CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » General Edinburgh

South Central 20 mph

(175 posts)
  • Started 13 years ago by chdot
  • Latest reply from freewhwheelin

No tags yet.


1…3456

  1. kaputnik
    Moderator

    When is a "residential" street not "residential"? When it's "arterial" it would seem. With the expection of Melville Drive perhaps (which is a public park and should be 20mph for that reason), the "arterial" streets are also residential, as in people live, work and play in them and use them to get from A to B and/or C too.

    Just because other people want to drive down them as the most direct route from E to F doesn't take away from the fact they residential streets. People deserve (and in my opinion should have the right) to the same standards of road safety and quality of life as in any other "residential" street.

    I feel a proper letter, on paper, with a stamp and everything, coming on.

    Posted 13 years ago #

  2. tyrone shoelaces
    Member

    It appears that my views may have been in his mind but no words made their way out of his mouth, How long until main arterial roads have the speed limit raised to 40mph as the police do not have the time to enforce a pesky 30mph limit

    Response from Cameron Rose to my email,

    Thank you for your email and views which I will have in mind for the meeting on Tuesday.

    I'm not sure if you've seen the report or if you have just seen the press coverage. The report can be found here.

    As you say, the recommendations are a compromise - and I note that the recommendations still propose that Causewayside and Ratcliffe Terrace are made a 20mph limit.

    Best wishes,

    Cameron

    Cameron Rose is Conservative councillor,
    -----Original Message-----

    Sent: 29 July 2011 15:15
    To: Cameron Rose
    Subject: Letter from your constituent

    Friday 29 July 2011

    Dear Gordon Mackenzie, Ian Perry, Cameron Rose and Steve Burgess,

    I was very pleased to see the council proposals for a 20 mph speed limit on the majority of Edinburgh roads. I understand following concerns from the police and Lothian buses there are plans to reduce the number of routes covered by the 20mph limit.

    This would be a mistake and would have a direct negative impact on the potential growth in people taking up cycling. People are quite naturally scared of sharing the roads with fast moving buses and cars, sharing the road with vehicles limited to 20mph is not quite so scary for an inexperienced cyclist.

    There should be a substantial investment in a linked network of segregated cycle paths enabling cyclists to travel quickly and continuously to all major destinations without the need to share roads with cars or paths with pedestrians. Sadly the money is not there to create such a network yet,although revenue from fining drivers using bus lanes will soon mount up.

    Until that happens a 20 mph limit on the majority of roads is an acceptable compromise, reducing the number of roads covered by the limit is short sighted and will not encourage people to cycle, if anything the number of roads covered should increase.

    Yours sincerely,

    Posted 13 years ago #

  3. crowriver
    Member

    I think the problem is we are emphasising this as a 'pro cycling' measure. That's too easy to dismiss as the "cycle lobby".

    The only way to put fear in the hearts of calculating politicians is to bring out the heavy cannon: cars kill and injure children and grannies when driven too fast. Or they would if said people were not deterred from being on the streets anyway by the traffic...

    The 'saving lives of the innocents' angle is the only argument they cannot disagree with. Alas, they will turn to road injury/death statistics to refute this.

    Living streets have the right idea, but are likely to be dismissed as nostalgic dreamers who want us to back to the 1950s by the baby boomer councillors, who cannot imagine life without their motors...

    Posted 13 years ago #

  4. chdot
    Admin

    "I think the problem is we are emphasising this as a 'pro cycling' measure."

    Actually I disagree (mildly).

    I think that 'WE' have mostly been careful to emphasise the wider benefits.

    The 'problem' is that we, who happened to ride bikes (and, OK, post on here) do so because we have thought about things a bit more widely than 'my bike, my road'.

    Some politicians appear to see the world with blinkers.

    Us persons on bikes are well used to looking all around!

    It's no coincidence that this forum has long threads on 'wildlife highlight of the day', several on architecture and industrial archeology and EVEN buying cars/vans!!

    If only some politicians had "hinterland".

    Of course we cycle, so we are cyclists, so we must be in the cycle lobby. (Which is obviously a bad thing).

