Forum Topic

Road safety

Are you interested in implementing schemes to make your roads safer? If so, are there any personal sacrifices that you would be willing to make for your loved ones to have a better chance of surviving a collision?

Ben Owen ● 32d126 Comments

Magic, that made me laugh :-)  We haven't seen much of Flippa recently - thank goodness !!

Peter Tolhust ● 15d

She's obviously bought a bumper pack of replies that Phillipa is keen on, less the urls!

Peter King ● 16d

The number of parents driving under a mile to drop their children off at school is exactly the issue, denying this only underpins the fact that you do not understand the issue but simply wish to make noise for the sake of it. I don't know why you pop up to spout your irrelevancies.

N V Brooks ● 16d

CCTV - finally something we agree on. I would add that the number of parents driving to school is irrelevant. It's all the other drivers cutting through the area that are the problem.

Charlotte Lester ● 16d

To a large extent I do agree with you. What is needed however is robust enforcement of current parking restrictions. This happened at Christ the Saviour Ealing on both sites where the parking wardens were having 'a field day' ticketing with absolutely no leniency at all showed to inconsiderate drivers. The only concession made was to parents who were dropping off mobility impaired children.The message of keep clear or walk the final two to three hundred metres soon got over and was further consolidated by the implementation of a single School Street to serve The Grove site. Most of the journeys made, given Fielding's very limited catchment area are well under a mile. Has CCTV enforcement of parking been considered I wonder. Properly implemented school streets are a damned good idea save they wouldn't be needed at all if not for inconsiderate, often incompetent, drivers.

N V Brooks ● 17d

The school survey reveals over 150 pupils are driven. A number that will be even bigger when it's raining,  or a bit cold etc.  That's a hell of a lot of vehicles moving about when parking is an issue, hence cars end of parking across the crossing points between railings  and obstruct the dropped kerbs.  It's true that most pupils walk but that's an argument for school streets too because  the 700 odd children arriving outside of cars shouldn't have to worry about struggling  to cross between reversing SUVs or being at risk from parents racing to school.  There are also children passing through here trying to get to other schools so this proposal doesn't only benefit Fielding.Comments about  other school streets on the council website includes  one from a parent who opposed the scheme because she used to drive because she had to rush to work but she now leaves earlier to walk and has grown to like the school street.  In my experience of the school run,  many of the parents driving did actually work from home.  As for time pressured parents,  it's much safer for them to be on foot or bike than rushing around the School in a car.  As you say most parents live very close to the school so there is really no excuse and scooting or cycling actually stands to be quicker anyway.

Angela Klimowska ● 17d

Fielding has  over twice the number of pupils  of nearby primaries Oaklands and Mt Carmel.  Over 1,000 children arriving at a single entrance is unrealistic,  there's not enough space to handle the children let alone the carers some with pushchairs, or wheelchairs. There will also be some exceptions in place for children attending ARP. The suggestion of a single entrance does not prioritise the people at risk here,  it prioritises drivers who could take a different route or travel by other means.

Angela Klimowska ● 17d

Just real life, friends and neighbours

Charlotte Lester ● 17d

Where? & says who about DD?

Peter Yale ● 17d

Driscoll is incredibly popular outside of this sweaty little backwater. Cry harder.

Charlotte Lester ● 17d

Fielding simply needs to nominate a primary entrance, as virtually every other school has done, and a simple school street scheme can be simply implemented with minimal inconvenience to all parties and without delay. School streets are cheap and effective if sensibly implemented.Doubtless Councillor Dismal would like the restrictions to start in Brentford and end in Greenford; he really is a total waste of space, I hope he will look be looking for gainful employment, for the first time in years, after the elections next year.

N V Brooks ● 18d

Wow Ben, you seem incapable of actually understanding anything anyone ever says. Quite a feat.School streets are a good idea in principle, but the implementation needs to be sensible. I don’t see any problem with keeping the area immediately outside the gates traffic free but the Fielding proposal is flawed, despite what Dominik’s wife says.Closing off Haslemere will create more problems elsewhere on the road network and is unnecessary for this scheme. It’s simply there because Dismal Driscoll listens to one or two residents of that road with whom he’s been having clandestine meetings in recent months.I don’t expect you to understand reasoned argument as your default position is hysterical emoting. You certainly have no knowledge of how transport planning actually works.

