Interesting and well argued presentation at City Chambers tonight. Well worth hearing at its last outing tomorrow. Quite a lively debate, with maybe 20-30 attendees. Vast majority of speakers were in favour, but 2 vocal gents were very against. One I think said he is a community councillor for Merchiston. I think his memorable quote was 'Roads are for cars' and people just need to be taught to cross at the right time and place. The other believed that Gorgie Road was 'empty' if there were no cars on it, so you can go faster then, irrespective of non car people.
After the talk you get to put stickers on a map to show which roads you think should be 20mph if they aren't already.. As this was the South night, lots of stickers to make Cluny Gdns, Charterhall, West Mains 20mph, and emphasise that Kilgraston/Marchmont should be enforced 20mph.
CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Infrastructure
20 mph - consultation coming soon
(256 posts)-
Posted 10 years ago #
-
I arrived 45 minutes late but caught the end of the questions and answers and very interesting it was too.
In respect to the council imposing this 20 mph limit on Edinburgh I suppose it depends on what boundary people set, if one person in the street voted for traffic calming outside their house or 3 people voted to close their street or 1000 people voted to close their road to cars unless this was an approved region then would be regarded as imposed by others.
I suppose in theory it could be argued the boundaries are arbitrary rather than natural, or you could argue its the Scottish governments jobs as democracy to decide this.
Can always argue over boundaries what is or not democratic.
A good debate, it seemed a little bit of cheap response by someone claiming they found the "against chaps" views insulting, because someone would have to establish a council survey gave a mandate, as first someone would have argue it was in their remit then that survey was good, then that people are not allowed to expressive views in the contrary to the accepted majority.
Tend to think minority view should be encouraged I was quite glad there was vocal opposition.
It seems almost like an inverse ad homin
I also disagree with the smoking analogue, as an adult someone choosing to work or run a smoking bar and people choosing to go to use a legal product is their own personal choice. The Germans and Dutch allow smoking in some bars. Although may be that was just used to demonstrate the change in culture and attitude that resulted rather than the principle that the the 20 mph and the smoking ban were the same in principle.
In principle people have no choice but to use the street, so would be intruding on others rights to drives badly or faster than safe etc.
You could present a "libertarian" argument supporting a 20 mph limit etc think would cut across the spectrum more than the smoking ban which some regard as intrusion of the state.
I asked the council official at the end about the legality of the 20 mph limit, as typically in Scotland its only 20 mph ones with traffic calming that are legally enforceable.
The council spokesman said that the Scottish government used special legislation to make the 20 mph limit enforceable.
I don't know about the science about driving at 20 mpg I would imagine if at a constant 20 yes pollution would be worse but if stopping running to 30 then stopping again could it be that this is worse than running to 20 and then slowing down, would tend to think more energy would be used from GCE science would have though would produce more exhaust. Also to an extend the pollution argument is a bit of "red herring" in this context as not the main objective and may have limited effect in either direction in the short term. Also in respect to pollution do we mean global warming carbon, or we mean local lung diseases which from say diesel particles have to establish what first because can have a meaningful discussion. The London congestion charges exempts some cars that produce more local pollution through particles by focusing on carbon. It does not matter where you the carbon is produced in the highlands etc global warming, yet if higher particle cars are driven in the highlands they will cause less deaths than if driven in the city. So have some perverse incentives in respect to exemptions from the congestion charge as by in large its diesels that produce higher particles than the small petrol cars small diesels are more like to be exempt even though produce more particles.
Also in respect to health if we were to use an argument over death and diseases the big wins may be in people exercising more rather than short term change in particles.
In the longer term if discourage car use would reduce pollution in a continental style manner the way the some Europeans have reduced pollution where the lower speed limits are often the norm.
Posted 10 years ago # -
"
@SpokesLothian: 1500 replies so far to #20mph consultn. Includes YOU? Please do because http://t.co/kk3X5ax6Np @StreetWurrier @CyclingEdin @DadsRockEdin
"
Posted 10 years ago # -
Ed1 - why 'imposing'?
