CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Infrastructure

20mph zones

(46 posts)

No tags yet.


12

  1. SRD
    Moderator

    20/20 vision to slow down city motorists

    By CHRIS MARSHALL
    Transport Reporter

    EDINBURGH is set to become a huge 20mph zone under radical new plans to cut accidents revealed today.

    A £100,000 pilot scheme will see 25 miles of city roads stretching from Blackford Hill in the south to Holyrood Park hit with the new speed limit.

    If the trial is successful, it could be extended across the city permanently.

    Edinburgh will become the first Scottish city to attempt the move and one of the first in the UK.

    The police will be charged with enforcing the limit but it will not be accompanied by any new speed bumps or cameras.

    Under the plans for the pilot, which look certain to prove controversial with motorists, several main routes will remain at 30mph but they may also be cut in the future.

    City transport leader Councillor Gordon Mackenzie said the council had been inspired by the introduction of a similar scheme in Portsmouth and confirmed that the move could be rolled out city-wide.

    He said: "In Portsmouth, there was a 15 per cent reduction in accidents resulting in injuries. The evidence is that it's largely self-policing and it appears to be a lot more cost-effective because instead of putting speed bumps on every street, you can target them on areas where there is a pattern of problems."

    He added: "We've seen what's happened in Portsmouth and we know other cities in England are looking to introduce 20mph zones.

    "The results are encouraging in terms of the reduction in accidents and the reduction of speed.

    "There's no new speed bumps as a result of this scheme, but we can follow up with speed bumps where there is a particular concern."

    The move is part of a range of measures including the Streets Ahead initiative, which is a new road safety partnership between the council, police, fire service and NHS Lothian.

    Posted 14 years ago #

  2. chdot
    Admin

    My two reactions are -

    1) about time too

    2) do the police know they will have to enforce it...

    Posted 14 years ago #

  3. Arellcat
    Moderator

    From the comments:

    Giving cyclists proper, isolated cycle routes. A large minority of cyclists are quite selfish - cycling right out in traffic, riding side-by-side, creating long tail-backs; they will also sharply pull-out, forcing a near-emergency stop. Better to separate bikes and cars altogether.

    Heaven forbid they -- we -- act to protect ourselves!

    Riding side by side may be legal but those of us who actually pay to drive on the roads it's really annoying. I detest cyclists who do this and I speed up, drive as close to them without actually hiting them as I can, give them verbal abuse. I don't drive on your cycle path so GTF of my roads.

    - who seems to have missed the point about why 20mph zones are needed in the first place. Fortuately others commenters didn't!

    I would concur, and say about time too. Speed limits are not speed targets.

    Posted 14 years ago #

  4. kaputnik
    Moderator

    I'm sure there will be a howl of protest.

    However, my $0.02 - with no basis in scientific fact (yet) - is that this wouldn't actually affect people's average speed times journeying through the city and conversley it would actually make traffic move faster and smoother. My opinion is it is the stop-start-accellerate-slam on the brakes-switch lanes without indicating sort of drivers that actually end up slowing everyone else down (including themselves).

    I time myself every morning and evening along the same route and the only thing that really makes a difference to my total journey time is the time spent sitting at lights - the actual rolling time only has a tolerance of about +/- 10% caused by head or tailwinds or particularly bad congestion. If I get a good run of greens I can actually be in work 10 minutes sooner without actually having pedalled for any longer. I've done the same ride in the depths of night where it's clear greens all the way and rolling time isn't nearly as much improved as I presumed it would be. It's the difference between a 19mph average and a 21mph average. I'm sure the same logic could apply for cars too.

    All it needs is some fancy traffic modelling to prove a point. Or fit cars with cyclecomputers, which are far more useful than the dial you get in a car. I'm sure most car drivers have utterly no idea how long their commute takes in terms of rolling / waiting times and what their average speed is. I guess they see a "40" sign and assume that's their average speed all the way.

    Posted 14 years ago #

  5. kaputnik
    Moderator

    a large minority

    Or is that a small majority?

    Posted 14 years ago #

  6. steveo
    Member

    The day i see a cyclist causing a tail back rather than the sheer number of cars on the road any way is the day I'll do my utmost to hold traffic up further.... Morons.

