TfL to cut speed limit to 20mph

[2into1]

It sounds like you haven’t read TfL’s reasoning for the reduction posted in message #5 above.

The case for 20mph limits in urban areas is stark.
Hit a pedestrian at 30mph, half die.
Hit a pedestrian at 20mph, 1:10 die.

I didn't expect him to say it out loud! The fact that there is some non 'hatred' benefit from the move doesn't prove its not driven by ideology.

 

[Amarillo]

I didn't expect him to say it out loud! The fact that there is some non 'hatred' benefit from the move doesn't prove its not driven by ideology.

Unlike the ULEZ, there’s a good reason why the 20mph limit has broad cross party support in the London Assembly: it is a good idea. There might be 1 or 2 petrol head assembly members against it, but I doubt it. And there is always the possibility that a lower speed limit will actually speed London up, with average speeds already well below 20mph.

 

[Velma's Dad]

I didn't expect him to say it out loud! The fact that there is some non 'hatred' benefit from the move doesn't prove its not driven by ideology.

I believe a whole lot of European cities are moving to lower speed limits - 30kph. The aims appear to be two-fold - reducing pedestrian casualties and reducing early deaths from particulate emissions. I guess you could call that an ideology if you wanted, but I can't myself see any evidence for some kind of fundamentalist anti-car mindset among policy makers across Europe.

 

[Amarillo]

I believe a whole lot of European cities are moving to lower speed limits - 30kph. The aims appear to be two-fold - reducing pedestrian casualties and reducing early deaths from particulate emissions. I guess you could call that an ideology if you wanted, but I can't myself see any evidence for some kind of fundamentalist anti-car mindset among policy makers across Europe.

I really don't think there is any evidence that a reduction in speed limits from 30 to 20mph (or 50 to 30Km/h) makes any significant difference to particulate emissions. But I will be happy to be corrected if I am wrong. As far as I can tell the reduction is all about the safety of vulnerable road users.

 

[2into1]

I believe a whole lot of European cities are moving to

A whole lot of countries are moving in directions that huge chunks of their population disagree with. I look at Khan and I see someone using every opportunity to move London in a direction aligned with his ideology. All his energy goes into such schemes.
I'm guessing (genuinely) you see him and 'feel' his motives to be more aligned with your political view of the world.
I may be seeing falsehoods where there is non, but if we / you remain blind to the possibility that we are being fooled as to his* true motives then that benefits no one.

*add in Trudeau, and what Rutte is doing to the Dutch farmers as some of the other candidates.

 

[Amarillo]

A whole lot of countries are moving in directions that huge chunks of their population disagree with. I look at Khan and I see someone using every opportunity to move London in a direction aligned with his ideology. All his energy goes into such schemes.
I'm guessing (genuinely) you see him and 'feel' his motives to be more aligned with your political view of the world.
I may be seeing falsehoods where there is non, but if we / you remain blind to the possibility that we are being fooled as to his* true motives then that benefits no one.

*add in Trudeau, and what Rutte is doing to the Dutch farmers as some of the other candidates.

That's a mad conspiracy theory. What the Devil would Khan possibly have to gain from the reduction in speed limits in London!?

The map below shows roads in London with a 20mph limit in green (May 2022). The blue veins in areas of mostly green are the 30 limit roads managed by TfL. It is these bits in inner London boroughs which are to benefit from Khan's limit reduction to 30mph.

 

[Velma's Dad]

A whole lot of countries are moving in directions that huge chunks of their population disagree with. I look at Khan and I see someone using every opportunity to move London in a direction aligned with his ideology. All his energy goes into such schemes.
I'm guessing (genuinely) you see him and 'feel' his motives to be more aligned with your political view of the world.
I may be seeing falsehoods where there is non, but if we / you remain blind to the possibility that we are being fooled as to his* true motives then that benefits no one.

*add in Trudeau, and what Rutte is doing to the Dutch farmers as some of the other candidates.

I guess you could view Khan et al as wanting London and other cities to be governed more towards collectivist structures (enhanced public transport, active promotion of 'localised' communities, giving more weight to rights of poorer people) as being a leftist standpoint; versus an individualistic (eg car owning and using - assuming you can afford it) standpoint that is relatively more right-leaning. I'd say that if you want to describe one side as an ideological perspective, then you really have to acknowledge that they both are.

