"Blackfriars cyclist safety debate 'evaded by Tories'"

"Conservative Assembly members have been criticised for walking out of
the chamber prior to a discussion about cycle safety on Blackfriars
Bridge.

A motion was due to be held in the Greater London Assembly urging
Mayor Boris Johnson to reconsider plans to scrap a 20mph speed limit.

The motion was tabled after a temporary speed limit that was put in
place while roadworks were carried out was removed.

Tory London Assembly member Andrew Boff said the issues were not being
evaded.

Mr Boff said the walkout had nothing to do with the issue of
Blackfriars Bridge or air pollution.

"This is part of ongoing action that the group is taking in response
to the Labour, Lib Dem and Green party groups voting en-block to
prevent Conservatives from taking up the proportional number of
committee chairmanships, thus depriving the 40% of Londoners who voted
for us a voice.

"This action will continue and will not be announced in advance."..."

Mo
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-13703431

Doug.

On Jun 9, 6:01*am, Doug wrote:
"Conservative Assembly members have been criticised for walking out of
the chamber prior to a discussion about cycle safety on Blackfriars
Bridge.

A motion was due to be held in the Greater London Assembly urging
Mayor Boris Johnson to reconsider plans to scrap a 20mph speed limit.

The motion was tabled after a temporary speed limit that was put in
place while roadworks were carried out was removed.

Where's the evidence that the 20mph limit made things any safer for
cyclists? Actually, never mind about that, since the real reason for
wanting to keep the 20mph limit is to inconvenience drivers, and
"cyclist safety" is once again shamelessly, and shamefully, being used
as an excuse.

Every time car-hating bigots do this kind of thing, they "dilute" and
damage real and worthy cyclist safety campaigns such as the HGV left
hook one. When oh when will the penny finally drop? The (very
worthy) campaign to genuinely improve cyclist safety needs to be run
completely separately to the (entirely worthless) campaign to bully
people out of their cars, instead of the former so often being abused
in order to prop up the latter (which of course needs a *lot* of
propping up).

Tory London Assembly member Andrew Boff said the issues were not being
evaded.

Mr Boff said the walkout had nothing to do with the issue of
Blackfriars Bridge or air pollution.

"This is part of ongoing action that the group is taking in response
to the Labour, Lib Dem and Green party groups voting en-block to
prevent Conservatives from taking up the proportional number of
committee chairmanships, thus depriving the 40% of Londoners who voted
for us a voice.

Sounds reasonable to me. Once Labour and "Green" start doing the
decent thing, voting properly and not abusing process, the Tories will
talk to them again (although what "debate" there needs to be about
removing a *temporary* roadworks speed limit is beyond me...the car-
haters are getting more and more shrill and irrational, and will
pretend that *any* lowering of a speed limit automatically improves
safety, despite all the research showing otherwise).

Of course there's very little chance of Labour or "Green" being
anything but self-servingly dishonest; they have been up to the same
sorts of tricks in Reading, which (thanks to some more abuse of
process) now has to put up with a Labour administration again after a
year of progress under the Tories and Lib Dems (who, shock horror,
wanted to remove traffic lights where safe...can't have that...much
better to change perfectly good roundabouts into traffic lights like
Labour did...that'll learn the scumbag car drivers to come into
Reading and boost the local economy...).

On Thu, 9 Jun 2011 10:12:19 -0700 (PDT), Nuxx Bar
wrote:

On Jun 9, 6:01*am, Doug wrote:
"Conservative Assembly members have been criticised for walking out of
the chamber prior to a discussion about cycle safety on Blackfriars
Bridge.

A motion was due to be held in the Greater London Assembly urging
Mayor Boris Johnson to reconsider plans to scrap a 20mph speed limit.

The motion was tabled after a temporary speed limit that was put in
place while roadworks were carried out was removed.

Where's the evidence that the 20mph limit made things any safer for
cyclists? Actually, never mind about that, since the real reason for
wanting to keep the 20mph limit is to inconvenience drivers, and
"cyclist safety" is once again shamelessly, and shamefully, being used
as an excuse.

