London Assembly report urges 20mph zones and letting cyclists turn left at red lights (+ video)

Bmblbzzz wrote:

The advantage of 20mph is that it reduces the obeyed speed limit to about 30, cos everyone knows the real limit is the figure on the signs + 10 or 15. 

Only at night. London tends to be too congested to do that on the day.

Bmblbzzz wrote:

The advantage of 20mph is that it reduces the obeyed speed limit to about 30, cos everyone knows the real limit is the figure on the signs + 10 or 15. 

 

Agree with antigee on left turn on red, pretty much. It's bad for cyclists and pedestrians (have experienced it in Europe, not Aus).

In theory yes, but from what I see on a daily basis in London 20's are just ignored completely with cars going at the maximum speed they feel able to get up to (often around 40).

adoapplemac wrote:

Please actually read the report before writing articles! Left turn on red has NOT been proposed by this report. 

What is proposed is giving pedestrians and cyclists going straight ahead the priority over any turning vehicles at junctions. This would allow you to give pedestrians and bikes a green light at the same time as the traffic going parallel, and any turning vehicles would give way. This is the system used in most countries. 

still reading the report like the stuff about need to change KPI's and culture away from traffic flow...

could argue that giving ped's and cyclists straight ahead priority on green  whilst turning vehicles give way is actually just  another  move in favour of traffic flow over pedestrian and cyclist safety...current UK traffic lights have a clear ped crossing sequence usually in parallel to the straight ahead traffic flow with left turners halted by signals - remove this and removing the pedestrian (and cyclist at some lights?) clear priority means cyclists have to either sit in the left lane waiting for peds' to clear as left lane is stationary or filter to front  to be ahead of blocked turning vehicles - common but not always safe especially if a lot of left turning traffic - don't have a problem with cyclists giving way to ped's but it puts cyclists in a line of turning traffic when trying to go straight ahead - overall ped's and cyclists lose out - traffic flow wins - works in many countries because have dedicated cycle lanes - my experience here in Aus' is that it is a bad deal unless I'm driving

antigee wrote:

adoapplemac wrote:

Please actually read the report before writing articles! Left turn on red has NOT been proposed by this report. 

What is proposed is giving pedestrians and cyclists going straight ahead the priority over any turning vehicles at junctions. This would allow you to give pedestrians and bikes a green light at the same time as the traffic going parallel, and any turning vehicles would give way. This is the system used in most countries. 

still reading the report like the stuff about need to change KPI's and culture away from traffic flow...

 

could argue that giving ped's and cyclists straight ahead priority on green  whilst turning vehicles give way is actually just  another  move in favour of traffic flow over pedestrian and cyclist safety...current UK traffic lights have a clear ped crossing sequence usually in parallel to the straight ahead traffic flow with left turners halted by signals - remove this and removing the pedestrian (and cyclist at some lights?) clear priority means cyclists have to either sit in the left lane waiting for peds' to clear as left lane is stationary or filter to front  to be ahead of blocked turning vehicles - common but not always safe especially if a lot of left turning traffic - don't have a problem with cyclists giving way to ped's but it puts cyclists in a line of turning traffic when trying to go straight ahead - overall ped's and cyclists lose out - traffic flow wins - works in many countries because have dedicated cycle lanes - my experience here in Aus' is that it is a bad deal unless I'm driving

It's actually standard in some countries e.g. Canada for right* turning vehicles to legally have to give way to pedestrians and cyclists going straight ahead. Yes it does improve traffic flow but also decreases the time pedestrians and cyclists have to wait to cross.

The problem at the moment is London is congested, air quality is poor and public transport in outer London consists mainly of buses and the train. Buses are delayed due to the congestion so improving traffic flow what help public transport users as well. Also many traffic lights don't actually have a pedestrian sequence as it takes until someone dies for one to be put in. Making left turning traffic give way remedies this quickly as every vehicle owner whether horse rider, cyclist or motorist knows they have to give way at a zebra crossing.

*They drive on the right unlike us in the UK so that's the comparison.

antigee wrote:

adoapplemac wrote:

Please actually read the report before writing articles! Left turn on red has NOT been proposed by this report. 

What is proposed is giving pedestrians and cyclists going straight ahead the priority over any turning vehicles at junctions. This would allow you to give pedestrians and bikes a green light at the same time as the traffic going parallel, and any turning vehicles would give way. This is the system used in most countries. 

still reading the report like the stuff about need to change KPI's and culture away from traffic flow...

