20mph speed limits

In message
,
Squashme writes
On Nov 30, 8:18*pm, "GT" wrote:




I like the 4th one "Exhaust kills too" - a clear reminder that the 20mph
limit increases congestion and increases the amount of pollution produced by
vehicles on the road!

IF a 20 mph limit increased congestion.

In many places, a 20 limit will only limit the speed that vehicles
travel between one 'hold-up' (ie having to become stationary) and
another (traffic lights, road junctions etc). It will prevent
unnecessary - and pointless - rapid acceleration, followed by braking.
It may also mean that less time is actually spent stationary, waiting to
move off, with the engine ticking over. I'm sure that, overall, there
will be less pollution, and in many situations, I doubt if there will be
much of a reduction in the average speed.
--
Ian

On Dec 1, 10:41*am, Ian Jackson
wrote:
In message
,
Squashme writes

On Nov 30, 8:18 pm, "GT" wrote:

I like the 4th one "Exhaust kills too" - a clear reminder that the 20mph
limit increases congestion and increases the amount of pollution produced by
vehicles on the road!

IF a 20 mph limit increased congestion.

In many places, a 20 limit will only limit the speed that vehicles
travel between one 'hold-up' (ie having to become stationary) and
another (traffic lights, road junctions etc). It will prevent
unnecessary - and pointless - rapid acceleration, followed by braking.
It may also mean that less time is actually spent stationary, waiting to
move off, with the engine ticking over. I'm sure that, overall, there
will be less pollution, and in many situations, I doubt if there will be
much of a reduction in the average speed.
--
Ian

There is less local pollution in our 20mph zones anyway as unless you
*really* have to drive down them, the rat runners avoid them lie the
plague due to the buggeration factor of the severe humps.

--
Simon Mason

On 01/12/2011 10:54, Simon Mason wrote:

There is less local pollution in our 20mph zones anyway as unless you
*really* have to drive down them, the rat runners avoid them lie the
plague due to the buggeration factor of the severe humps.

This feature does not work if the whole borough is 20mph.

On 30/11/2011 07:54, Bertie Wooster wrote:

It will not be long before other local authorities, up and down the
country, think of roads as places that serve communities, and not as
thoroughfares.

The "community" that can survive in an advanced economy in the twenty-first
century without access to and the use of thoroughfares does not exist.

The term "community" is in any case most usually used as a weasel word in
this sort of discussion. The alleged members of the "community" often -
usually - have competing interests which render them anything but a community
in context.

I wonder what Islington would do if the drivers of commercial vehicles -
including buses - decided that they were going to withdraw their labour from
the streets of the borough because of unacceptable threat to driving licences
and family livelihoods for behaviour which is lawful everywhere else?

On 30/11/2011 08:38, Paul - xxx wrote:

Bertie Wooster wrote:

It will not be long before other local authorities, up and down the
country, think of roads as places that serve communities, and not as
thoroughfares.

I disagree.
Our whole estate and those adjoining are all 20mph limited with signs
on all roads entering the estates and speed humps. Doesn't stop
traffic, doesn't 'serve communities' any more than 'before 20'.
I wonder how the people who think up these sayings "places that serve
communities" see roads as being anything more than roads when people
still have to drive 'cos they live there, or need to go to the shops,
or the schools ...

Indeed.

Communities (however inappropriate the word may be in a particular set of
circumstances) need thoroughfares.

"Squashme" wrote in message
...
On Nov 30, 8:18 pm, "GT" wrote:
"Simon Mason" wrote in message

...
On Nov 30, 7:54 am, Bertie Wooster wrote:

It will not be long before other local authorities, up and down the
country, think of roads as places that serve communities, and not as
thoroughfares.

=====Quote=====
At last night’s full council meeting, Islington Councillors took a
historic decision. They approved a plan that will see a maximum 20mph
speed limit come into force across the entire borough. As the local
assembly member, and an Islington residentI fully support the
council’s move. It will mean the streets of Islington will be safer.
Safer for pedestrians, drivers and cyclists. It will allow streets to
become vibrant hubs for community activity and will of course save
lives.

Don't forget to make a gallery of the paintings.
Like this.

http://www.simonmason.karoo.net/page361.htm

--
Simon Mason

== reply ==
I like the 4th one "Exhaust kills too" - a clear reminder that the 20mph
limit increases congestion and increases the amount of pollution produced
by
vehicles on the road!

IF a 20 mph limit increased congestion.