    I think LivingStreets and various bits of the 'cycle lobby' should work together more often.

    Posted 13 years ago #

  5. mgj
    Member

    Can I have a right to a modern street without cobbles? Traffic calming has a disproprtionate effect on cyclists while causing drivers to swerve and weave (see Whitehouse Loan for example).

    Anyway, a sensible campaign would have been that with 20 mph zones, more cyclists would use the roads and not pavements - that would have got EEN support ;-)

    Posted 13 years ago #

  6. Nelly
    Member

    chdot - I also emphasised the pedestrians and kids going to school bit in my emails, but the response from councilor rose only related to the cycling part.

    Still, at least he bothered to respond....

    Posted 13 years ago #

  7. chdot
    Admin

    "more cyclists would use the roads and not pavements"

    Yeah I think I mentioned in an email to some councillors!

    Posted 13 years ago #

  8. shuggiet
    Member

    yep. my email only emphasised getting kids walking, and didn't mention cycling at all. I got responses from all 4 councillors indicating that they supported the initiative, but re-reading they didn't actually commit to vote against cutting back on the number of roads... Lesson learned to be more careful when I write my second ever email to councillors.....

    Posted 13 years ago #

  9. Dave
    Member

    I didn't mention cycling at all, because it's not really that important to me - it's a definite benefit of the idea, but I was writing as a resident, a commuter, a motorist, someone who will one day have kids, etc. first and foremost.

    Posted 13 years ago #

  10. kaputnik
    Moderator

    Yes I too made a point of saying that I was writing as a resident (not a cyclists). As in someone who resides there. Not an arterial type who merely passes through the artery.

    Posted 13 years ago #

  11. chdot
    Admin

    "Not an arterial type who merely passes through the artery."

    Oi who you calling arterial?

    Posted 13 years ago #

  12. Min
    Member

    How very telling that a council which has claimed to be committed to increasing the levels of walking and cycling in the city has instead shown itself to be mainly committed to crushing the 'cycling lobby'

    Posted 13 years ago #

  13. crowriver
    Member

    I don't think Eric the taxi driver wants to physically crush cyclists with his cab (or maybe he secretly does?). It's just that the councillors can dismiss objectors as merely the cycle lobby, ie. a minority who are not to be taken seriously. However if the police don't support parts of the plan, Lothian Buses are actively against, and the Council's own officials recommend part of the plan be dropped, then why kick up a fuss? Just take the easy way out. You'll only fight your officials, the police and your own bus company if you are absolutely convinced it is essential you do so, and believe any changes will make a difference.

    Strong public support might have convinced a few more councillors, maybe.

    Posted 13 years ago #

  14. Min
    Member

    "I don't think Eric the taxi driver wants to physically crush cyclists with his cab"

    I never said he did, it is just a turn of phrase.
    And I thought there was public support, mind you not having any didn't stop them from going ahead with the tram project..

    Posted 13 years ago #

  15. Kim
    Member

    I have to admit to being rather disappointed by the out come, the people of Edinburgh deserve better...

    Posted 13 years ago #

  16. chdot
    Admin

    "
    Also supporting a through-road 20mph limit was the Grange Association who said, in an email to councillors, that it would improve safety and reduce the need for signage at the entrance of all the side roads in conservation areas such as around Grange Road.

    "

    http://www.spokes.org.uk/wordpress/2011/08/20mph-zone-okd-but-in-limited-form/

    Ah the Grange Association - bet they have more members who drive rather than cycle!

    This is NOT about 'cycling' - it's safety and quality of life.

    Posted 13 years ago #

  17. chdot
    Admin

    Now that Marchmont Road is to remain 30mph, how about looking at the previous (about 15 years ago) proposal for a fully segregated cycle lane.

    Oh that would be too expensive.

    How about repainting the existing bike lanes - as a matter of priority (and small compensation for not implementing the full 20mph proposals).

    This video is more than two years old!