 

could argue that giving ped's and cyclists straight ahead priority on green  whilst turning vehicles give way is actually just  another  move in favour of traffic flow over pedestrian and cyclist safety...current UK traffic lights have a clear ped crossing sequence usually in parallel to the straight ahead traffic flow with left turners halted by signals - remove this and removing the pedestrian (and cyclist at some lights?) clear priority means cyclists have to either sit in the left lane waiting for peds' to clear as left lane is stationary or filter to front  to be ahead of blocked turning vehicles - common but not always safe especially if a lot of left turning traffic - don't have a problem with cyclists giving way to ped's but it puts cyclists in a line of turning traffic when trying to go straight ahead - overall ped's and cyclists lose out - traffic flow wins - works in many countries because have dedicated cycle lanes - my experience here in Aus' is that it is a bad deal unless I'm driving

Well, first and foremost, the Turning the Corner rules would give pedestrians and cyclists priority over turning traffic at side roads. That’s purely a win for pedestrians and cyclists, not for motorists. 

Secondly, I actually think the setup you described where pedestrians walk with ahead traffic while left turners are held is actually very rare in the UK. Instead, smaller junctions normally have a pedestrian scramble, where all traffic stops and all pedestrians go. Sounds good in theory, and it is good at some locations, but as a pedestrian you find you have to wait an eternity just to get 5 seconds of green. At larger junctions, we almost always have ‘staggered’ crossings, where the pedestrian crossing is split up into different parts and pedestrians have to wait twice or even three times just to cross one road! Finally, in some locations, e.g. Euston Road in London (a main road just near Euston Station), pedestrian crossings across side roads have no pedestrian signals whatsoever, because it would cause a lot of delay to implement dedicated pedestrian phases. So pedestrians just have to run across the road and hope a taxi doesn’t come barreling around the corner. 

With Turning the corner, pedestrian waiting times could be reduced significantly, staggered crossings could be a thing of the past and signalised pedestrian crossings could be provided across all roads at traffic light junctions much more easily. 

Of course, fully protected crossings would not disappear, this just gives us another option. Where there are heavy flows of turning traffic, it’s probably not a good idea! It’s also what you make of it: it can be implemented for the benefit of traffic flow, but it makes winning space and time for walking and cycling at traffic light junctions that much easier. 

adoapplemac wrote:

Please actually read the report before writing articles! Left turn on red has NOT been proposed by this report. 

What is proposed is giving pedestrians and cyclists going straight ahead the priority over any turning vehicles at junctions. This would allow you to give pedestrians and bikes a green light at the same time as the traffic going parallel, and any turning vehicles would give way. This is the system used in most countries. 

some of the posts  are still confusing the issue as said  it is not a proposal to allow left turns on red don't think this is mentioned in report - the proposal is as follows page 37:

Quote:

4.7 Recent research by British Cycling suggests a new way forward which could give people walking and cycling a better deal without causing delay for those on buses or in cars. This would be achieved through rule changes that meant vehicles had to give way to pedestrians and cyclists when turning. 

4.8 A rule change would save time because pedestrians, cyclists and general traffic travelling in the same direction could be given the green light to go at the same time. This means that junction designs are simpler and less time is lost while people wait their turn. These rules already apply in most other countries apart from the UK. In most other countries, pedestrians, cyclists and general traffic travelling in the same direction can be given the green light to go at the same time Turning traffic gives way to people crossing the road

4.9 British Cycling modelled the rule change at an outer London junction to demonstrate the efficiency gains that could be made. It found the change would benefit all road users. It could result in some 38 per cent less delay for pedestrians, 21 per cent less delay for bikes, and 25 per cent less delay for motor vehicles. This would address one common complaint about initiatives designed to benefit people walking and cycling – that other road users must inevitably suffer as a result

what it does is remove pedestrian only crossing sequences and vehicles have a green light but if turning must give way to pedestrians and cyclists - this takes out a cycle (or 2) in the traffic light sequence but relies on drivers giving way and not intimidating pedestrians by squeezing between them or right turning  (where traffic flow is on the left) at speeds that may severely injure - not convinced on Ped' queue times as lose out when approaching a crossing as here in Vic' Aus' the crossing sequence is short to then allow vehicles to turn uninterupted so if not already waiting have to wait for next sequence to cross - somewhere further up I commented on experiences as a cyclist

there is a section at the tail end of the report that gives committee's minority opinion and reasons for opposing this proposal...I'm not against the proposal - think its just be careful what you wish for - it may work well with certain road layouts in countries with a pro walking/cycling culture....danger is applying it simply to improve traffic flow without redisigning junctions especially with respect to cyclists

antigee wrote:

adoapplemac wrote:

Please actually read the report before writing articles! Left turn on red has NOT been proposed by this report. 