Simon Hayes ● 18d

People want & need to drive.It is the real world, vehicles make the world go round.This hysteria about  cars & pollution, congestion, safety.There are risks in every aspect of life.Your hope is to close all roads to traffic, ridiculous.Next ban walking in case of slips & trips or being hit by a bicycle, coming from the road or pavement

Peter Yale ● 18d

>I doubt many pupils at Fielding are driven there. Its catchment is very local. Most pupils will walk there, as they do to most primary schools in Ealing.'eck, I think he's finally got it! But he doesn't know it!  Driving to school increases the risk to people walking and cycling. Having a school street cuts the risk to injury, cuts the congestion and cuts out the pollution.

Ben Owen ● 18d

I doubt many pupils at Fielding are driven there. Its catchment is very local. Most pupils will walk there, as they do to most primary schools in Ealing.Where there is an issue is with working parents who have to take their children to school and hand them over (which is a requirement for all children below Year 6) and then pick them up in the afternoon. Time pressures are a factor. Not everyone has a leisurely work from home lifestyle.As for the claims that school streets help fight obesity, that’s debatable. It’s more to do with food than exercise.

Simon Hayes ● 18d

Glad you agree school streets are sensible.  Fielding has 3-4 entrance/exits to manage their large number of pupils (more than twice the capacity of Oaklands and Mt Carmel), hence why the proposals need to extend over sections of a few streets.Only a teeny bit of Haslemere in included,  were it not it would create a little cul de sac that parents/carers determined to park as close to the school as possible would be tempted to head to, only to create congestion and danger when it comes to manoeuvring out.  The design seems carefully considered and only operates for 45 mins in the morning and 1 hour in the afternoon.  If anything it should last longer to cover school club times.

Angela Klimowska ● 18d

School streets are sensible. What’s not sensible is the current proposal for one for Fielding school, which will close several roads around the area, including Haslemere. There’s no obvious justification for this, other than the mouth-breathing cycling lobbyists who want every road closed at all times.

Simon Hayes ● 19d

School streets are a scheme I'm all in favour of. Not sure if anyone would object to them, so I think they can go on the list.In terms of personal sacrifice, I can't think of one, so I'm surprised all schools don't have them.D

Dominik Klimowski ● 19d

there are no benefits to FBS. Dangerous as  majority of cyclists seem to flout rules.Drive recklessly, don’t stop at zebra crossings etc.A problem is bikes are quiet & go to fast, people stepping off a bus are endangered.Never said I’m an expert, just echoing a report & stating the obvious.Not naming names, can work out for yourself

Peter Yale ● 21d

It’s not even got to the hottest part of the day and Ben’s brain has already boiled? Does he have a life? I wonder.

Simon Hayes ● 21d

Peter,Would you like it if someone in TfL described you as a knob?Anyway, that is not the reason I came to reply. Let's have a sensible and fun debate about floating bus stops? Can you describe what are the merits of a FBS? Next, what are the negatives of a FBS? You know so much that you should find both easy to do. Then, when you have completed that, and as you think you are a know-it-all, you will have no trouble in stating what are the opinions of the "3 characters on here?" Name the person and their opinion when stating it.

Ben Owen ● 21d

& flouting bus stops What knob in TfL, could ever think they work in the real world!!Some overpaid officials in TfL, oh & maybe 3 characters on here!!

Peter Yale ● 21d

Do refresh our memories with the details of your traffic management qualifications Ben. I rely on common sense, something that is obviously in short supply given some of your posts.

N V Brooks ● 23d

Probably not many in today’s overcrowded London.Roads with cars parked both sides & only room for 1 to pass, 20 is fine.A roads etc can speed up

Peter Yale ● 23d

At what point does a road not become a residential road?

Ben Owen ● 23d

There’s been no argument about residential roads being 20mph, It’s the blanket speed limit which is unnecessary.And roads would have free flowing traffic if they had no stupid obstructions, ltns etc

Peter Yale ● 23d

The easiest way to reduce vehicle noise and keep traffic moving on residential streets is to have 20mph speed limits.

Ben Owen ● 23d

You really must learn to read Ben. No one is denying an increase in noise with an increase in speed what was said is there are a number of ways to mitigate that increase. Why can't you read. Every tyre sold since 2016 has a noise rating, I'm sure you knew that Ben but just simply chose to ignore it.