Posted 10 years ago # -
Posted 10 years ago #
-
Ed1 - why 'imposing'? "
Someone at the public meeting felt the 20 mpg was being impossed by the council.
Posted 10 years ago # -
What I tried to say above was that spokes have an answer to why Queen's drive has been excluded.
Queens Drive, Holyrood to Meadowbank
Note that this is the responsibility of Historic Scotland and so is not covered by this Edinburgh Council consultation. It is officially 20mph in part, 30mph in part, but both need enforced. Also, although there is a cyclepath from Holyrood to Meadowbank it is indequate in design and connectivity – yet cyclists who stay on the road are sometimes deliberately intimidated by drivers. If these points concerns you, ask your MSPs to take it up for you.
Posted 10 years ago # -
Edinburgh Council @Edinburgh_CC
We're holding a roadshow on the #Edin20mph proposals @stjamesshopping TOMORROW 10-1pm http://www.edinburgh.gov.uk/20mph @CityCentreLeithPosted 10 years ago # -
Well the "drop-in" session at McDonald Road Library was in fact a proper meeting, with an agenda. Wasn't what I was expecting, but good nonetheless. Local councillors Nick Gardner (Labour) and Maggie Chapman (Green) in attendance as well as local MP Mark Lazarowicz. A presentation from the Council officer in charge, who it seems is himself a cyclist. Lots of questions and discussions, then a sticking dots on maps session.
Overall I get the impression that the Council are committed to the 20mph zones plan. I do worry though about what they will do if strong, organised opposition comes out against 20mph for certain "arterial routes".
Posted 10 years ago # -
----
Edinburgh Council @Edinburgh_CC
Pop into a roadshow on the #Edin20mph proposals @stjamesshopping TODAY 10-1pm http://www.edinburgh.gov.uk/20mph @CityCentreLeith----
Posted 10 years ago # -
If I understand it correctly, the method used to claim 20mph limits are more polluting than 40mph is so flawed that it works rather well as a parody of incompetent or dishonest stats.
What I gather they did was look at pollution per mile on roads with a 40mph limit and compare it to the 20mph ones.
The ever-so-slightly-important detail that you only get to become a 40mph road by being the kind of long, wide, largely straight chunk of tarmac that lends itself to efficient engine use, and that you get knocked down to a 20 by being quite the reverse, isn't being mentioned as much.
Posted 10 years ago # -
The pollution argument is a red herring regarding urban driving. 20mph limits reduce the stop-start accelerate-brake driving that is seen at 30mph plus. Lower speeds actually smooth traffic flow, leading to lower levels of particulates and a slight overall drop in emissions.
In other words when everyone is not racing each other to queue at the next set of lights there tends to be less pollution.
Posted 10 years ago # -
Plus, if they really want to create less pollution they could always try driving less. :-/
Posted 10 years ago # -
The pollution argument is a red herring regarding urban driving. 20mph limits reduce the stop-start accelerate-brake driving that is seen at 30mph plus. Lower speeds actually smooth traffic flow, leading to lower levels of particulates and a slight overall drop in emissions.
In other words when everyone is not racing each other to queue at the next set of lights there tends to be less pollution
Fully agree with this
Posted 10 years ago # -
If you were to believe the EEN halfwits you'd be as well walking given how congested the city will be with every one going so slow.
Posted 10 years ago # -
I've heard that there have been objections raised to Leith Walk being 20mph. I'm surprised at that because i thought it was part of the LW project, and distinct from the 20mph rollout. presumably sour grapes from those who didn't 'win' in the former attempting to redress now?
At any rate, if you';ve not yet fedback, might be a good idea to put in a supportive word regarding 20 mph on LW.
Posted 10 years ago # -
Only 17 days left to respond to this consultation.
If you haven't yet done so, please view the information here and take part in the online survey:
Posted 10 years ago # -
Tell you something, SRD - I wouldn't risk stepping out on the new Belisha Beacon crossings dotted down the new Leith Walk layout with the maniacs tearing down there at anything over 20...
Posted 10 years ago # -
Leith Walk, London Road, Queen Street, Lothian Road etc. will all need enforcement to have any chance of staying at 20mph. CEC officers seem to recognise this, but it's worth reminding them...