The average peak hour speed of motor traffic in Central London is 10
mph. The 20 mph limit over Blackfriars Bridge and Tower Bridge
INCREASES traffic flow by allowing more vehicles to use the congested
road space. Increasing the speed limit to 30 mph will reduce traffic
flow and at the same time will make any motor vehicle / cyclist direct
interface more dangerous.

The only benefit of increasing the limit will be to vehicles using the
bridge at slack times who will be able to legally traverse the 1000 ft
span in 22.8 seconds instead of the current legal time of 34.2
seconds.

Every time car-hating bigots do this kind of thing, they "dilute" and
damage real and worthy cyclist safety campaigns such as the HGV left
hook one. When oh when will the penny finally drop? The (very
worthy) campaign to genuinely improve cyclist safety needs to be run
completely separately to the (entirely worthless) campaign to bully
people out of their cars, instead of the former so often being abused
in order to prop up the latter (which of course needs a *lot* of
propping up).

Tory London Assembly member Andrew Boff said the issues were not being
evaded.

Mr Boff said the walkout had nothing to do with the issue of
Blackfriars Bridge or air pollution.

"This is part of ongoing action that the group is taking in response
to the Labour, Lib Dem and Green party groups voting en-block to
prevent Conservatives from taking up the proportional number of
committee chairmanships, thus depriving the 40% of Londoners who voted
for us a voice.

Sounds reasonable to me. Once Labour and "Green" start doing the
decent thing, voting properly and not abusing process, the Tories will
talk to them again (although what "debate" there needs to be about
removing a *temporary* roadworks speed limit is beyond me...the car-
haters are getting more and more shrill and irrational, and will
pretend that *any* lowering of a speed limit automatically improves
safety, despite all the research showing otherwise).

Of course there's very little chance of Labour or "Green" being
anything but self-servingly dishonest; they have been up to the same
sorts of tricks in Reading, which (thanks to some more abuse of
process) now has to put up with a Labour administration again after a
year of progress under the Tories and Lib Dems (who, shock horror,
wanted to remove traffic lights where safe...can't have that...much
better to change perfectly good roundabouts into traffic lights like
Labour did...that'll learn the scumbag car drivers to come into
Reading and boost the local economy...).

Politicians of all colours are perfectly capable of despicable acts.
--
And every night in my tiny spare bedroom
my bright red bike sleeps dreaming of tomorrow and me.
Drifting round London together. Smiling.

On 09/06/2011 19:33, Tom Crispin wrote:

Nuxx Bar wrote:
wrote:

"Conservative Assembly members have been criticised for walking out of
the chamber prior to a discussion about cycle safety on Blackfriars
Bridge.
A motion was due to be held in the Greater London Assembly urging
Mayor Boris Johnson to reconsider plans to scrap a 20mph speed limit.
The motion was tabled after a temporary speed limit that was put in
place while roadworks were carried out was removed.

Where's the evidence that the 20mph limit made things any safer for
cyclists? Actually, never mind about that, since the real reason for
wanting to keep the 20mph limit is to inconvenience drivers, and
"cyclist safety" is once again shamelessly, and shamefully, being used
as an excuse.

The average peak hour speed of motor traffic in Central London is 10
mph.

That includes time stopped (at things like, you know, red traffic lights -
not that they bother you). The aveage speed on the move is higher.

The 20 mph limit over Blackfriars Bridge and Tower Bridge
INCREASES traffic flow by allowing more vehicles to use the congested
road space.

It's so good of you to be so well-disposed towards the drivers who would be
at risk of losing their licences for doing the outrageous speed of 24mph.

Increasing the speed limit to 30 mph will reduce traffic
flow and at the same time will make any motor vehicle / cyclist direct
interface more dangerous.

If traffic flow is a problem, that'll be because the ends of the bridge, just
as at so many other C. London junctions, are deliberately constricted by
maliciously-controlled traffic lights whose phasing is calculated to cause
delay and congestion.

The only benefit of increasing the limit will be to vehicles using the
bridge at slack times who will be able to legally traverse the 1000 ft
span in 22.8 seconds instead of the current legal time of 34.2
seconds.