    [+] Embed the video | Video DownloadGet the Flash Videos

    .

    http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=17

    Posted 13 years ago #

  18. gembo
    Member

    just had feedback from friend in Cambridge - he reports many roads already 20mph and claims the blanket 20mph has had the effect of increasing the average speed on the roads from 24mph to 26mph

    Obviously he is constructing this answer from one salient viewpoint.

    Posted 13 years ago #

  19. chdot
    Admin

    "Obviously he is constructing this answer from one salient viewpoint."

    You mean it's a one person anecdote?

    The first time I was in Cambridge I was shocked at how slow the traffic was on one route into town - and the number of people willing to queue in cars in a flat 'cycle friendly' city.

    Last time I was there I was amazed at the cycle infrastructure -

    Posted 13 years ago #

  20. Dave
    Member

    If the average speed is really 26mph that's very fast.

    When I drive to work as an early bird in Edinburgh at 5am, with no traffic at all on the road, I can average about 24mph on a clear run. At peak time the figure is about 13mph.

    Posted 13 years ago #

  21. Kim
    Member

    "This is NOT about 'cycling' - it's safety and quality of life." Too right, lowering the speed limit brings benefits for all those living inwith the area of the 20mph limit, which is why it is so wrong that the high density tenement area of Newington have been left out. There is a real issue of equality here! Why is it that Preston St. Primary still bounded by two roads with a high accident rates, has been left out of the lower speed limits. Evidently none of the Councillors send their kids to it...

    Posted 13 years ago #

  22. gembo
    Member

    Dave - as you say it is very fast. I did put a rider on about him constructing the story. Also he has just become a father for first time at 46 so his brain is a bit mush. I think there might be a point in there about if everyone drove at a slower constant speed the journey time might actually be quicker? It is numpties overtaking and cutting you up causing bottlenecks etc

    I heard this story about driving in Sweden, the road is single track but with hard shoulder and everyone goes at constant 56 mph and if someone is in a hurry and wants to go faster the cars in front pull onto hard shoulder to let him past in his BMW [only joking Saab]. Also probably constructed.

    Posted 13 years ago #

  23. chdot
    Admin

    "Too right, lowering the speed limit brings benefits for all those living inwith the area of the 20mph limit"

    And no-one's mentioned noise.

    Presumably a general lowering of speed with reduce the ambient noise level(?)

    As has been alluded to in various posts, it's not just about lower speeds - it's about removing the 'accelerate hard until you hit next traffic jam/lights' culture.

    This would mean less noise, less fuel wasted, much less dust from brake pads and tyres etc.

    I suspect that average moving/top speeds along (for instance) Melville Drive could be reduced by skilful timing of the lights such that traffic approaching lights at well above 20 (current 30 limit) would expect the lights to change. Overall traffic ought to flow more smoothly with negligible effect on journey.

    Aren't 'we' being nice - trying to find ways to persuade drivers (especially the large car, single-occupant types) that they won't be inconvenienced!!!

    Posted 13 years ago #

  24. chdot
    Admin

    I think a lot of people will be getting this! -

    "
    Thank you for your recent e-mails regarding the proposed 20mph pilot in south Edinburgh. Please note that I am responding on behalf of the administration Councillors.

    At the Transport Committee meeting yesterday it was agreed that the pilot would go ahead but would not include the additional routes proposed following the first phase of consultation. A review of the pilot in 18 months time will consider whether to include these streets and/or to amend the scheme in any other way.

    The decision not to include the additional roads was, for most members, influenced by the views of the Police and Lothian Buses, both of whom raised concerns about the potential negative impact on their activities. Over the course of the next 18 months the Council will work with local residents, as well as those organisations and local businesses, to monitor the impact of the pilot with a view to building on the successes we identify and addressing any problems which arise.

    I believe this is an significant step in improving road conditions for local residents and hope we can, through working together, bring on board those who have expressed reservations about taking this process further.

    Many thank, once again, for contacting me on this matter.

    Regards

    Councillor Gordon Mackenzie

    Convener of Transport, Infrastructure and Environment Committee

    "

    "The decision not to include the additional roads was, for most members, influenced by the views of the Police and Lothian Buses, both of whom raised concerns about the potential negative impact on their activities."