N V Brooks ● 23d

Believe me, The World Health Organization also makes the claim that noise grows significantly with vehicle speed. You can send your contradictory view to:WHO,Avenue Appia 20, 1211, Geneva Switzerland

Ben Owen ● 23d

Suns got to you. I didn’t say urban roads, it was ALL  roads as others said to.None of this affects you as you shouldn’t be driving, hypocritical if you are. Hate cars so much

Peter Yale ● 23d

>20mph is ok for sone roads, however as it’s repeatedly been pointed out. It is not suitable everywhere.Yes it is, everywhere in urban envirnmetns, 20mph limits reduce crashes and injuries for ALL road users, have you not been listening?>Where there 50 on motorways, causes drowsiness50mph on motorways increases average speeds when they are busy, and again, reduces crashes and incidents.And autobhans without a limit?"Secondly, the European Transport Safety Council reported that there were over 600 road deaths in Germany, of which nearly 70% happened on sections of the autobahn where there was no speed limit, and only 30% on sections where speed was limited. This statistic alone highlights the dangers of driving at high speeds and the importance of speed limits in preventing accidents and fatalities."

Paul James ● 23d

20mph is ok for sone roads, however as it’s repeatedly been pointed out. It is not suitable everywhere.Where there 50 on motorways, causes drowsiness

Peter Yale ● 23d

Yet further misunderstanding of how car engines work. An internal combustion engine trapped in the wrong gear, as example dawdling because it can't move into a high ratio will produce far higher emissions than one operating efficiently. Equally, electric vehicles produce zero tail pipe emissions. As to noise there is an entire industry dedicated to reducing the noise from the tyres of road vehicles, suggest you look at some of the research.

N V Brooks ● 24d

20mph speed limits benefits peoples lives a lot more than you first think. Living on a 20mph road dampens noise so one gets a better night's sleep for it. Aside from that, you also know that faster vehicles produce more emissions.

Ben Owen ● 24d

Ah, you are a lawyer now Ben.How many corporate manslaughter convictions have there been since that offence was introduced? Not many since 2007 and often it results in a fine. They haven’t even got round to prosecuting those responsible for the Greenwell disaster yet. Difficult to prove unfortunately.Tell me, which do you prefer clutching - pearls or straws?

Simon Hayes ● 24d

Scotland is committed in having 20mph speed limits in all cities by next year.Why would a traffic planner not get charged with corporate manslaughter if s/he knowingly set out to risk someone's life?

Ben Owen ● 25d

Staying in your house in the dark and not touching anything dangerous = 0% risk but 100% dull person.Ben seems to think that everything in life should be risk free. Hope he avoids tall buildings, trees, dogs, etc….

Simon Hayes ● 25d

A 1 km/h change in speed = 8% change in fatalitiesA 1 km/h change in speed = 6% change in injury collisionsA 1mph change in speed = 5% change in crashes

Ben Owen ● 25d

Exactly

Peter Yale ● 25d

Maybe Ben should never go outside. Far too dangerous.All these figures are open to interpretation. Every accident has a different set of circumstances, and there are times when the pedestrian or cyclist is at fault. Maybe looking at a phone when crossing the road (Bryan Mbuemo’s transfer to Man Utd would be off if he does that in Brentford again), or perhaps jumping a red light on a bike.

Simon Hayes ● 25d

Seeing as you involved foreign countries.The German autobahn has 2.7 deaths  per billion kilometres driven, that’s on a  open speed limit road!!!

Peter Yale ● 25d

One LAST time.Speed limits need to be nuanced. It is not about 'acceptance'.What applies on a trunk road would only be applied to a local residential road  or vice-versa by someone with very limited intellectual bandwidth.

N V Brooks ● 25d

National speed limits do not align with survivable speeds. You have to decide what your threshold of acceptance is. From a collision is it, say, 10% killed, 10% life changing injury, 10% seriously injured or 10% uninjured and able to walk away?

Ben Owen ● 25d

Unlike you Ben my nurse doesn't send me to bed early and it is, if you hadn't noticed rather warm, hence my later than normal post. As to trolling, don't assume I would even waste the effort on you.  As I have said countless times, although it does seem to be taking more than the normal effort of late to drive home even the simplest point to you, when you have a piece of properly researched and peer reviewed data please do post it. I regret that the increased use of bicycles in outer Mongolia and their effect on the equine transport infrastructure does not count.