As far as public attitudes are concerned, large numbers of people are invariably vocally opposed to many (most?) new policies that trade individual freedoms for societal benefits. And yet over time many of those policies become accepted as the 'right' thing - plenty of examples such as mandatory wearing of seat belts and motorcyle helmets, the ban on burning non-smokeless coal in towns, and of course speed limits.

Incidentally the case for a general 20mph urban speed limits was made quite powerfully in 2008 by a partliamentary select committee in a report titled "Ending the Scandal of Complacency", nearly a decade before Khan became London mayor. (The committee was chaired by Louise Ellman, a Labour MP, so I suppose that might be relevant if you insist on making it about political predispositions, although I personally don't.)

 

[2into1]

What the Devil would Khan possibly have to gain from the reduction in speed limits in London!?

Well try (for an outlandish conspiracy theory) that he's a believer in equity (equal outcomes for EVERYONE) rather than equality of opportunity (every deserves the same chance but we shouldn't try to control winners and lossers, except for the provision of a safety net for those who end up at bottom). That former view would give him a ideology that shares much with Marxism.

One of the characteristics of those he sees as 'losers' might be generalised as being poor and not able to afford the freedom granted by the ownership of their own car (enjoyed by those he sees as 'winners').
So a policy (set of policies) that makes car ownership unaffordable for most (he'd prefer 'everyone' but will never achieve it) would level up the outcomes in that everyone (except those he really can't reach) would be on the bus.

Making car journeys so slow would achieve the same goal.

So it's a fair question to consider if his ulez schemes are truly motivated by saving lives or leveling outcomes. Dito the speed limit introductions and the removal of car lanes to make cycle lanes.

Everyone is free to draw their own conclusions but the questions must be allowed to be raised.

I understand I know little about London but we have our own muppet in Manchester with Burnham, following in Kahn's shoes.

The discussion could be expanded more widely into the net zero goals.

If I'm wrong and he's just acting democratically doing what his constituents have asked him to do, then he'll have no problem asking (just) those in the expanded ulez area to vote on it. He obviously is resisting this, so is acting in an authoritarian, not democratic way.

I read Khan as a man fueled more by resentment than compassion, hence my initial scepticism which started this debate.

 

[WelshGas]

Law of Unintended Consequences

1.3 The critical factor is the supply of organs for transplantation. Only good quality organs are likely to function satisfactorily and there are strict limits on the time that can be taken to retrieve and transplant the organ. In practice this means that, for most organs, only relatively young donors are suitable who are admitted into intensive care units and subsequently declared brain dead so that organs can be retrieved while the donors heart is still beating. A typical donor has suffered either a road traffic accident or a severe cerebrovascular accident. Due to improvements in road safety in European countries, donors in the former group are in decline. Kidneys are somewhat less sensitive to ischaemia (shortage of oxygen).

 

[2into1]

I guess you could view Khan et al as wanting London and other cities to be governed more towards collectivist structures (enhanced public transport, active promotion of 'localised' communities, giving more weight to rights of poorer people) as being a leftist standpoint; versus an individualistic (eg car owning and using - assuming you can afford it) standpoint that is relatively more right-leaning. I'd say that if you want to describe one side as an ideological perspective, then you really have to acknowledge that they both are.

As far as public attitudes are concerned, large numbers of people are invariably vocally opposed to many (most?) new policies that trade individual freedoms for societal benefits. And yet over time many of those policies become accepted as the 'right' thing - plenty of examples such as mandatory wearing of seat belts and motorcyle helmets, the ban on burning non-smokeless coal in towns, and of course speed limits.

Incidentally the case for a general 20mph urban speed limits was made quite powerfully in 2008 by a partliamentary select committee in a report titled "Ending the Scandal of Complacency", nearly a decade before Khan became London mayor. (The committee was chaired by Louise Ellman, a Labour MP, so I suppose that might be relevant if you insist on making it about political predispositions, although I personally don't.)

At least you understood my point.

The data point about Louise Ellman (who I like) is valuable and is the type of enlightenment brought about when folk are allowed to speak freely.

Amarillo's (I'm quoting) "That's a mad conspiracy theory. What the Devil would Khan possibly have to gain from the reduction in speed limits in London!?" is the opposite.