    My bolding

    Posted 13 years ago #

  25. Wilmington's Cow
    Member

    "... both of whom raised concerns about the potential negative impact on their activities."

    Well, actually, the police position was that they would be unlikely to be able to enforce the new limit, nothing to do with a negative impact on their activities.

    And Lothian Buses' argument has been shown here to be a little spurious. Can we tell them this and ask that they go back and try again?

    Posted 13 years ago #

  26. chdot
    Admin

    "Can we tell them this and ask that they go back and try again?"

    Yep

    "
    Lothian and Borders Police Board

    Purpose of Board

    Lothian and Borders Police Board is the Police Authority for the South East of Scotland. It covers the areas of East Lothian, Midlothian, West Lothian, the Scottish Borders and the City of Edinburgh. The main duties of the Board include setting and monitoring the budget for the police service and providing the Chief Constable with the resources to manage the Lothian and Borders area efficiently and effectively.

    "

    http://www.edinburgh.gov.uk/info/790/council_committees_and_standing_orders/960/joint_boards/3

    http://lothianbuses.com/more-info/corporate.html It's a PLC but CEC is majority shareholder (91% I think)

    Posted 13 years ago #

  27. Kim
    Member

    "The decision not to include the additional roads was, for most members, influenced by the views of the Police and Lothian Buses, both of whom raised concerns about the potential negative impact on their activities."

    Have I missed something, I though we where living in a democracy where we elect councillors to act on our behalf. So why when the measure had wide spread community support, why were the views of the police (who are supposed to be public servants) and PLC (mostly owned by the council) put above the wishes of the people?

    What is it that Lothian and Borders Police do?

    Our purpose is to provide a policing service to the people of Lothian and Borders with the ultimate aim of ‘Building Safer Communities’.

    So objecting to lower speed limits fits with their stated purpose? I think not.

    Posted 13 years ago #

  28. gembo
    Member

    THe IAMS poll on this may be on another string? I just filled it in. IN Holland it transpires they have Woonerfs. Roads you can walk on and cycle on and drive on at walking pace. Responsibility of driver not to hit anyone.

    Posted 13 years ago #

  29. chdot
    Admin

    Woonerfs

    Yeah - got people excited about 12 years ago.

    Known in the UK as Home Zones. I got Sarah Boyack (newly Transport Minister) to come to a conference.

    "

    Minister Agrees to Speak at Home Zones Conference
    Transport and Environment Minister Sarah Boyack MSP has agreed to speak at the Home Zones Conference in Stirling on the 29th of November. The conference is being organised by Stirling Council with the help of organisations including SPOKES offshoot Lothian Safe Routes.

    'Home Zones', common in Europe, are areas where pedestrians and cyclists have priority over motor vehicles. The UK Government has just initiated a pilot scheme through the DETR, but so far this only involves England and Wales. At present the Scottish Executive seems happy to wait (for three years!) for the results of the DETR trials. Perhaps Ms. Boyack will be able to announce an extension of the initiative to Scotland at the conference.
    "
    http://www.spokes.org.uk/oldsite/prenew10.htm

    Edinburgh planned 3 'pilots'. First one was due to be Caledonian Crescent. It didn't happen. Can't remember where the others were due to be - or if they happened.

    Posted 13 years ago #

  30. chdot
    Admin

    Comment from Cambridge (in relation to earlier post)-

    "
    That posting rather gives the impression that Cambridge is awash with 20mph zones - hardly the case. There is a new central 20mph zone which isn't really fully permanent yet.

    Not sure about the 24/26mph stuff. I'm far from convinced about that, and the zone is too new and the signs are very small (a subject of much debate here) - so drawing conclusions already and generalising from speed limits seems a bit premature to me. I can't say I've noticed any 2mph difference in speeds, personally.

    "

    Posted 13 years ago #

RSS feed for this topic

1…3456

Reply »

You must log in to post.


Video embedded using Easy Video Embed plugin