N V Brooks ● 25d

Spain, Ben? Now you really are clutching at straws. What else should we copy from them? And what evidence do you have that the majority agree with it?You are certainly unable to bring an ounce of nuance to what you think. Most people I know have no problem with 20 limits on residential roads. That’s what Nigel has said frequently on this forum. Putting a blanket limit of 20 on all roads is nonsense. There are lots of major roads where a 30 limit is fine.As for Nigel being a troll, well you seem remarkably sensitive to any perceived criticism.

Simon Hayes ● 25d

Struggling? What's that all about? Unlike you I am not going to sit up all night being a troll.You might like to know that Spain has a limit of 30 km/h (18.6 mph) on most urban roads, reduced to 20 km/h (12 mph) on urban roads without pavements. That was 5 years and the majority of citizens accepted it then, which is why it is still in force and enforced.

Ben Owen ● 25d

Struggling are we Ben?So very sad.

N V Brooks ● 25d

Meanwhile, in Wales last year…https://yougov.co.uk/politics/articles/50349-wales-overwhelmingly-rejects-the-20mph-speed-limit

Simon Hayes ● 25d

So an article from 2014 published by a campaign pressure group.No sample size nor any methodology shown. How questions are framed makes a big difference to responses.Do try harder Ben.

Simon Hayes ● 25d

To evidence my statement I typed in to Google "78% of people support 20mph speed limits on urban roads." Here is just one of the many links that come up with that quick search: https://www.highwaysmagazine.co.uk/article/detail/1353

Ben Owen ● 25d

Sample size, sample locations? I would expect to get a far higher percentage response than that we're right ask about 20 miles per hour limits near schools and they negligible positive response where I to ask the same question by the side of a dual carriageway. Add Simon says, context is everything when you have it do post again.

N V Brooks ● 25d

how was that question framed? On motorways too?Context is everything, Ben.

Simon Hayes ● 25d

Abnormal opinions deviates from what is considered typical or expected views from the majority of people.  78% of UK residents support 20mph speed limits. This being the case your opinions can be described as statistically infrequent.

Ben Owen ● 25d

I doubt Ben has much need to get anywhere quickly. Maybe a coffee shop.This is the problem with the idealogues who force these policies on normal people. They seem to get their inspiration from having their heads stuck down lavatories.

Simon Hayes ● 25d

I would venture Ben that it is far higher than an economy crippling blanket 20mph limit proposed by those who have not the faintest idea of the economic effects that such an ill-considered (if it were considered at all) would have.It is not about residents and sometimes thre is a far bigger picture to be viewed than the myopic, parochial views expressed on fora like this.

N V Brooks ● 25d

What do you think is the proportion of residents that agree with you, Nigel? Or put it another way, what do you think is the percentage of people, across the UK, that disagree with you is? 😀 (Think large!)

Ben Owen ● 25d

At 10mph be less still. If nothing moved ( which is what Lycra luvvies want) then we all would live happily ever after.Great for the economy.As for the cyclist this morning, what damage will they cause

Peter Yale ● 25d

There is poor, dangerous, selfish and illegal riding AND driving by many.I have a photo of a Waitrose van that I saw just drive straight onto a pavement to park plus many others.  The kerbstones become dislodged and dangerous and the paving stones cracked and broken and easy to trip on if they rock.  This is obviously worse when done by heavy lorries.I've seen motor scooters and other vehicle riders/drivers obviously totally fixated by the traffic lights and trying to race those lights by overtaking the queuing cars with no thought or view of any pedestrians either crossing at those lights or of any traffic edging out to join the road from a side road.  The pedestrians are most at risk followed by the cyclists and scooter riders who are thrown off over car bonnets onto the tarmac into the path of oncoming vehicles.  No they are not all wearing helmets nor should they have to be. My own life has been permanently changed by a fall as a result of tripping on a rocking paving stone  - the third person that day at the same place I was told!  I think in that particular case the damage to the pavement was due to poor reinstatement of slabs by contractors working on a building but it could have been by anyone.There seem to be a lot of drivers who think nothing of driving up and over kerbstones in order to park.  This can leave the kerbstones dislodged and at an angle which when wet makes them slippery and easy to slide off into the road. Please always report all damaged and dangerous paving stones to the Council.  I used www.fixmystreet.com which can be used in a lot of boroughs all over the UK.  (Who thinks everyone stays in one place all the time?)