Since one could make the same pointless claim about *any* one-thousand-feet
stretch of road currently subject to 30mph, you don't have a... er... point.

If the limit was imposed temporarily because of roadworks, there is no reason
not to remove it when they are finished.

I am reminded of the the residents of the area around the south end of
Hammersmith Bridge, who, when the bridge was about to be re-opened after a
lengthy repairs closure, tried to seriously suggest that it shoud stay closed
because their lives had been made more peaceful.

On Jun 9, 6:12*pm, Nuxx Bar wrote:
*Actually, never mind about that, since the real reason for
wanting to keep the 20mph limit is to inconvenience drivers, and
"cyclist safety" is once again shamelessly, and shamefully, being used
as an excuse.

No - it's to protect whole neighbourhoods from the scourge of speeding
drivers and is stunningly effective.

"Typically within Hull, 20 mph zones have achieved reductions[106] in
injury accidents of:

— Total accidents -56 per cent

— Killed & seriously injured accidents -90 per cent

— Accidents involving child casualties -64 per cent

— All pedestrian accidents -54 per cent

— Child pedestrian accidents -74 per cent.

It is estimated that at the end of 1999, 390 injury accidents had
been prevented within the 20 mph zones which had been previously
installed. 122 of these would have involved injuries to children. The
reason for these reductions is simply because of the reductions in
average vehicle speeds which 20 mph zones enforce through their
engineering measures. For example, road hump schemes typically see
reductions in speed from the high 20's to around 17 mph."

http://www.publications.parliament.u...57/557ap80.htm

--
Simon Mason

On Thu, 09 Jun 2011 19:46:12 +0100, JNugent
wrote:

On 09/06/2011 19:33, Tom Crispin wrote:

Nuxx Bar wrote:
wrote:

"Conservative Assembly members have been criticised for walking out of
the chamber prior to a discussion about cycle safety on Blackfriars
Bridge.
A motion was due to be held in the Greater London Assembly urging
Mayor Boris Johnson to reconsider plans to scrap a 20mph speed limit.
The motion was tabled after a temporary speed limit that was put in
place while roadworks were carried out was removed.

Where's the evidence that the 20mph limit made things any safer for
cyclists? Actually, never mind about that, since the real reason for
wanting to keep the 20mph limit is to inconvenience drivers, and
"cyclist safety" is once again shamelessly, and shamefully, being used
as an excuse.

The average peak hour speed of motor traffic in Central London is 10
mph.

That includes time stopped (at things like, you know, red traffic lights -
not that they bother you). The aveage speed on the move is higher.

The 20 mph limit over Blackfriars Bridge and Tower Bridge
INCREASES traffic flow by allowing more vehicles to use the congested
road space.

It's so good of you to be so well-disposed towards the drivers who would be
at risk of losing their licences for doing the outrageous speed of 24mph.

There is, perhaps, a case for points to be awarded on a drivers
licence on a sliding scale.

Increasing the speed limit to 30 mph will reduce traffic
flow and at the same time will make any motor vehicle / cyclist direct
interface more dangerous.

If traffic flow is a problem, that'll be because the ends of the bridge, just
as at so many other C. London junctions, are deliberately constricted by
maliciously-controlled traffic lights whose phasing is calculated to cause
delay and congestion.

London's Bridges pose a particular problem for cyclists with a high
percentage of motorists turning either left or right at either end.
Take a streetview tour across Blackfriars Bridge, and think about the
positioning of cyclists and motorists at either end.

Before the redesign of Blacfriars Bridge and the speed limit
permanently reduced to 20 mph, there were two cyclist deaths at the
junctions at either end.
http://ralphsmyth.me.uk/citycyclists/blackfriars.html
(The photos in the link above were taken before the bridge's junctions
were redesigned.)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2004/ma...ransport.world
http://www.gulf-times.com/site/topic...8&parent_id=20
http://www.london-se1.co.uk/news/view/1549


The only benefit of increasing the limit will be to vehicles using the
bridge at slack times who will be able to legally traverse the 1000 ft
span in 22.8 seconds instead of the current legal time of 34.2
seconds.

