: see > http://www.oxfordshire.gov.uk/londonroad (click on "Background and consultation"). > > > Stephanie Jenkins > Headington, Oxford > Info about Stephanie Jenkins: http://forums.e-democracy.org/p/stephaniejenkins > > This topic's messages may be viewed at: http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/7JfwskpuoMPsIH3hWhUc5
Those people who want a safe limit for speed of vehicles must be happy to learn
that last Saturday evening in Divinity Road the traffic was completely
stationary for a considerable period. The people coming up wouldn't or couldn't
budge, and the people going down wouldn't or couldn't budge, and so the entire
street was just brought to a halt and stuck like that. The residents told me it
is quite common.
Anybody who wanted to find a way of maneouvering out of this impasse was
blocked from doing so by the "traffic-calming" islands installed by the
Council. Wonderful how they plant trees in the middle of the road but cut them
down in public squares where people want them! There was no way to get through
even if you were travelling for emergency reasons.
So those who want the lowest possible speed limit should have been
satisfied!
What would an ambulance or a fire-engine do under these circumstances?
I would like to see ALL the statistics i.e. how many lives are lost
because of traffic impediment, and how many more people will die of asthma, as
well as the lives hypothetically saved by imposing a 20 mph speed limit.
To be fair, and although I use this 'rat-run' often, the answer is probably to
make Div Road one-way and Southfield Road one-way in the other direction. The
two roads are too narrow to cope with both double-sided parking and rat-running
traffic. I'm not sure if this rule still exists, but it used to be that
uphill traffic had the priority and downhill traffic had to give way. That's
how I always play it, unless the chevrons etc. make that impossible - as they
often do.
Very sensible idea. I have heard a lot of drivers suggest it before. But the
County Council prefers ideas that cost a lot of money and cause a lot of
inconvenience.
It's a bit unfair to discuss in detail here what we would like to do to Divinity and Southfield Roads, because they do not come under the North-East (Headington & Marston) Area Committee, but belong to the (grandiosely named) East Oxford Parliament. This means that the people who actually live there (who don’t want the streets made one-way) won’t be able to respond on this forum, and this could give an unbalanced view, as most non-residents are likely to think it is a brilliant idea. It’s quite hard getting to grips with the area officially covered by this forum, so this map may help: http://www.oxford.gov.uk/files/seealsodocs/29795/ACMap.pdf As you will see, the Warneford Meadow comes under our area committee, but Southfield Golf Course comes under the Cowley Area Committee and South Park is East.
Oops! Got carried away there. Of course they're a bit far out to come under
Headington. Apologies.