|
LoTAG Discussion | |||||||||||||||||||||||
| From time to time someone asks " Does anyone know anything about this?" or "We've got a problem with that". Correspondence is emailed around and usually promotes discussion between those on the circulation list. I'm taking the opportunity of posting these discussions here, with the originators contact details so that the discussion can be opened out to a wider audience. Please respond to originator and cc to discuss@lotag.com | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
From Chris Hamshar at Kingston I wonder if you can help me with a question raised by our Chair of the Transport and Infrastructure Overview Panel. He is asking whether or not it is actually illegal to promote a 20mph zone without self enforcing traffic calming features. The emphasis here being on illegal as he is already aware of the stated views of the police who require such features and who would presumably formally object to a traffic order promoting a proposal without such features. Have you any knowledge/experience which can help me on this or direct me to anyone who might help. I have obviously asked our Solicitor but it may be that one or other of you has already investigated this matter. I need to get back to the Councilor before Committee next Wednesday and would appreciate any help you can give. Many thanks
Chris Hamshar |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Response 1) It is not illegal. Refer you to Traffic Advisory Leaflet 9/99 on 20 mph. Note the section on existing 85%ile speed A number of authorities have schemes with no physical measures. Bromley has a scheme, Maple Road, with only few speed reduction features. You are required to consult with the Police and to take account of the Police's views but you do not have to accept their objection and can override them.
The Institution of Highways & Transportation are publishing new guidelines
on traffic calming. I suggest that you contact
Tersa Coyle at the IHT details below to get a name of one the authors
and speak to them for the up to date advice and case studies
LB Bromley |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Response 2) As one of the (six) authors of the recent IHT traffic calming book can I concur with Gareth and reinforce consultation and agreement with the Police . Our original H&F scheme in Emlyn road which is a high status emergency route had no physical obstructions like humps or cushions but we were able to demonstrate as required at that time to the Police and DfT that we had reduced 85% speeds to less than the 20mph level through other measures. I do think that this is the professional test namely the classic reasonableness one . A driver ought to have been made aware by design etc of the special nature of the road that it had a 20 rather than a 30 mph speed limit so that 85% naturally obey the limit Speed limit signs with enforcement alone although politically attractive are not in my opinion good practice. Nor is over-riding a formal police objection for should an accident occur to a pedestrian or worse child ped there would be an un-necessary element of exposure for officers , executive members and the Highway authority against actions and claims. ( Even allowing for contributory negligence from the driver) Roger Khanna LB Hammersmith & Fulham |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Response 3) For what it is worth, the TSRGD 2002 are quite clear in that a 20mph zone requires traffic calming measures every 100?m. [Any queries, talk to Kitty Vernon!] I note Roger and Gareth simply talk about 20mph speed limits which are a different kettle of fish. Gordon Bell |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Response 4)
We picked
up the proposed change and opposed it it in our response to the
consultation.
Camden
have 20MPH speed limits (on roads past schools that are also emergency
service routes) in addition to more traditional 20MPH zones with calming
measures. The 20MPH limit schemes have flashing signs that light up when
drivers exceed the limit and remind them of their responsibilities.
We have
compared the impact of both types of schemes.
The 20MPH
limit schemes have resulted in a reduction in speeds of between 1 and 2
MPH. The 20MPH zone schemes (with calming measures) have produced
reductions in speed of about 9 MPH.
The data
from this was presented to the GLA Scrutiny Panel on traffic calming.
Hope this
is of use
Doug Amer |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Response 5) |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Response 6) I agree with Gordon Bell. We have had a 20mph speed limit on Tower Bridge since the late 1970's without one traffic calming measure in place for obvious reasons - it was justified on the grounds of minimising traffic induced structural vibration to the bascules (cantilever sections) and the speed limited is now backed up by speed cameras. Joe Weiss Chairman of London Technical Advisors Group (LoTAG) Corporation of London, |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Response 7)
Apologies for using this reply to raise a
related topic. The Government consultation on Update of Circular Roads
1/93, Setting Local Speed Limits, which closed on 18th February, proposes
moving from 85th percentile to mean speed as the principal measure of
speed. We nearly didn't pick upon this, as it is not in the "urban speed
management" section of the document. I sent a reply opposing this, with
reasons, but quite late in the day.
On
reflection, I am perhaps surprised that there weren't any emails about
that one. If I had picked up on it sooner, I would have asked for it to be
flagged up for discussion at the last LOTAG meeting, since there is
clearly more than one view on this issue. I did let Mark Chetwynd at the
ALG have a copy of my reply - I don't think anyone else had raised it with
him.
I
am happy to forward a copy of my reply to anyone interested.
Iain
Forbes
Strategy and Forward Planning Manager Transportation Department, Westminster City Council |
||||||||||||||||||||||||