What is proposed is giving pedestrians and cyclists going straight ahead the priority over any turning vehicles at junctions. This would allow you to give pedestrians and bikes a green light at the same time as the traffic going parallel, and any turning vehicles would give way. This is the system used in most countries. 

some of the posts  are still confusing the issue as said  it is not a proposal to allow left turns on red don't think this is mentioned in report - the proposal is as follows page 37:

Quote:

4.7 Recent research by British Cycling suggests a new way forward which could give people walking and cycling a better deal without causing delay for those on buses or in cars. This would be achieved through rule changes that meant vehicles had to give way to pedestrians and cyclists when turning. 

4.8 A rule change would save time because pedestrians, cyclists and general traffic travelling in the same direction could be given the green light to go at the same time. This means that junction designs are simpler and less time is lost while people wait their turn. These rules already apply in most other countries apart from the UK. In most other countries, pedestrians, cyclists and general traffic travelling in the same direction can be given the green light to go at the same time Turning traffic gives way to people crossing the road

4.9 British Cycling modelled the rule change at an outer London junction to demonstrate the efficiency gains that could be made. It found the change would benefit all road users. It could result in some 38 per cent less delay for pedestrians, 21 per cent less delay for bikes, and 25 per cent less delay for motor vehicles. This would address one common complaint about initiatives designed to benefit people walking and cycling – that other road users must inevitably suffer as a result

 

what it does is remove pedestrian only crossing sequences and vehicles have a green light but if turning must give way to pedestrians and cyclists - this takes out a cycle (or 2) in the traffic light sequence but relies on drivers giving way and not intimidating pedestrians by squeezing between them or right turning  (where traffic flow is on the left) at speeds that may severely injure - not convinced on Ped' queue times as lose out when approaching a crossing as here in Vic' Aus' the crossing sequence is short to then allow vehicles to turn uninterupted so if not already waiting have to wait for next sequence to cross - somewhere further up I commented on experiences as a cyclist

there is a section at the tail end of the report that gives committee's minority opinion and reasons for opposing this proposal...I'm not against the proposal - think its just be careful what you wish for - it may work well with certain road layouts in countries with a pro walking/cycling culture....danger is applying it simply to improve traffic flow without redisigning junctions especially with respect to cyclists

I would support specifying the maximum corner radii allowed where turning cars have to give way to pedestrians, and perhaps to specify that right turners have to have a separate phase if they have to turn across e.g. more than 1 or 2 lanes of oncoming traffic. Plus, we would need to look at what road markings we should use (zebra, studs, or something else), what signs and what signals (flashing amber lights) should be used. All of this needs to be researched carefully and in any case, junctions would have to be redesigned to implement it.

Here in Germany, the sequence varies from junction to junction. Sometimes pedestrians get a short green man and then the rest of the time is used to allow turning traffic to go, and sometimes pedestrians get a green for almost as long as the parallel traffic. It's also worth noting that the wider the road to be crossed, the shorter the green man has to be, because pedestrians need plenty of time to clear the crossing. Perhaps the wider roads you get in Australia might mean you get less green man time than would be possible on the many narrow roads we have in the UK! However, even with short green man times, pedestrian waiting times with the Turning the Corner system would be shorter.

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

with the tech we already have we should be including all vehicles with GPS tech and having speed limits programmed in so that vehicles cannot exceed the limits anywhere.

My car (2017 Ford S-MAX ti sport) sort of has this; it's got a forward camera behind the mirror that can read signs which it uses to look for changes and temporary limits, but otherwise knows the speed limit based on GPS. As you get near, it triggers the engine to reduce the amount of fuel in the cylinders. It can't touch the brakes, though, engine retardation only.

You have to turn it on each time you start the ignition, and you can override it by fully depressing the pedal, but it's a good start.

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

with the tech we already have we should be including all vehicles with GPS tech and having speed limits programmed in so that vehicles cannot exceed the limits anywhere. This should have a knock on effect of manufacturers not focusing on top speed and acceleration over economy for personal motorvehicles.

Speed isn't the complete solution but it will go a long way, in fact in some areas it could be even slower/lower than 20mph. if not fully banning motorvehicles completely as is being rolled out in some parts of the world already.

