Soldato
Doesn't the Greenwich tunnel have a large spiral staircase?
Ideal for pedestrians, not so much for cyclists. It also drops you at the foot of the Isle of Dogs.
20mph residential speed limit (replacing 30mph)
- Thread starter 413x
- Start date
Doesn't the Greenwich tunnel have a large spiral staircase?
Ideal for pedestrians, not so much for cyclists. It also drops you at the foot of the Isle of Dogs.
Grenwich tunnel is a foot tunnel, for walking, not cycling. With most of the lifts out of order. And is a fair distance away from this route. And London is overcrowded with cars. And if you read your own link there is two tunnels being built and they were proposing one was dedicated to cars and the other shared with walkers, cyclists and buses. If anything, the bus users having to wait about 5 minutes a turn for each direction should be the ones complaining about that proposal.
One was for a DLR extension not cars, if you read the link.
London would be less overcrowded with cars if they weren't in queues trying to cross the river. Hence the tunnel.
20mph speed limits will cause more congestion. Any measure to slow down cars or make them queue causes more congestion. Not less.
Last edited:
OK, I misread this to refer to the 2nd tunnel and not Blackwell:
"Possible says all road crossings should be tolled for all “single occupancy private cars” – with exemptions for disabled people and carers. This would pay for the car-free Silvertown tunnel." They probably should have made the tunnel plural there...
But you still ignored all my other points. And using your logic is the same that Possible used there. Use the nearby Blackwell tunnel and create a crossing for alternative methods.
But you need to read about induced demand. Building more roads just encourages more driving and you end up with more people sitting in a queue of traffic. You speed up one part of the journey, more people make use of it and the next bit of road can't cope. London couldn't cope if everyone drove cars for all the journeys. London would flow so much better if everyone who made a journey in the centre or central zones by car, used other means where possible.
Last edited:
Build more roads and you create more traffic. The worst argument I've ever heard, used by anti car proponents.
Should build fewer train lines then and run fewer buses. Will reduce congestion. Have fewer GPs and hospitals. Will reduce demand and congestion.
It's the most tenuous argument with very little evidence that just happens to be convenient for people that want to play devil's advocate or drive an agenda.
If you build massive highways, then you will reduce traffic (not that I'm proposing that here).
London is full of 8m people and has heavy commercial traffic. It needs to be catered for, and isn't done through making life hell for people. London's public transport is already used heavily and is one of the largest networks in the world.
Once cars become self driving and all electric, it is the road network that will transport people.
Should build fewer train lines then and run fewer buses. Will reduce congestion. Have fewer GPs and hospitals. Will reduce demand and congestion.
It's the most tenuous argument with very little evidence that just happens to be convenient for people that want to play devil's advocate or drive an agenda.
If you build massive highways, then you will reduce traffic (not that I'm proposing that here).
London is full of 8m people and has heavy commercial traffic. It needs to be catered for, and isn't done through making life hell for people. London's public transport is already used heavily and is one of the largest networks in the world.
Once cars become self driving and all electric, it is the road network that will transport people.
Last edited:
I am definitely not a car hater, my car history will show anything but. I am just not ignorant to the down sides of them, or the fact that alternatives are massively more efficient, particularly in dense urban environments like London. But enjoy clinging on to your car for every journey, sitting bumper to bumper in traffic while cyclists glide past as you.
Man of Honour
Even in Stoke I can beat any car that leaves the same area as me to my works 4.5 mile away by a good 15 minutes or more.
That's what you don't get. The traffic you see on the roads isn't people driving every day (other than commercial traffic). People don't drive to work.
It's easy to sit on your high horse, if you make everyone out to be people that drive every day to get next door. It is so far from the truth.
I live in London (in the zone 1-3 area that a lot of this ends up targeting) and know hundreds of people that live here. No one other than uber (etc.) drivers, delivery drivers, tradespeople are driving every day.
The only thing remotely close to what you are describing is the school run, and that isn't cross river traffic and is a more suburban phenomenon, where your school isn't where you live.
Half of all households in London don't even have a car and that's a lot lower for inner London. Their annual mileage is also a lot lower than the rest of the country.
Last edited:
And we get to the bit where maybe, just maybe, dedicating a lane for walking and cycling might be relevant to Londoners where there is nothing for a long way either side?
And journey lengths. You might even say 2/3rds of trips are perfect cycling distances?
Anyway, I'm done for replying as this is off topic for a thread about 20mph speed limits.
Soldato
I'm in favour.