Since one could make the same pointless claim about *any* one-thousand-feet
stretch of road currently subject to 30mph, you don't have a... er... point.

The eight road bridges of central London are not any 1,000 ft stretch
of road.

If the limit was imposed temporarily because of roadworks, there is no reason
not to remove it when they are finished.

The limit has been in place since the redesign of the north junction
in 2006 or 2007 (I can't recall which year.)

I am reminded of the the residents of the area around the south end of
Hammersmith Bridge, who, when the bridge was about to be re-opened after a
lengthy repairs closure, tried to seriously suggest that it shoud stay closed
because their lives had been made more peaceful.

The residents of the Hexagon Estate in Greenwich sucessfully argued
that point over the closure of a cycle route between the Old Dover
Road and Charlton Road.
--
And every night in my tiny spare bedroom
my bright red bike sleeps dreaming of tomorrow and me.
Drifting round London together. Smiling.

On 09/06/2011 21:13, Simon Mason wrote:
On Jun 9, 6:12 pm, Nuxx wrote:
Actually, never mind about that, since the real reason for
wanting to keep the 20mph limit is to inconvenience drivers, and
"cyclist safety" is once again shamelessly, and shamefully, being used
as an excuse.

No - it's to protect whole neighbourhoods from the scourge of speeding
drivers and is stunningly effective.

And you still get ****wit cyclists recklessly doing 25 mph past schools
because "the limit doesn't apply to me".



--
Dave - The Medway Handyman www.medwayhandyman.co.uk

On Jun 9, 9:43*pm, The Medway Handyman
wrote:
On 09/06/2011 21:13, Simon Mason wrote:

On Jun 9, 6:12 pm, Nuxx *wrote:
* *Actually, never mind about that, since the real reason for
wanting to keep the 20mph limit is to inconvenience drivers, and
"cyclist safety" is once again shamelessly, and shamefully, being used
as an excuse.

No - it's to protect whole neighbourhoods from the scourge of speeding
drivers and is stunningly effective.

And you still get ****wit cyclists recklessly doing 25 mph past schools
because "the limit doesn't apply to me".

And still I get overtaken by drivers who *are* breaking the law in
these areas.

--
Simon Mason

On 09/06/2011 21:46, Simon Mason wrote:
On Jun 9, 9:43 pm, The Medway
wrote:
On 09/06/2011 21:13, Simon Mason wrote:

On Jun 9, 6:12 pm, Nuxx wrote:
Actually, never mind about that, since the real reason for
wanting to keep the 20mph limit is to inconvenience drivers, and
"cyclist safety" is once again shamelessly, and shamefully, being used
as an excuse.

No - it's to protect whole neighbourhoods from the scourge of speeding
drivers and is stunningly effective.

And you still get ****wit cyclists recklessly doing 25 mph past schools
because "the limit doesn't apply to me".

And still I get overtaken by drivers who *are* breaking the law in
these areas.

Two wrongs don't make a right. Apart from which a modern car with ABS
etc could stop in a much shorter distance than your silly Victorian
diversion.

So you present a much higher threat to children.

Must be an absorbing & riveting holiday.

--
Dave - Cyclists VOR. "Many people barely recognise the bicycle as a
legitimate mode of transport; it is either a toy for children or a
vehicle fit only for the poor and/or strange," Dave Horton - Lancaster
University

On 09/06/2011 06:01, Doug wrote:
"Conservative Assembly members have been criticised for walking out of
the chamber prior to a discussion about cycle safety on Blackfriars
Bridge.

A motion was due to be held in the Greater London Assembly urging
Mayor Boris Johnson to reconsider plans to scrap a 20mph speed limit.

Since cyclists are a minority group who pay bugger all to use the roads
- who gives a ****?

--
Dave - Cyclists VOR. "Many people barely recognise the bicycle as a
legitimate mode of transport; it is either a toy for children or a
vehicle fit only for the poor and/or strange," Dave Horton - Lancaster
University