IF/when fully automated comes in we should see max limits be fully adhered to, all we need then is the programming to be safer than a very good human driver.

There was talk of this happening via the EU mebbe 15+ years ago.  Tho' as you've written, might need widespread uptake of driverless cars for it to be acceptable by enough of the public, particularly, I suspect, by those who think they're better drivers than they really are..

JonD wrote:

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

with the tech we already have we should be including all vehicles with GPS tech and having speed limits programmed in so that vehicles cannot exceed the limits anywhere. This should have a knock on effect of manufacturers not focusing on top speed and acceleration over economy for personal motorvehicles.

Speed isn't the complete solution but it will go a long way, in fact in some areas it could be even slower/lower than 20mph. if not fully banning motorvehicles completely as is being rolled out in some parts of the world already.

IF/when fully automated comes in we should see max limits be fully adhered to, all we need then is the programming to be safer than a very good human driver.

 

There was talk of this happening via the EU mebbe 15+ years ago.  Tho' as you've written, might need widespread uptake of driverless cars for it to be acceptable by enough of the public, particularly, I suspect, by those who think they're better drivers than they really are..

Automatic position logging via GPS is becoming compulsory in all new vehicles in EU in a couple of years. This will in practice include UK, Brexit or no Brexit, as who's going to make a special UK model without it? In fact, it could even be UN-ECE, so all Europe. But AFAIR it doesn't have anything to do with speed limits unless "Intelligent Speed Adaptation" https://ec.europa.eu/transport/road_safety/specialist/knowledge/speed/ne...

is installed and turned on. But it reports a vehicle's position to emergency services in case of collision (presumably linked to airbags, but I don't know the details).

Bmblbzzz wrote:

 

Automatic position logging via GPS is becoming compulsory in all new vehicles in EU in a couple of years. This will in practice include UK, Brexit or no Brexit, as who's going to make a special UK model without it?

Manufacturers do quite a good job of not fitting a steering wheel or pedals on the left side of UK cars. 

If it's not compulsory and buyers aren't willing to pay for it, then I'm certain they'll take out the cost of the position log storage.

Username wrote:

One advantage to a 20 mph limit would be the removal of the current nonsense where a road can switch from a 30 mph TfL road, to a 20 mph Camden road, and back to a 30 mph Westminster road all in the space of a few hundred meters. Motorists are ignoring 20 safe in the knowledge if they were ever stopped they could easily talk their way out of it given this madness.

If 20 mph was the limit over the entire city then it would be a simple next step to have all the buses, and council vehicles, governed to 20. There is no need for them to exceed it. Indeed there is good argument for making taxis governed as well.

I think once people knew that buses were regulated to 20 it would have a calming affect on other drivers.

Unfortunately the roads in London are controlled by TFL and local councils.

This means in some places a through route is controlled by TFL but a road at each side of a junction is controlled by two different councils. If the councils refuse to co-operate with each other and TFL then you get the stupid situation of the TFL road being 20mph but the council roads being 30mph.

Oh and in outer London, where this report is focused on, some of the three-lane dual carriageways that buses travel on have speed limits of 50mph. A bus or council vehicle limited to 20mph on one of these would be dangerous.

balmybaldwin wrote:

What difference will a 20mph limit make?

 

Cars don't keep to 30 why would they slow down if the sign now says 20?

 

The answer as it's always been is we need to enforce the law. If motorists were scared of being caught close passing/cutting up/speeding/driving agressively/speeding/looking at their phones then they wouldn't do it

If you read the report you will see it talks about self-enforcing road design.

If you design a road to be 20mph then motorists will slow down. However if you just put a 20 sign on a 30mph or 40mph road, which many London councils have done, then people simply won't.

Putting road humps doesn't slow people down - I've seen people bounce of them - but making the road narrower by extending pavements particularly at junctions, removing the central white line and allowing people to park, whether it is cars or bikes, on both sides in residential areas achieves this. In fact in some cases you don't even need to put a 20 sign as the natural restrictions force motorists to do this.

Jharrison5 wrote:

Meanwhile in Scotland... https://www.scotsman.com/news/msps-set-to-vote-on-20mph-becoming-the-def...

Problem here is that it is the Greens pushing this with some support from the SNP. The remainder of Holyrood still needs won over. 

Meanwhile the default position of the SNP is that it is the councils who are responsible for jumping through hoops to establish 20mph zones and this is highly unlikely to change.