== reply ==

True, but driving at 20mph is less efficient and produces more pollution
than 30mph

On Tue, 29 Nov 2011 23:58:23 -0800 (PST), Simon Mason
wrote:

On Nov 30, 7:54*am, Bertie Wooster wrote:
It will not be long before other local authorities, up and down the
country, think of roads as places that serve communities, and not as
thoroughfares.

=====Quote=====
At last night’s full council meeting, Islington Councillors took a
historic decision. They approved a plan that will see a maximum 20mph
speed limit come into force across the entire borough. As the local
assembly member, and an Islington residentI fully support the
council’s move. It will mean the streets of Islington will be safer.
Safer for pedestrians, drivers and cyclists. It will allow streets to
become vibrant hubs for community activity and will of course save
lives.

Don't forget to make a gallery of the paintings.
Like this.

http://www.simonmason.karoo.net/page361.htm


Is there not a "Cyclists May Ignore" sign?

On Dec 1, 8:02*pm, "GT" wrote:
"Squashme" wrote in message

...
On Nov 30, 8:18 pm, "GT" wrote:









"Simon Mason" wrote in message

...
On Nov 30, 7:54 am, Bertie Wooster wrote:

It will not be long before other local authorities, up and down the
country, think of roads as places that serve communities, and not as
thoroughfares.

=====Quote=====
At last night s full council meeting, Islington Councillors took a
historic decision. They approved a plan that will see a maximum 20mph
speed limit come into force across the entire borough. As the local
assembly member, and an Islington residentI fully support the
council s move. It will mean the streets of Islington will be safer.
Safer for pedestrians, drivers and cyclists. It will allow streets to
become vibrant hubs for community activity and will of course save
lives.

Don't forget to make a gallery of the paintings.
Like this.

http://www.simonmason.karoo.net/page361.htm

--
Simon Mason

== reply ==
I like the 4th one "Exhaust kills too" - a clear reminder that the 20mph
limit increases congestion and increases the amount of pollution produced
by
vehicles on the road!

IF a 20 mph limit increased congestion.

== reply ==

True, but driving at 20mph is less efficient and produces more pollution
than 30mph

Sure? Source?

On Thu, 01 Dec 2011 03:45:53 -0000, Peter Keller wrote:

On Wed, 30 Nov 2011 20:15:07 +0000, GT wrote:

"Paul - xxx" wrote in message
...
Bertie Wooster wrote:

It will not be long before other local authorities, up and down the
country, think of roads as places that serve communities, and not as
thoroughfares.

I disagree.

Our whole estate and those adjoining are all 20mph limited with signs
on all roads entering the estates and speed humps. Doesn't stop
traffic, doesn't 'serve communities' any more than 'before 20'.

Serves communities less as the throughput of that 'serving' road has
been lowered by 33%.

In my experience many traffic in many residential areass travels very
slowly anyway. Cross streets, children playing, many driveways and
intersections etc -- so making a 20mph limit won't change much.
Reducing speeed to 20mph on the serving road will reduce traffic by much
less than 33% as the cars can travel closer together at the lower speed.

And you can't get out the bloody junctions because everyone is bunched together. And the people at the back are getting restless waiting for the one at the front. And the smaller gaps mean you don't se dogs running out in front of you so easily. Yeah great idea.

--
http://petersparrots.com
http://petersphotos.com

"Computers in the future may weigh no more than 1.5 tons." -- Popular Mechanics, 1949

On Dec 1, 11:11*pm, "Lieutenant Scott" wrote:
On Thu, 01 Dec 2011 03:45:53 -0000, Peter Keller wrote:
On Wed, 30 Nov 2011 20:15:07 +0000, GT wrote:

"Paul - xxx" wrote in message
...
Bertie Wooster wrote:

It will not be long before other local authorities, up and down the
country, think of roads as places that serve communities, and not as
thoroughfares.

I disagree.

Our whole estate and those adjoining are all 20mph limited with signs
on all roads entering the estates and speed humps. *Doesn't stop
traffic, doesn't 'serve communities' any more than 'before 20'.

Serves communities less as the throughput of that 'serving' road has
been lowered by 33%.

In my experience many traffic in many residential areass travels very
slowly anyway. *Cross streets, children playing, many driveways and
intersections etc -- so making a 20mph limit won't change much.
Reducing speeed to 20mph on the serving road will reduce traffic by much
less than 33% as the cars can travel closer together at the lower speed..

And you can't get out the bloody junctions because everyone is bunched together.

Whereas you can't get out of the bloody junctions when the limit is 30
because nobody can slow down and let you out.