    Posted 14 years ago #

  7. kaputnik
    Moderator

    Couldn't agree more Steveo. I'd get to work a whole lot quicker if there were less cars around. Since the schools have been back, St Johns Road from the lights at Corstorphine post office onwards has been silly season.

    The day i see a cyclist

    Yes, you need a critical mass of cyclists wilfully tring to cause a tail back to even have a hope of achieving it.

    Posted 14 years ago #

  8. Morningsider
    Member

    Credit where it is due I think, this is an excellent idea from the Council. While every driver is unlikely to stick to the new limit, it is likely to result in a lowering of top speeds and a resultant reduction in accident injuries to cyclists. I also suspect Kaputnik is right that it will result in better flowing traffic and have little impact on average journey times for motorists.

    The article indicates that it will be some kind of pilot exercise - I wonder how its success (or otherwise) will be evaluated. I just hope the politicians can hold their nerve on this as there are likely to be howls of outrage from motorists and their apoligists in all political parties.

    Posted 14 years ago #

  9. spitfire
    Member

    Ooooh, the usual amount of anti cyclist frothing going on over there...

    Posted 14 years ago #

  10. Kim
    Member

    To echo the sentiment above:

    My two reactions are -

    1) about time too

    2) do the police know they will have to enforce it...

    Posted 14 years ago #

  11. Kim
    Member

    Looking the comments EEN, the first one "so now we will be overtaken by speeding cyclists ?" can only draw the reply "so what is new?" LOL

    This measure will probably make no difference to average journey time across the city, just reduce the top speed between cues of stationary traffic.

    Posted 14 years ago #

  12. Arellcat
    Moderator

    The comments this evening are just brilliant; 110 114 of them and counting. The sheer indignance and the amount of vitriol directed towards people who cycle is just incredible, and the article never even mentioned cycling! Yet by the first comment it had descended into the usual. I pay road tax! Get orf moi road! Fix those traffic lights! I have a God-given right to drive at 35mph!

    It came to me today that while the EEN is generally pro-car and anti-utility cycling, it happily publishes stories about charity cycling, and distance heroic tours to Mongolia and the North Pole and inside volcanic craters. It's as though public service is laudable ("won't someone think of the children?!") but cycling to the shops or to work purely for convenience and enjoyment is peverted and selfish to our fellow motorists.

    I think, actually, that the city will approach bankruptcy installing signs and trying to pay L&BP enough to catch people who carry on speeding.

    Posted 14 years ago #

  13. chdot
    Admin

    "However, 12 miles of through routes would remain 30mph, such as Melville Drive, Marchmont Road, Grange Road, Charterhall Road, Causewayside, Newington Road and Dalkeith Road."

    Well there's a surprise...

    and a mistake.

    http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/news/Scotland39s-first-mandatory-20mph-zone.6512968.jp

    Posted 14 years ago #

  14. chdot
    Admin

    "There are also concerns that the pilot scheme to turn 25 miles of city roads into a 20mph zone will be "unenforceable" as police do not have the resources."

    "Simon Moon, head of transport and street management at Portsmouth City Council, said: "The 20mph scheme is about making our streets more useable for the people who live on them, as well as pedestrians and cyclists." "

    http://edinburghnews.scotsman.com/topstories/Doubts-voiced-over-20mph-traffic.6513237.jp

    Posted 14 years ago #

  15. Kirst
    Member

    I've just emailed my councillors to ask them to vote for it.

    Posted 14 years ago #

  16. chdot
    Admin

    http://citydev-portal.edinburgh.gov.uk/ward/search.jsp

    Posted 14 years ago #

  17. chdot
    Admin

    "However, 12 miles of through routes would remain 30mph, such as Melville Drive, Marchmont Road, Grange Road, Charterhall Road, Causewayside, Newington Road and Dalkeith Road."

    The more I think about it, the more I realise that these are exactly the roads that need 20mph limits.

    Especially Melville Drive, which is probably the only one where it is 'easy' to go more than 30mph.

    Personally I would like it to be closed between Marchmont Road and Argyle Place...

