Blackfriars 20mph vote - Tories walked out

snooks

Looks like the vote to improve air quality and more importantly reduce the speed limit on Blackfriars at the London Assembly today didn't happen cos the Tories walked out.

Clicky, then scroll down for the 2pm update

WTF?

fnegroni

If the density of cycling traffic is high enough on the bridge (critical mass), then it follows that a 20mph speed limit would be wise.

In most cars, when the speedometer indicates 20mph, the actual speed is around 16-18 mph.

Most cyclists will probably be travelling at between 12 and 18 mph.

A limit of 20mph would remove the motivation to a driver for getting frustrated behind a cyclist, possibly attempting close overtakes.

notsoblue

Thats pretty shocking. Debate the issue, don't go on strike to derail it if things aren't going your way.

A 30 mph speed limit on that bridge is crazy, how can they argue against reducing it? I guess they can't...

el_presidente

Let's optimistically say the bridge is 1/4 mile long, and that cars cross at exactly the speed limit.

Crossing at 30mph as opposed to 20mph will save 15 seconds.

rjsterry

As we all know, 15 seconds is FOREVER in the mind of a London motorist.

It's not clear whether the walkout was directly related to the motion being discussed, or part of some other argument.

Kieran_Burns

Actually I'm just wondering how often traffic is actually able to ACHIEVE 30mph in London.

deptfordmarmoset

el_presidente wrote:

Let's optimistically say the bridge is 1/4 mile long, and that cars cross at exactly the speed limit.

Crossing at 30mph as opposed to 20mph will save 15 seconds.

And let's say that there is a queue of traffic at the lights ahead - not entirely unheard of in London - they'll spend those 15 seconds and more waiting at the lights. The time gained will be much closer to zero.

notsoblue

Kieran_Burns wrote:

Actually I'm just wondering how often traffic is actually able to ACHIEVE 30mph in London.

Pretty often in the evenings. When you're cycling home from working late.

rick_chasey

Kieran_Burns wrote:

Actually I'm just wondering how often traffic is actually able to ACHIEVE 30mph in London.

You see plenty of people trying....

PeteinSQ

I'm pretty shocked about this to be honest. Do the tories want to look like the nasty party all the time?

Headhuunter

The police never enforced the 20mph limit anyway and I have never noticed any signage informing drivers that the limit is 20 so it is utterly pointless. A guy at work here came in on the day of the cyclist protest on Blackfriars Bridge, blocking the traffic. He had been in a taxi and the taxi driver had been ranting about "bloody cyclists" and how the limit wasn't even 20mph anyway... So clearly many motorists have no idea that the current limit is 20 and IME crossing that bridge when there is less traffic, it never keeps to 20....

Kieran_Burns

Rick Chasey wrote:

Kieran_Burns wrote:

Actually I'm just wondering how often traffic is actually able to ACHIEVE 30mph in London.

You see plenty of people trying....

I imagine a conversation in the London office. "I drove out of the city one day last week. Did you know my car has FOUR gears????"

bails87

PeteinSQ wrote:

I'm pretty shocked about this to be honest. Do the tories want to look like the nasty party all the time?

Do bears want to look like they poo in the woods?

snooks

Headhuunter wrote:

So clearly many motorists have no idea that the current limit is 20 and IME crossing that bridge when there is less traffic, it never keeps to 20....

Sounds like Blackfriars would be the ideal place for a speed camera...not to generate revenue, but to make the roads safer...that's why they are there isn't it? :roll:

PeteinSQ

That's just another example of the failings of the police though. You yourself commented on how they refuse to enforce the ASL boxes because they don't agree with the punishment.

Just further confirmation that the conservative party are seriously unpleasant.

bails87

snooks wrote:

Headhuunter wrote:

So clearly many motorists have no idea that the current limit is 20 and IME crossing that bridge when there is less traffic, it never keeps to 20....

Sound like Blackfriars would be the ideal place for a speed camera...not to generate revenue, but to make the roads safer...that's why they are there isn't it? :roll:

Not if you listen to the War on Motorists brigade, with their Speeding Taliban and (hur hur) Scameras, they're a stealth tax on the hard-working British taxpayer. Not a stealth tax on people who are too thick to understand that the number indicated on the big dial right in front of their face shouldn't go any higher than the number on the big sign at the side of the road, especially when you've gone past 3 signs warning you there's a camera, and then past the flourescent yellow camera itself.......that speeding taliban are a crafty lot

Headhuunter

PeteinSQ wrote:

That's just another example of the failings of the police though. You yourself commented on how they refuse to enforce the ASL boxes because they don't agree with the punishment.

Just further confirmation that the conservative party are seriously unpleasant.

Yep, so not only do we need to campaign for a retention of the 20mph limit but also to put pressure on police to actually enforce it, or for cameras to be installed. 20mph limits on their own are pointless. Most London boroughs now have 20mph limits on non-main roads, however most drivers ignore them....

PeteinSQ

I think LCC should organize another go slow across the bridge every Friday until the assembly can get its act together and actually debate the issue and have a vote.

