Speed Limit in Greenwich Park to be cut to 20mph

After intense lobbying by me and others, following the killing of
cyclist Leonard Woods on 26th June 2008 by a motorist driving on the
wrong side of the road in Greenwich Park, the speed limit for rush
hour through traffic in Greenwich Park is to be limited to 20mph
(subject to parliamentary approval). Through motor traffic outside of
the rush hour is already banned.

I had, in fact, been lobbying for a 12mph speed limit in the park and
a total ban on through motor traffic. However, a 20mph limit is a
wecome step in the right direction.

Another change I had been lobbying for is for the regulation that
allows children under ten to cycle anywhere in the park to include
accompanying adults. I shall have to wait to see if that is amoung the
raft of regulation changes due to be approved by parliament this
spring.

On Tue, 19 Jan 2010 22:11:30 +0000, Tom Crispin
wrote:

following the killing of
cyclist Leonard Woods on 26th June 2008 by a motorist driving on the
wrong side of the road in Greenwich Park, the speed limit for rush
hour through traffic in Greenwich Park is to be limited to 20mph

The solution for someone driving on the wrong side of the road is to
impose a 20MPH speed limit on those on the right side?

Is this an example of policy based evidence?

I suspect most drivers would be really pleased in the rush hour to
actually get _up_ to 20MPH. Will this new limit be a new target for
them?

On 19/01/2010 22:11, Tom Crispin wrote:
After intense lobbying by me and others, following the killing of
cyclist Leonard Woods on 26th June 2008 by a motorist driving on the
wrong side of the road in Greenwich Park, the speed limit for rush
hour through traffic in Greenwich Park is to be limited to 20mph
(subject to parliamentary approval). Through motor traffic outside of
the rush hour is already banned.

A reduced speed limit? To stop traffic driving on the wrong side of the
road? Why was it on the wrong side?

I had, in fact, been lobbying for a 12mph speed limit in the park and
a total ban on through motor traffic. However, a 20mph limit is a
wecome step in the right direction.

Do you know what the typical travel speed there is at the moment? Is it
actually above 20 mph? If it is below, then the chances are that with a
20 mph limit the speed will increase. If it is above, then the new
limit will probably make little or no difference to traffic speeds. The
speed that drivers drive at is dictated not by artificial and arbitrary
limits, but by what the road and the prevailing environment and
conditions are "telling" the driver - unless the limit is higher than
the normal driving speed.

Another change I had been lobbying for is for the regulation that
allows children under ten to cycle anywhere in the park to include
accompanying adults. I shall have to wait to see if that is amoung the
raft of regulation changes due to be approved by parliament this
spring.

What do you think the consequences of abolishing /all/ the regulations
would be?

--
Matt B

Matt B wrote:
On 19/01/2010 22:11, Tom Crispin wrote:
After intense lobbying by me and others, following the killing of
cyclist Leonard Woods on 26th June 2008 by a motorist driving on the
wrong side of the road in Greenwich Park, the speed limit for rush
hour through traffic in Greenwich Park is to be limited to 20mph
(subject to parliamentary approval). Through motor traffic outside of
the rush hour is already banned.

A reduced speed limit? To stop traffic driving on the wrong side of the
road? Why was it on the wrong side?

I had, in fact, been lobbying for a 12mph speed limit in the park and
a total ban on through motor traffic. However, a 20mph limit is a
wecome step in the right direction.

Do you know what the typical travel speed there is at the moment? Is it
actually above 20 mph?

Probably not on average, certainly not if you include the time waiting in a
queue to get out through the gate(s).

Tom Crispin wrote:
After intense lobbying by me and others,

SNIP

I had, in fact, been lobbying for a 12mph speed limit in the park and
a total ban on through motor traffic.

SNIP

Another change I had been lobbying for

SNIP

This really is the crux of the problem isn't it? Cyclists have become a
pressure group, knowing that if they whinge enough, make enough noise and
lobby hard enough they can get their own way regardless of the rights &
wrongs of the situation.

Politicians are so weak and so desperate for votes they will bow to any
pressure group, again regardless of the rights & wrongs or even the facts.
Especially if its 'trendy' like cycling and has a spurious link to being
green. Double whammy for the sleazy politician.

The reality is that the average motorist is a normal bloke simply trying to
use an efficient form of transport. He is the modern 'man on the Clapham
omnibus' and just wants to get on with life without making a fuss.

If cyclists want to impose their childish 'it's not fair' views, they should
accept the fact that they need to pay to use the roads and that they should
be subject to the same regulations as motorists.