Philippa Bond ● 25d

Which part of there is no issue with the 20 MPH limit in  appropriate locations is too difficult for you to comprehend Ben? There is simply no need for a reduction in speed limits on dual carriageways as example on large tracts of motorway infrastructure as another example  "Safety campaigners" would have you believe that a blanket reduction is required,  it's simply is not and we'll have minimal effect if inappropriately applied.

N V Brooks ● 25d

This push back on 20mph from some is crazy, especially when speed is responsible for 50% of all road fatalities. When broken down, you find this:40mph - 31% of people are killed30mph - 7% of people are killed20mph - 1% of people are killedAnd when we age our bodies become more fragile and less able to resist impact. In the over 60's speed accounts for a far higher proportion of deaths:40mph - 98% of over 60's are killed30mph - 50% of over 60's are killed20mph - 5% of over 60's are killedSource: Road Safety Foundation

Ben Owen ● 25d

PJ, a cyclist brazenly went through a red light this morning.Too many cyclists uncontrolled.Need stinger strips, very dangerous

Peter Yale ● 26d

Paul just makes things up. Standard practice.

Simon Hayes ● 26d

you don’t half see a lot of things, supposedlyPerhaps you have seen 1 or 2 cyclists  fined, wow.Yet  more anti car rhetoric from you, hypocritically. Not in the same number as cars as they are property controlled.I saw a cyclist today riding the wrong way down a 1 way street, slalom up the pavement, on their phone , no helmet, speeding &  riding with no hands. Tyres  looked bald to.Disgrace , yet it’s a daily occurrence

Peter Yale ● 26d

No location for that picture, or date, or indeed anything to indicate that it's actually not a parking area. Perhaps if Paul provides that information he might regain some credibility.And how funny that when he gets shown up for arguing why cyclists repeatedly jump red lights he claims it's because of car drivers. Funny how the other day I was in a stationary queue of traffic at a red light and a cyclist came past us and through the lights at the junction before narrowly avoiding being squashed by a vehicle turning right into the junction.If cyclists insist on gambling with their safety then they only have themselves to blame when it goes wrong.

Simon Hayes ● 26d

Of course you did!Have you been a good citizen and reported these gross crimes against humanity?

N V Brooks ● 26d

Just one of the many instances I saw yesterday of cars being driven up onto and along pavements, I've got pictures of two more, but saw more than that.

Paul James ● 26d

Did I say that? No, of course I didn't.So sad that you have to fantasise, some may call it bare-faced lying, to make a point. Still, if it makes you happy.

N V Brooks ● 26d

No I don't Paul, but then unlike you and Ben I am not a parnaoid fantasist.

N V Brooks ● 26d

Haha! Nigel, you are so funny! I struggle to think of you being that blinkered. Are you honestly saying that you have never seen a parked vehicle where it should not be? A traffic warden would laugh at you - how does that make you feel?

Ben Owen ● 27d

>Of course you did 🤣🤣🤣Yes I did, I see cars blocking and being driven along pavements all the time Nigel. So do you.

Paul James ● 27d

Of course you did 🤣🤣🤣

N V Brooks ● 27d

>Drivers, of course, do not abandon their vehicles by the side or pedestrian crossings, outside park gates or in the middle of the pavement, You don't live in Ealing then!? :D :D :DI watched a driver dirivng ALONG the pavement yesterday to get off the pavment on which they were parked.

Paul James ● 27d

>Difference is, drivers get fined & cyclists dontMore rubbish from you Peter. I have seen cyclists being fined for jumping red lights and Ive seen drivers not fined for running/jumping red lights.You ride a bike so you KNOW that if a light is going amber/red and you want to stop for it you've got to be really careful the driver behind you doesn't gun it.

Paul James ● 27d

Drivers, of course, do not abandon their vehicles by the side or pedestrian crossings, outside park gates or in the middle of the pavement, if they did they would be heavily fined. I really don't know what point you are struggling to make Ben.

N V Brooks ● 27d

Difference is, drivers get fined & cyclists dont

Peter Yale ● 27d

I have been made aware of Bolt bikes introducing a tariff where riders can opt-in for a distance based tariff rather than a time based one. Bolt believes - and I think they are right - that this will makes rides safer as riders will not be racing against the clock to get from A to B. As an example, Lime charge riders on a pay-as-you-go basis £1.29 for the first minute and then 29p per minute thereafter. They also do plans where you can save between 62% to 73% on the cost of a PAYG ride. But as you can tell the quicker you get to where you need to be the cheaper the ride becomes.Yet even this bit of inspired thinking from Bolt will not stop riders riding on the pavement, in exactly the same way that regulations prohibiting parking on a yellow line/double yellow line/pavement parking do not prevent a driver from doing any one or more of those things.