I see Ellman as a good old fashioned socialist so unfortunately my suspicions of Khan and muppet Burnham remain, but that's ok. That's why we invented government by democracy.

 

[Amarillo]

Well try (for an outlandish conspiracy theory) that he's a believer in equity (equal outcomes for EVERYONE) rather than equality of opportunity (every deserves the same chance but we shouldn't try to control winners and lossers, except for the provision of a safety net for those who end up at bottom). That former view would give him a ideology that shares much with Marxism.

One of the characteristics of those he sees as 'losers' might be generalised as being poor and not able to afford the freedom granted by the ownership of their own car (enjoyed by those he sees as 'winners').
So a policy (set of policies) that makes car ownership unaffordable for most (he'd prefer 'everyone' but will never achieve it) would level up the outcomes in that everyone (except those he really can't reach) would be on the bus.

Making car journeys so slow would achieve the same goal.

So it's a fair question to consider if his ulez schemes are truly motivated by saving lives or leveling outcomes. Dito the speed limit introductions and the removal of car lanes to make cycle lanes.

Everyone is free to draw their own conclusions but the questions must be allowed to be raised.

I understand I know little about London but we have our own muppet in Manchester with Burnham, following in Kahn's shoes.

The discussion could be expanded more widely into the net zero goals.

If I'm wrong and he's just acting democratically doing what his constituents have asked him to do, then he'll have no problem asking (just) those in the expanded ulez area to vote on it. He obviously is resisting this, so is acting in an authoritarian, not democratic way.

I read Khan as a man fueled more by resentment than compassion, hence my initial scepticism which started this debate.

Where your argument fails is that many of these policies favour the elite. The ULEZ in particular affects the poorer motorist with older cars more than the richer motorist with their environmentally friendly electric vehicle.

A 20mph limit is hardly likely to cause people en-masse to ditch their car and walk instead.

And more bike lanes encourage more people to cycle more safely, more often, leaving the roads emptier for those who can still afford to drive.

Here’s a photo including me leading my boys’ school’s bike train on Lewisham’s 20mph limit roads this morning.

 

[Amarillo]

Law of Unintended Consequences

1.3 The critical factor is the supply of organs for transplantation. Only good quality organs are likely to function satisfactorily and there are strict limits on the time that can be taken to retrieve and transplant the organ. In practice this means that, for most organs, only relatively young donors are suitable who are admitted into intensive care units and subsequently declared brain dead so that organs can be retrieved while the donors heart is still beating. A typical donor has suffered either a road traffic accident or a severe cerebrovascular accident. Due to improvements in road safety in European countries, donors in the former group are in decline. Kidneys are somewhat less sensitive to ischaemia (shortage of oxygen).

So speed limits should be raised so more motorists more often inadvertently kill innocent pedestrians to keep a healthy supply of body parts for the sick?

Sacrifice healthy people for the benefit of unhealthy people.

An odd concept.

 

[flying banana]

So if I do 20 mph I won't kill idiots in the road. If an idiot walks in front of my car I don't get why that is my fault. If I did 40mph the idiot would walk out behind me after I've gone and be fine. 40 zones for me

 

[Georgeo]

It sounds like you haven’t read TfL’s reasoning for the reduction posted in message #5 above.

The case for 20mph limits in urban areas is stark.
Hit a pedestrian at 30mph, half die.
Hit a pedestrian at 20mph, 1:10 die.

i think Khan said what price a life. In that case ban all vehicles in London. Including cycles

 

[Ian789]

I don’t think that emissions come into the decision to create 20mph zones. It is all about pedestrian safety:
Hit at 30mph 50% chance of living
Hit at 20mph 90% chance of living

Some details here:

Lowering Speed Limits

The Mayor and Transport for London (TfL) is committed to the Vision Zero Action Plan. The Action Plan sets out our ambition to eliminate death and serious injury from London’s transport network by 2041. It details our plans to reduce road danger, including proposals to implement safer lower...

haveyoursay.tfl.gov.uk

The N. Circular and S. Circular are completely different beasts, and other than making a near orbital road, bear little in common.

All (most) of the NCR is purpose built, sometimes grade separated, with properly designed junctions. Little of the SCR is purpose built, it is mostly a hotch potch of pre existing roads and includes delights such as the inaptly named Rushy Green gyratory (you cannot rush it, and the “green” is now an electic mix of businesses including McDonalds, Lidl, a rather good pub, and a now closed down gun shop below a tower block called Eros House).