--
Dave - The Tax Paying Motorist

On Tue, 19 Jan 2010 22:23:21 +0000, Peter Parry
wrote:

On Tue, 19 Jan 2010 22:11:30 +0000, Tom Crispin
wrote:

following the killing of
cyclist Leonard Woods on 26th June 2008 by a motorist driving on the
wrong side of the road in Greenwich Park, the speed limit for rush
hour through traffic in Greenwich Park is to be limited to 20mph

The solution for someone driving on the wrong side of the road is to
impose a 20MPH speed limit on those on the right side?

No. I am unclear of the full raft of regulation changes. Greenwich
Cyclists have asked for the downhill footway cycle lane to be removed,
and the footway uphill to be made shared use for uphill cyclists only.

The 12 mph limit request and the closure of the road to through motor
traffic was to make the park more pleasant for recreational users.

Is this an example of policy based evidence?

No.

I suspect most drivers would be really pleased in the rush hour to
actually get _up_ to 20MPH. Will this new limit be a new target for
them?

When it is open, motorists roar up and down this hill.
http://www.britishschoolofcycling.co...os/lesson4.jpg

They are then brought to a standstill when they reach the traffic
queue to leave the park, so a 12 mph limit would not delay their
journey through the park.

The Medway Handyman wrote:
Tom Crispin wrote:
After intense lobbying by me and others,

SNIP

I had, in fact, been lobbying for a 12mph speed limit in the park and
a total ban on through motor traffic.

SNIP
Another change I had been lobbying for

SNIP

This really is the crux of the problem isn't it?

What problem? It's democracy in action. If you want a say in the
political process it's not difficult to get involved.

snip

--
www.slowbicyclemovement.org - enjoy the ride

On 19 Jan, 22:11, Tom Crispin
wrote:
After intense lobbying by me and others, following the killing of
cyclist Leonard Woods on 26th June 2008 by a motorist driving on the
wrong side of the road in Greenwich Park, the speed limit for rush
hour through traffic in Greenwich Park is to be limited to 20mph
(subject to parliamentary approval). *Through motor traffic outside of
the rush hour is already banned.

Yeah but they can drive in at speed and park.

I had, in fact, been lobbying for a 12mph speed limit in the park and
a total ban on through motor traffic. *However, a 20mph limit is a
wecome step in the right direction.

But still too fast and most likely unenforced. I wonder is it possible
to impose speed limits slower than 20mph by law?

I doubt that traffic would be banned totally because the poor dears
that use cars couldn't possibly walk the distance and where would they
put their cars outside the park anyway?

Another change I had been lobbying for is for the regulation that
allows children under ten to cycle anywhere in the park to include
accompanying adults. I shall have to wait to see if that is amoung the
raft of regulation changes due to be approved by parliament this
spring.

Congrats on your efforts. Who knows you may have saved a life or two.

--
UK Radical Campaigns
www.zing.icom43.net
A driving licence is a licence to kill.

On Wed, 20 Jan 2010 00:56:39 GMT someone who may be "The Medway
Handyman" wrote this:-

This really is the crux of the problem isn't it?

You call it a problem. Like others, I call it democracy.

Cyclists have become a pressure group,

(Some) cyclists have always taken part in democracy, nothing wrong
with that. For example, it was cyclists who campaigned for better
road surfaces.

Politicians are so weak and so desperate for votes they will bow to any
pressure group,

I see.

Friends of the Earth are certainly a pressure group. We can read
what they wanted at Copenhagen in a blog
http://www.foei.org/en/blog

Did politicians bow down to them? No, they threw FoE out of the
conference a day early for the "crime" of putting pressure on the
politicians. This despite over 5,000 people taking part in the FoE
Flood in the morning (I am in one of the photos near the bottom of
the blog page) and 100,000 people taking part in the NGO march in
the afternoon.

It is a pity you are completely wrong, but you are.



--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000...#pt3-pb3-l1g54

On 19/01/2010 22:23, Peter Parry wrote:
On Tue, 19 Jan 2010 22:11:30 +0000, Tom Crispin
wrote:

following the killing of
cyclist Leonard Woods on 26th June 2008 by a motorist driving on the
wrong side of the road in Greenwich Park, the speed limit for rush
hour through traffic in Greenwich Park is to be limited to 20mph

The solution for someone driving on the wrong side of the road is to
impose a 20MPH speed limit on those on the right side?

Agreed, it's totally daft. The way forward is to remove bad drivers from
the road by:
1) a much harder initial driving test
2) tough, regular re-testing
3)those that do offend to be permanently banned

Happi