Ben Owen ● 27d

Just get on with the replacement of the joints, extending their life is only postponing the inevitable, reducing the speed limit will have minimal impact on their life.  The work, according to TfL is due for completion this month anyway.

N V Brooks ● 27d

"Slowing the speed helps protect and extend the life of the ageing expansion joints in the road until they can be replaced. This makes it less likely we'll have to close parts of the Westway for unplanned works."https://tfl.gov.uk/travel-information/improvements-and-projects/a40-westway

Paul James ● 27d

>as has the entire elevated section of the A40.The west way is crumbling away, slowing traffic down on it (and reducing the energy put into its break down) might delay its demise for another few yars I guess.

Paul James ● 27d

I can see an alternative reason for the 30mph limit on the elevated Westway would be to delay traffic so it doesn’t pile up in a too much of queue when it reaches the Marylebone Road.  The elevated M4 into London probably has a 40mph limit for the same reason.

Peter Evans ● 27d

Absolute tosh. I reinsured my hybrid saloon in January after the insurer tried the usual c.30% price hike. An online sift through comparison sites produced a lower figure with the clear impression that a cartel was in operation.

Peter King ● 27d

BBC London news report this evening about the dangers of Lime bikes and their ilk, with reckless riders endangering pedestrians (and themselves). Now there are calls for regulation and tougher punishments for reckless cyclist.Just fancy that!https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c70nl7np0v9o

Simon Hayes ● 27d

yeah great, yawn.At 10mph even less. If we had no cars, roads closed. Zero.There goes the economy & the world at a standstill.There  is risk in everything, unfortunately

Peter Yale ● 27d

Cue the clarification posts of "what I meant to say was" or denial. Still, they are entertaining in their own way, a bit like chimps at a tea party.

N V Brooks ● 27d

Who said this in a recent post on another thread?'Sticking to percentages is pure tabloid spin:Like"risk of a heart attack up 50% when people eat processed meat" is what the tabloid go with as it sounds really scary.Vs"Risk of heart attack due to eating process meat goes up from 0.0005% to 0.001%"Prize for the first correct answer is a tandem bike trip round lovely West Ealing with one of our resident cycling mouth breathers.

Simon Hayes ● 27d

A lot more nuanced data. I have already gladly accepted the need for 20mph zones in APPROPRIATE locations. A blanket 20mph is supported only by those aho are totally oblivious to keeping traffic on the move. Stretches of the A4, a six lane, purpose built road, designed to move traffic and with excellent cycling provision, have recently been reduced to 30 mph as has the entire elevated section of the A40. The lunatics are simply pandering to presuure groups. Time and again, TfL has proven itself to be unfiy for purpose when it comes to traffic planning from hiring discredited 'experts' to producing unsafe schemes like the Hogarth roundabout 'remodelling'. I have no faith in their 'expertise'.

N V Brooks ● 27d

https://www.cheapcarinsurance.co.uk/how-20mph-speed-limits-are-slashing-car-insurance-costs-across-the-uk/

Ben Owen ● 27d

Can you explain what it will take for you to be proved wrong? It's not just TfL that supports 20mph roads but car insurance companies do too. Esure, the insurance company, say that the average car driver could be looking at a £50 saving per year on their premiums if 20mph zones were rolled out in towns and cities across the UK. Can you think why they make this claim?

Ben Owen ● 27d

Correct, and then start ripping up the rest of the nonsensical 20 mile per hour speed limits which really should only be imposed around schools. The biggest belief pool that you have such little understanding of the way that traffic flows in this capital city.

N V Brooks ● 27d

Cyclist should slow down then, or cycle on the pavement.Oh hold on a minute, they do.No need for thousands spent on 1 lycra luvvie

Peter Yale ● 27d

>The A4020 between Dormers Wells Lane and the Iron Bridge no social infrastructure and absolutely zero housing on one side with minimal housing on the other.  You want to make a third of a mile of eastbound carriagway 30mph instead of 20moh...If you were able to travel at 30mph all the way, let's work out what your time savigns are...Time calculationsAcceleration time to 30mph): 𝑡=𝑣/𝑎=44/5= 8.8 secDeceleration time (to 20mph: 𝑡 = ( 44−29.3)/5≈2.14 secConstant speed time: 𝑡=1313/44≈29.8 secTotal time: 8.8 + 29.8 + 2.14 = 40.7 secondsAt 20ph it's 58.5 seconds.What are you goign to do with you 18 extra seconds Nigel, or is it not about that at all?Notwithstanding, as Ben has shown, higher speeds mean more crashes, so you should factor that in, that there would be more crashes and hence delays over time if yuou did it again and again. It wouldn't take much delay due to an incident to totally wipe out you gained time for YEARS.