Do Khan /TFL not care about the 10% then ?

If he was serious about saving lives maybe he should make the speed limit 15mph or10mph

 

[WelshGas]

So speed limits should be raised so more motorists more often inadvertently kill innocent pedestrians to keep a healthy supply of body parts for the sick?

Sacrifice healthy people for the benefit of unhealthy people.

An odd concept.

Hope you never have a relative awaiting a transplant.

According to your reasoning, someone who has Cystic Fibrosis who requires a Lung transplant is defined as " unhealthy " and so should not be put forward for a transplant as he/she would require an " innocent " pedestrian who didn't look where they were going, to be killed.

Darwins Theory seems to work quite well in the Natural World, why are we so determined to circumvent it in Human Society?

Teach Pedestrians, Cyclists and drivers the Highway Code, teach and show them the consequences of an accident and let them get on with it.

 

[Velma's Dad]

Well try (for an outlandish conspiracy theory) that he's a believer in equity (equal outcomes for EVERYONE) rather than equality of opportunity (every deserves the same chance but we shouldn't try to control winners and lossers, except for the provision of a safety net for those who end up at bottom). That former view would give him a ideology that shares much with Marxism.

A lot of people, myself included, wouldn't recognise those definitions of the terms "equity" and "equality of opportunity", which you are taking to mean different things.

In sociological/political discourse the term "equity" is usually taken to mean measures that aim to redress inequalities of opportunity. It's certainly not about trying to engineer equal outcomes, which I agree might be a traditional socialist/Marxist stance.

I have no idea what underlies Sadiq Khan's personal political outlook although he's been described by others as a centre-left social democrat. But anyway I don't see why it's necessary to think that attempting to balance the rights and life opportunities of car-owning and non-car-owning residents of London makes him a Marxist.

 

[Ch1pbutty]

The new reduced limit gives you more time to react to potholes.

 

[Amarillo]

Hope you never have a relative awaiting a transplant.

According to your reasoning, someone who has Cystic Fibrosis who requires a Lung transplant is defined as " unhealthy " and so should not be put forward for a transplant as he/she would require an " innocent " pedestrian who didn't look where they were going, to be killed.

Darwins Theory seems to work quite well in the Natural World, why are we so determined to circumvent it in Human Society?

Teach Pedestrians, Cyclists and drivers the Highway Code, teach and show them the consequences of an accident and let them get on with it.

I didn’t suggest that at all.

What I did suggest was that keeping speed limits high to provide a steady stream of good quality body parts is immoral. Enforcing a national lottery for sacrificial body parts would be fairer and equally repugnant.

I can’t believe we are discussing this!

 

[WelshGas]

I didn’t suggest that at all.

What I did suggest was that keeping speed limits high to provide a steady stream of good quality body parts is immoral. Enforcing a national lottery for sacrificial body parts would be fairer and equally repugnant.

I can’t believe we are discussing this!

The Law of Unintended Consequences.

The Consequences of any Action can be a Benefit to some or an Unintended Consequence to Others.

The fact that you do not believe it should be discussed illustrates your belief that one section of humanity should be treated differently to another.

Unintended consequences - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[2into1]

In sociological/political discourse the term "equity" is usually taken to mean measures that aim to redress inequalities of opportunity. It's certainly not about trying to engineer equal outcomes

Oh and don't those who believe in equal outcomes (rather than opportunities) love that they can disguise their Marxist ideology under such confusion......and you seem to be a good example...

I'm assuming like every decent citizen you support equal opportunity, but rather than be specific at where your compassion stops, you use an umbrella term (equity) that shelters those trying to go much further, and engineer equal outcomes. They are 'OK' if that is acheived by trimming the winners rather than raising up the losers. It also includes those who (because of their resentment) would 'PREFER' it's done that way, as they believe every advantage a winner enjoys has been stolen from the losers and seek that redress.

Having acheived this slight of hand, why would they say what they actually want to see happen (and fail democratically) when they can shelter under the fluffy umbrella of confusion and win?

Once my eyes were opened to the distinction between the two beliefs under the same definition, I can't unsee it, and observe the deceit everywhere.

It's why I suspect Kahn's motives. I suspect he is trying the same fluffy tactic to level car ownership under the well meaning banner of road safety or lung health.