Origamist

rjsterry wrote:

As we all know, 15 seconds is FOREVER in the mind of a London motorist.

It's not clear whether the walkout was directly related to the motion being discussed, or part of some other argument.

If the Tories had not walked out, the motion would (most likely) have been passed, given the cross-party support. On the face of it, it looks like a classic, stifling tactic.

CiB

Kieran_Burns wrote:

I imagine a conversation in the London office. "I drove out of the city one day last week. Did you know my car has FOUR gears????"

Four? We have 6 round our way matey, AND a reversing gear too. Top that. <smug git>.

Anyhoo. Why did they walk out, those evil tory barstards? On a whim? Principle? Anyone know?

notsoblue

CiB wrote:

Anyhoo. Why did they walk out, those evil tory barstards? On a whim? Principle? Anyone know?

Stop asking questions and accept the narrative we're trying to construct here... :P

PeteinSQ

James Cleverly the Conservative AM responded to a question I sent on Twitter. He says that because the motion is non binding he considers it to be a waste of time (at least I think that's what he means):

@markbikeslondon @peteinsq @alicebhand the motion is non-binding and my priority is about getting results rather than just talking"

He also said it had something to do with this link which I don't entirely understand the relevance of.

http://jamescleverly.blogspot.com/2011/05/another-agm-and-another-stitch-up-at.html

Origamist

CiB wrote:

Kieran_Burns wrote:

I imagine a conversation in the London office. "I drove out of the city one day last week. Did you know my car has FOUR gears????"

Four? We have 6 round our way matey, AND a reversing gear too. Top that. <smug git>.

Anyhoo. Why did they walk out, those evil tory barstards? On a whim? Principle? Anyone know?

As I said, it appears to be a procedural tactic used to stifle debate in the Assembly (it's been used before). When the Tories walked out there were not enough members in the chamber (rather splendidly referred to as "inquorate") and as a consequence, the debate could not take place. Given the stated intentions of many of the Assmebly members, the Tories would not have been able to stop the motion from being passed if they had attended and voted.

I'm sure a rather different spin will be forthcoming...

Edit: Ahh just seen the spin above: "non-binding" motion and electoral stitch ups!

notsoblue

PeteinSQ wrote:

He also said it had something to do with this link which I don't entirely understand the relevance of.

http://jamescleverly.blogspot.com/2011/05/another-agm-and-another-stitch-up-at.html

Er, well I guess a person's opinion on whether something like this is a "stitch up" or simply cross party consensus depends a great deal on which party they're in.

feltkuota

I'm struggling to see what difference it makes one way or the other. The bridge has a cycle lane on the left hand side then a bus lane in the middle with the cars on the right hand side of the bridge. Only about 30m from the lights at the bottom of the bridge (coming into the city) do cars and buses merge. The cycle lane is still on the left with an ASL at the lights. What possible difference would reducing the speed limit to 20 make?

rjsterry

notsoblue wrote:

PeteinSQ wrote:

He also said it had something to do with this link which I don't entirely understand the relevance of.

http://jamescleverly.blogspot.com/2011/05/another-agm-and-another-stitch-up-at.html

Er, well I guess a person's opinion on whether something like this is a "stitch up" or simply cross party consensus depends a great deal on which party they're in.

James Cleverley wrote:

I have just finished the London Assembly AGM where once again a Lib Dem/Labour/Green stitch up has excluded Conservatives from all the key positions.

Ahhhh, poor ickle woo. Did woo get weft out?

Origamist

feltkuota wrote:

I'm struggling to see what difference it makes one way or the other. The bridge has a cycle lane on the left hand side then a bus lane in the middle with the cars on the right hand side of the bridge. Only about 30m from the lights at the bottom of the bridge (coming into the city) do cars and buses merge. The cycle lane is still on the left with an ASL at the lights. What possible difference would reducing the speed limit to 20 make?

Have you seen the original plans (and the amended plans) for re-designing Blackfriars?
It's about more than just retaining the current 20mph limit.

notsoblue

feltkuota wrote:

I'm struggling to see what difference it makes one way or the other. The bridge has a cycle lane on the left hand side then a bus lane in the middle with the cars on the right hand side of the bridge. Only about 30m from the lights at the bottom of the bridge (coming into the city) do cars and buses merge. The cycle lane is still on the left with an ASL at the lights. What possible difference would reducing the speed limit to 20 make?

Article about TFL report recommending 20mph limit for all London Bridges.
http://lcc.org.uk/articles/lcc-welcomes ... on-bridges

"The report uses crash data collected from 2003-06 on 13 London bridges, and includes a detailed cost-benefit analysis for installing average speed cameras across all 13."

Based on crash data, TFL thinks it should be there.

feltkuota

A cyclist on Blackfriar's Bridge is as protected as they can be without someone halting the traffic and giving said cyclist right of way.

notsoblue

feltkuota wrote:

A cyclist on Blackfriar's Bridge is as protected as they can be without someone halting the traffic and giving said cyclist right of way.

Are you serious?

feltkuota

Why would you ask that?