Paul James ● 27d

Then, as usual,you would be wrong.The A4020 between Dormers Wells Lane and the Iron Bridge no social infrastructure and absolutely zero housing on one side with minimal housing on the other.  Windmill Lane, which, for much of its length has zero housing, is restricted to 20 miles per hour when it had a record, if you check, of one accident in the previous 14 years.  As soon as the road leaves the borough boundary and crosses into Hounslow it reverts to a far more sensible 30 miles per hour only dropping to 20 when it approaches schoolsThat is the problem with the blanket imposition of speed limits. They, like the people who support them, lack any subtlety or form of nuance.  Do keep clutching at straws, each post makes you look a little sillier.

N V Brooks ● 27d

Then, as usual,you would be wrong.The A4020 between Dormers Wells Lane and the Iron Bridge no social infrastructure and absolutely zero housing on one side with minimal housing on the other.  Which, for much of its length has zero housing, is restricted to 20 miles per hour when it had a record, if you check, of one accident in the previous 14 years.  As soon as the road leaves the borough boundary and crosses into Hounslow it reverts to a far more sensible 30 miles per hour only dropping to 20 when it approaches schools That is the problem with the blanket imposition of speed limits. They, like the people who support them, lack any subtlety or form of nuance.  Do keep clutching at straws, each post makes you look a little sillier.

N V Brooks ● 28d

>l as example on dual carriageways with no proximity to housing or social infrastructure.I guies if you were asked for an an example of this you are going to say the stretch of uxbridge road between the river brent and southall..Which has both social infrastructure (hospitals schools parks etc...) and housing along it..

Paul James ● 28d

Then why not ask a question instead of fishing.In may case 20mph limits can make a difference to safely, as example close to schools. However, their blanket imposition is nonsensical as example on dual carriageways with no proximity to housing or social infrastructure.Using emotive words like powerful and compelling mean nothing without detailed analysis as the good people of Porstmouth found out when the safety improvements realised in a very small number of areas were used as justification for a city-wide 20mph imposition. Simple, laziness to assume that what works in 'location A' will also work in 'location B' and elsewhere.

N V Brooks ● 28d

The answer that I was looking for was the difference a 20mph road makes to road safety. TfL recently commissioned research which shows even more compelling data on collision and casualty reductions, along with no evidence found that 20mph limits increased congestion. TfL analysed more than 150 20mph schemes.Quoting from the report there were 35% fewer collisions and 36% fewer casualties on borough roads where 20mph zones had been introduced. In particular, children were even less likely to be hurt - with a 50% reduction in casualties and 75% reduction in fatalities. Overall, the report also showed that there was a 40 per cent reduction in the number of people killed.https://tfl-newsroom.prgloo.com/news/powerful-new-long-term-tfl-research-shows-20mph-speed-limits-save-lives-on-londons-roads

Ben Owen ● 28d

Too many cars Simon, too many cars.Except PJ, that doesn’t count

Peter Yale ● 28d

Simple minded soul is Paul. Constant complaint of 'too many cars' but never says what would be an acceptable number would be.

Simon Hayes ● 28d

Bliney, should practice what you preach.Never say anything positive regarding  cars & driving

Peter Yale ● 28d

>however frustrating it might be with cars accumulating behind or an empty road ahead.If you find driving makes you frsutrated I'd try and avoid it if I were you.

Paul James ● 29d

To be practical, most modern cars have speed limiters along with their cruise controls, so it's easy to dial in a speed and stick to it, however frustrating it might be with cars accumulating behind or an empty road ahead. Takes a lot of strain off the right ankle!

Peter Evans ● 29d

Seeing as every post you make is against cars, it’s the only conclusion.However it’s hypocrisy at its worst, considering you drive yet dictate to everyone else

Peter Yale ● 29d

>Anyway you hate cars, always chastise themI don't Peter, but you clearly need to think I do.