    Posted 14 years ago #

  18. SRD
    Moderator

    "Personally I would like it to be closed between Marchmont Road and Argyle Place..."

    Wouldn't this just displace traffic onto Grange Rd, which is already a nightmare (esp for cyclists)?

    Melville is at least wide, has little car parking and no four-way crossings. Relatively painless to cycle in comparison.

    A friend did have a fall on it last week, with child on bike, but haven't heard the details yet. No injuries at least. (I was just pleased to find out that I have a friend who takes a kid to nursery by bike!)

    Posted 14 years ago #

  19. chdot
    Admin

    "Wouldn't this just displace traffic onto Grange Rd, which is already a nightmare (esp for cyclists)?"

    There is plenty that could be done (now) to improve GR (e.g. continuous uphill cycle lane with double yellow lines...)

    I don't see Melville Drive being closed any time soon...

    BUT complete cycle lanes in both directions would help and a 20MPH limit would have very little effect on (car) journey times from one end to the other especially if the various pedestrian crossings were timed better to favour ped/cycles.

    Posted 14 years ago #

  20. SRD
    Moderator

    "I don't see Melville Drive being closed any time soon..."

    Have to admit that I don't understand why you think it would be a good thing.

    Posted 14 years ago #

  21. chdot
    Admin

    "Have to admit that I don't understand why you think it would be a good thing."

    Similar reason to shutting Holyrood Park to through traffic.

    Of course there is an alternative scenario - have a society where anyone can drive anywhere (but they they don't do it with 'attitude', give way to pedestrians etc.)

    Posted 14 years ago #

  22. SRD
    Moderator

    Hmmm...not sure i'm convinced. But I am hugely infavour of the 20mph, and will write to councillors and say so. Just wish Polwarth Gardens/Terrace was included, most of the surrounding streets are already 20mph, but people race down the 'big' road -- which is not actually very 'big' and very residential, plus old folks and kids.

    Posted 14 years ago #

  23. chdot
    Admin

    "Just wish Polwarth Gardens/Terrace was included"

    PG is a bus route which is one of the considerations for speed limits.

    Historically Lothian Regional Transport used to object strongly to lower speed limits. I don't know how much Lothian Buses is concerned these days.

    Clearly anything that might make buses slower (and therefore less attractive) would concern LB - if their drivers stuck to new limits and car users didn't.

    There is a danger that this 'experiment' won't go ahead because of 'objections' and politicians losing their nerve.

    Posted 14 years ago #

  24. Dave
    Member

    My hopes were raised until I realised that the list of exempt roads is the same as the list of roads people use to cycle about town.

    No change.

    Posted 14 years ago #

  25. Kirst
    Member

    Response from one of my councillors

    "Kirsten,

    I'm waiting with anticipation for the detail. But for your benefit, here is a taster of how I see it so far.

    1. Not a bad idea in principle.
    2. It must be credible and not applied to roads where not necessary.I'm alarmed at the inference that Queen's Drive in the park is on thelist. Nor should the Low Road in the Park be a 20.
    3. Safety is not the only consideration. 20mph in inappropriate areasjust add costs to deliveries, journey times and delay, and bring thetraffic laws into disrepute.
    4. Whilst I welcome the commitment not to use speed cameras and speedbumps, that leaves it pretty well unenforceable. The police are not very good at enforcing speed limits!

    Let me see the detail. Best wishes,"

    Posted 14 years ago #

  26. chdot
    Admin

    "Safety is not the only consideration"...

    Posted 14 years ago #

  27. steveo
    Member

    Sure the park of all places should be a 20 any way. f.f.s.

    Posted 14 years ago #

  28. chdot
    Admin

    "the park of all places should be a 20"

    QUITE!

    I'm surprised the Council has jurisdiction over it at all - thought it was up to Historic Scotland - "no commercial vehicles" etc.

    Posted 14 years ago #

  29. steveo
    Member

    Kirst who is your councillor?

    Posted 14 years ago #

  30. Kirst
    Member

    I'm in Southside ward so I have four. That reply was from Cameron Rose, who does cycle himself.

    Posted 14 years ago #

RSS feed for this topic

12

Reply »

You must log in to post.


Video embedded using Easy Video Embed plugin