@Amarillo. I've already addressed the point about elites not being impacted or actually benefiting from the changes. It's not by design that that happens. He'd hit them the hardest if he could (if my reading of his motivation is accurate), but he can't. So he creeps slowly, under the umbrella of confusion, after those in the wealthy middle that he can get. Baring overthrows of Government, history shows it is the only way.
The elites often have the power as well as the money, so this approach has the benefit of not stirring them into using that power to oppose his plans.

 

[Anthony1]

Much of Edinburgh city is now 20mph. It takes a while getting used to initially (coming from blanket 30mph), but I now often feel that 30mph would seem too fast in an inner city setting. Prior to the reduced limits I never thought twice about 30mph being fast. I’m now very much in favour of the 20mph in the inner city setting.

I also can’t say I notice much of a difference in journey times as a result, despite Edinburgh generally not suffering from traffic congestion.

Is 20 mph achievable in top gear?

 

[ArunAlec]

Well try (for an outlandish conspiracy theory) that he's a believer in equity (equal outcomes for EVERYONE) rather than equality of opportunity (every deserves the same chance but we shouldn't try to control winners and lossers, except for the provision of a safety net for those who end up at bottom). That former view would give him a ideology that shares much with Marxism.

One of the characteristics of those he sees as 'losers' might be generalised as being poor and not able to afford the freedom granted by the ownership of their own car (enjoyed by those he sees as 'winners').
So a policy (set of policies) that makes car ownership unaffordable for most (he'd prefer 'everyone' but will never achieve it) would level up the outcomes in that everyone (except those he really can't reach) would be on the bus.

Making car journeys so slow would achieve the same goal.

So it's a fair question to consider if his ulez schemes are truly motivated by saving lives or leveling outcomes. Dito the speed limit introductions and the removal of car lanes to make cycle lanes.

Everyone is free to draw their own conclusions but the questions must be allowed to be raised.

I understand I know little about London but we have our own muppet in Manchester with Burnham, following in Kahn's shoes.

The discussion could be expanded more widely into the net zero goals.

If I'm wrong and he's just acting democratically doing what his constituents have asked him to do, then he'll have no problem asking (just) those in the expanded ulez area to vote on it. He obviously is resisting this, so is acting in an authoritarian, not democratic way.

I read Khan as a man fueled more by resentment than compassion, hence my initial scepticism which started this debate.

Whoops!
Manchester mayor Andy Burnham to pay almost £2k speeding fine https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-65075890

 

[Velma's Dad]

Oh and don't those who believe in equal outcomes (rather than opportunities) love that they can disguise their Marxist ideology under such confusion......and you seem to be a good example...

That is dead weird. That you assume that if I might support some policies that aim at levelling up of opportunity (in this case by aiming to reduce the harm to which the most vulnerable people are disproportionately exposed) I must therefore be some kind of closet Marxist.

That sounds just as odd as maybe saying that someone who espouses right-of-centre views must necessarily be a crypto-fascist.

Progressive attempts at levelling of opportunity have been completely mainstream in British governments, of both parties, since the war. Are free school meals for less well-off children a Marxist policy? Or was the banning of leaded petrol born out of a hatred of motorists?

In any case, here we're talking here about a relatively small change in speed limits, as a public safety measure. I suppose you can see that as some kind of left wing conspiracy if you want.

 

[2into1]

That is dead weird. That you assume that if I might support some policies that aim at levelling up of opportunity (in this case by aiming to reduce the harm to which the most vulnerable people are disproportionately exposed) I must therefore be some kind of closet Marxist.

That sounds just as odd as maybe saying that someone who espouses right-of-centre views must necessarily be a crypto-fascist.

Progressive attempts at levelling of opportunity have been completely mainstream in British governments, of both parties, since the war. Are free school meals for less well-off children a Marxist policy? Or was the banning of leaded petrol born out of a hatred of motorists?

In any case, here we're talking here about a relatively small change in speed limits, as a public safety measure. I suppose you can see that as some kind of left wing conspiracy if you want.

You've chosen to take offence at perhaps a badly worded paragraph that is explained fully in the next paragraph.
If you read both paragraphs, you'll see I have you earmarked at one of the confused (about Equity), not one of the Marxists. If you still think I consider you a Marxist, I apologise for the confusion.