Pages on LoTAG.com
Home
Diary
Information
What is LoTAG?
ROAD2000
London JAG
LoLEG (lighting)
London Asphalt Spec
TAG
site hosted by
Easyspace.com
Site updated
04 January 2010
 
Contact LoTAG via
e-mail:
sec@lotag.com
© LoTAG 2010

 

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
Head of Highways and Transportation
Royal Borough of Kingston

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
Gareth Davies
Assistant Director (Transportation Planning)

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
London Borough of Richmond upon Thames

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
LB Camden

Response 5)
It depends on what signs you use to indicate the speed limit.  If you want to use the sign to diagram 674 which specifically includes the word "zone" then Direction 16 of the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions (TSRGD) applies and requires that "no point on any road (not being a cul-de-sac less than 80 metres long), to which the speed limit indicated by the sign applies, is situated more than 50 metres from  a
traffic calming feature".  It then goes on to list what constitutes a traffic calming feature, essentially those things identified as such in the Traffic Calming Regulations and road humps but there are some other things mentioned (refuge islands, carriageway narrowing and sharp bends).  If 20mph Zone signs are used it is therefore a legal requirement that traffic calming features are also installed.  Such
zones are usually introduced over an area covering several roads, say around a school.
If you just want to introduce a 20mph speed limit using standard speed limit signs to diagram 670  (ie without the word "zone"), Direction 16 of the TSRGD does not apply and traffic calming features are not necessary.  However, 20mph limits are really intended to be used only on roads where the traffic speed is already below 24 mph and where physical enforcing measures are not therefore required.  To erect them in other places where this is not the case would have no real effect and any proposal to do so would probably be resisted by the police.  Traffic Advisory Leaflet 09/99 and DETR Circular 05/99 provides the detailed guidance on all of this.
Regards
Bill Heale
Principal Engineer, Traffic Management
(Central Area)
London Borough of Harrow

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