Paul James ● 29d

I hope you’re not driving for fun.Anyway you hate cars, always chastise them

Peter Yale ● 29d

I have used calibrated GPS in any number of cars and an indicated 20mph registers at 17 - 23 'real' mph. Ford seem to have the most accurate speedometers. Nissan seem from observation to significantly overread.  Just stick to the limit. My new car reads the limits and does not let me go even 1mph over. The calibrated GPS shows my actual speed when 20mph is indicated, as 19mph. Happy with that

N V Brooks ● 30d

Actual 23mph would be Indicated 24 to 27.When I drive at an actual 20mph it's Indicated 17 to 20 depending on the car.

Paul James ● 30d

Borderline. Current trigger is limit plus 10% plus 1 mph = 23 mph

N V Brooks ● 30d

Surely you would be done under current rules for doing 23mph on a 20mph road?

Peter King ● 30d

The council bang on about congestion & pollution. With all the roadworks day after day ( uncontrolled), traffic consequently takes alternate routes ( contrary to belief).The police/council could put a speed trap & catch  easily 20 motorists a time.20  x £100 covers their wages.I don’t mean those doing 22/23mph, but those driving 40mph minimum, which we all agree is dangerous.For some reasons the powers that be sit on their backsides

Peter Yale ● 31d

Because cyclists have no sense of roadcraft and demand their own isolated space at significant cost which they believe comes from a magic money tree.

N V Brooks ● 31d

Already in place on the main connecting roads.

N V Brooks ● 31d

Speed bumps on the larger roads connecting Northfields and Boston Manor please.

Kevin Wilson ● 31d

My recollection was that Boston Road was plenty wide enough to accommodate everyone, so why this expensive intervention?

Peter Evans ● 31d

The eco-zealot, anti-car, pro bike freaks of StEaling Council are making life ridiculous. The ever empty bike lane over the River Brent bridge near the Viaduct pub has made the traffic lanes so narrow cars need to mount the pavement in order to let emergency service vehicles through. The new cycle facilities in Boston Road are removing many of the already small number of existing parking spaces (essential for both residents and local businesses) and will also force the cyclists onto the pavement for stretches of the route - how will that be for pedestrian safety!!

Steve Chilcott ● 31d

>If pedestrians stay on the pavement and motor vehicles stay on the road,How do you get to your car if it's parked on the other side of the road????

Paul James ● 31d

Ben has clearly had his brain fried in the heat today. His posts are even more nonsensical than usual.

Simon Hayes ● 31d

If pedestrians stay on the pavement and motor vehicles stay on the road, what's the problem?  According to a recent government report, 'The most common contributory factor allocated to pedestrians in fatal or serious collisions with a vehicle was ‘Pedestrian failed to look properly’, (and) the most common factor allocated to vehicles involved was ‘Driver or rider failed to look properly’', which might suggest a remedy.Now bicycles are something else, as their main appeal is that they can theoretically go anywhere!

Peter Evans ● 31d

I think that there is inadequate 'traction' to get registration but certainly there is a need for a minimum standard of roadcraft to keep everyone safe.

N V Brooks ● 31d

& some form of identity plate.Then cyclists can be as accountable as everyone else who use the road.Subject to fines etc

Peter Yale ● 31d

Safety which could be immeasurably improved if ALL road users attended mandatory roadcraft courses. Anyone can hop on a bike or a scooter with absolutely zero training and then venture out, as example, onto the North Circular Road to 'mix it, among the 38 tonners. I have never understood the resistance to mandatory training among certain road user communities. Even 'cycling proficiency' would provide some degree of awareness. I still have my little triangular green and red badge somewhere.

N V Brooks ● 31d

>Ealing roads are among the safest in London.If so, there has to be a jolly good reason for it. Could you explain where you found this out from, along with why you think Ealing came to achieve it?

Ben Owen ● 31d

Shouldn’t Ben be out for a bike ride on this lovely day? Or too hot for him?Perhaps if everyone using the roads were more aware of what’s around them it would help safety? Plenty of distractions for drivers, cyclists and pedestrians alike.Ealing roads are among the safest in London.

Simon Hayes ● 32d

No. Speed limits are in place. Seat belts are compulsory, a statutory test to prove competency for driving on the road. Cars have inbuilt safety measures.If, & what I suspect, this is yet another angle about cyclists. That you want car free roads, be that ltns etc. Categorically not

Peter Yale ● 32d