Posted 10 years ago # -
Googling for something else and this Piston Heads thread came up in the results.
Predictable enough reading but maybe interesting to see what the 'other side' think.More generally the PH Scotland forum page is a bit like CCE in some ways. Lots of off topic stuff about places to eat/visit etc. And there's a spotted thread.
There's also an Indyref thread but it didn't look too civil.Posted 10 years ago # -
There was some mention earlier of this applying to cyclists and a colleague went to one of the consultation events where the council were adamant that cyclists would be prosecuted for speeding in the zones too. The faq available here states
"Does 20 mph also apply to cyclists?
Yes. People on bikes can be prosecuted for dangerous cycling if they are caught going over the speed limit."I'm not sure this is enforceable although they seem to be indicating that you will be prosecuted for dangerous cycling by exceeding a limit that in legality doesn't apply to you. I'd personally be happier if cyclists can exceed the speed of cars as it means they can avoid unsafe overtaking. They are more agile, cause less accidents and less damage in an accident so I don't see the same justification as for cars. Whilst many of us have gps, many others don't so we wont even know if we are exceeding the limit.
I'd be interested to hear the thoughts of others on here
Posted 10 years ago # -
If I were setting up this consultation, I'd have done something similar. I might have worded the question 'Can cyclists be prosecuted for going faster than 20mph?', but I'd have kept the same answer.
I'd have done this because I know the question will get asked, and the direct specific answer ('No, speeds limits don't apply to bicycles') would generate the wrong emotions in many of the audience. (c.f. e.g. the comments on today's article in the EEN about Spokes supporting a CEC application for government money to fix potholes)
I hope that's why the question is in the FAQ and why it's answered the way it is.
Posted 10 years ago # -
Queen Street at 20mph? Ha! 40mph would be a good first step.
Posted 10 years ago # -
Consultation closes on Friday.
If you have yet to respond, now's your chance. Use it or lose it.
Posted 10 years ago # -
Last day of the consultation TODAY. Last chance to comment if you have not already.
Posted 10 years ago # -
so, at the start of this thread, i talk about an 'experiment' that had been done by a taxi firm. turns out i must have misunderstood and this didn't actually happen.
not quite sure how we got our wires crossed on this, but apologies to anyone who was puzzled.
Posted 9 years ago # -
"
Reducing speed limits in environments that are properly the domain of the pedestrian is not just a matter of safety, although the statistics bear repetition: a pedestrian hit at 40mph has a 31 per cent chance of death; hit at 30mph and that risk falls to 7 per cent; at 20mph the risk of death is negligible. It is also a matter of asserting whom the city is for.
"
Posted 9 years ago # -
"
Edinburgh already has 20mph limits around schools and in many residential areas, where the danger to pedestrians is highest. So what does the extension hope to achieve? A reduction in accidents, certainly. But there would be even fewer if speeds were cut to 10mph, and fewer still if cars were banned from the city centre. Where does one draw the line? And does there come a point where the council realises its job is not to eliminate risk from daily life?
This decision will disadvantage many people who simply want to get from A to B with the minimum of fuss and delay.
"
http://www.scotsman.com/news/leaders-common-sense-declines-with-speed-limits-1-3660256
Gets more bizarre...
At least the Evening News was 'just' pandering to its more rabid readers.
The Scotsman seems to think that saving lives and making Scotland's Capital a nicer, safer place to live is 'political correctness gone mad'.
Edinburgh - enlightened?, progressive? - or just another city were cars and 'unfettered traffic flow' (a myth of course) are more important than mere people - children, visitor or just everyone when they are not actually driving or being driven!
Posted 9 years ago # -
The Scotsman calls for "common sense" - the justification rolled out by people who have no evidence to back up their claims.
The default 30mph limit for urban areas came into force in March 1935, when there were few cars and cities were very different. Is The Scotsman really arguing that this shouldn't be looked at from time to time, in the light of changing circumstances?
Posted 9 years ago # -
there's a letter to the editor there...assuming you're not going to, may i use it?
Posted 9 years ago #
Reply »
You must log in to post.
posts