I haven't seen any sensible argument against the lower speed limits. Seems to me, it's the usual impatience to get there before you leave, type of thing. The fact that some of the people against this are getting all angry and wound up about it tells us what type of people they are.
I haven't seen any sensible argument against the lower speed limits. Seems to me, it's the usual impatience to get there before you leave, type of thing. The fact that some of the people against this are getting all angry and wound up about it tells us what type of people they are.
Chuck in the fact that the current government is hoping to create a dividing line over the current 20mph zone proposals and it probably tells you everything you need to.. it's just a flashpoint topic that in reality and in the grand scheme of things makes minimal differences to peoples lives. The environment, tax policy, healthcare etc etc should be a driving (ha) factor in what the electorate vote for rather than if it takes them an extra few minutes getting where they need to.
Except for higher pollution at a time when we are supposed to be reducing it..
Also it's just not necessary in many places they are doing it. It's costing lots of money to chance signs etc which could be used on better things, like fixing the road.
Last edited:
For one - blanket, or far more common, 20 limits, especially on roads where 30 or 40 is perfectly appropriate, erode the "novelty" factor of places like school and hospital zones, etc. where there is a specific reason for lower limits and it is difficult enough getting people to pay attention to those as it is, let alone dulled by general use of 20s.
One of the biggest factors when it comes to safety, which few seem to comment on, is whether a change to 20 limit has a result of lowering traffic volumes which is what actually leads to the major change in incident numbers, if most people still have to use their car anyway then the changes to incident numbers has been shown to be statistically insignificant at best.
Pollution, my wifes car will spend it's life in 2nd & 3rd gear at these speeds.
Not true, there are studies that show slower speeds (traffic calming) reduces overall emissions, or at worse they stay the same. This is an independent report from Germany in 2010.
Speed limits reduce deaths, but can they also cause more pollution? | Environment | The Guardian
<p>Do 20mph speed limits trigger unintended consequences, such as increased pollution from carbon dioxide and particulates</p>
amp.theguardian.com
Or that emissions will stay the same at the slower speeds discussed.
Last edited:
From your study link that covers 20mph or 30km/h, 2 out of 3 studies show worse emissions at the lower speed and the one that shows an improvement at those speeds is only based on a model. The headline of the article is about a reductions of speed in Oslo from 80km/h to 60km/h so is not really relevant to travelling at 20mph.Not true, there are studies that show slower speeds (traffic calming) reduces overall emissions, or at worse they stay the same. This is an independent report from Germany in 2010.
Speed limits reduce deaths, but can they also cause more pollution? | Environment | The Guardian
<p>Do 20mph speed limits trigger unintended consequences, such as increased pollution from carbon dioxide and particulates</p>
Or that emissions will stay the same at the slower speeds discussed.
Last edited:
Not true, there are studies that show slower speeds (traffic calming) reduces overall emissions, or at worse they stay the same. This is an independent report from Germany in 2010.
Speed limits reduce deaths, but can they also cause more pollution? | Environment | The Guardian
<p>Do 20mph speed limits trigger unintended consequences, such as increased pollution from carbon dioxide and particulates</p>
Or that emissions will stay the same at the slower speeds discussed.
A lot depends on the resulting traffic patterns.
Most studies with more modern traffic patterns and vehicles show emissions and fuel consumption to increase dramatically if vehicles are regularly dropping below 20MPH and most are more efficient between 30 and 50. A smooth 20 will however significantly reduce brake and tyre particulates compared to 30 where more braking effort might occur. Some come to the conclusion of "no net negative impact".
For many vehicles spending more time at 20 or below will have implications for things like DPF, catalytic convertor lifespan and efficiency.
From your second link:
In the UK with a lot of trucks, buses, etc. on the road this is going to have big implications for the vehicles contributing the most to pollution.
Last edited:
I can read thanks. It is also why I linked the articles because I know most of you can read as well. A reduction of speed limit from 30 to 20 mph has limited impact on the environment overall but helps reduce fatalities in collisions (the reason it was introduced). Reducing the speed to 20mph during rush hours would have zero effect on emissions but help during non peak periods.
Really what we have is people suddenly pretending they care about the environmental impact moaning over nothing. How many of these same people are anti EV?
It reeks of using any excuse to moan about something that is proven to help reduce collisions and fatalities. I know that if the worst came to the worst, I would rather my child was knocked down at 20mph instead of 30. Stop pretending you suddenly give a crap about the environmental impact (if any).
Last edited:
No need to post like this just because your opinion gets challenged.