20's plenty for Us were presenting at the "Stop Speeding Summit" in new York last week. The groundbreaking conference hosted by Transportation Alternatives brought together Transport, Road Safety, Health and Enforcement professionals and Rod King started the conference with a review of the success of the 20's Plenty for Us campaign in the UK.
Other meetings were arranged with New York politicians, activists and officials. In the following video you can see Senator Eric Adams in a walk around the Park Slope area of Brooklyn talking to Rod King and other local activists :-
A Walk thru Park Slope with NY State Senator Eric Adams from Streetfilms on Vimeo.
Saturday, 27 November 2010
Sunday, 17 October 2010
Presentation to Transport Planners Society
Last week I was asked to present in a debate on 20mph speed limits in Manchester. Here is a copy of what I said :-
For many years Britain has led the world in terms of lowest deaths per head of population on our roads. But that has led us into a state of complacency. It is true that we have been gradually engineering our roads to be safer. But for whom. Whilst in the Netherlands 10% of road deaths are pedestrians, in the UK it is 22.5% .
Our levels of active travel in the UK are some of the worst in Europe. And in a recent survey by Road Safety Analysis of UK child road casualties it found that for the worst 10 local authorities, 1 in 15 children would be injured or killed on our roads before the age of 16. And 9 of those 10 local authorities were in the North West.
So we may have gradually engineered away many of our black spots, and have better trauma care, and better in-car safety, but for our vulnerable road users we are, collectively failing to meet their needs for free and safe passage on our roads.
We use the term “Total 20” for the setting of 20mph as the default for all residential roads in a local authority. This allows the local traffic engineers to determine the exception as appropriate for local conditions. It does so without putting in additional speed bumps and only “light touch” enforcement. “Total 20” stands on its own merits in terms of cost effectively reducing speeds and casualties.
In Portsmouth we know that on faster roads, where casualties are most common and severe, there has been a 6mph reduction in speeds and a 22% overall town-wide reduction in casualties.
In Warrington the recent 20mph pilots resulted in a 800% First Year Rate of Return when the costs and achieved casualty reductions were analysed.
• We know that 30mph streets will never provide the basis for encouraging active travel.
• We know that children are far more at casualty risk around their homes than around their schools.
• We know that a 30mph limit set in 1934 as better than nothing is now inappropriate for so many of our streets.
• We know that a large percentage of all casualties are unclustered and cannot be addressed by data led interventions.
• We know that whilst speed may only be the cause of some collisions it is implicated in the inability to take avoiding action in the majority of incidents.
• And we know that in European cities the 30kph limit is the foundation of their cycling and walking strategies.
We need a fundamental change,…. A paradigm shift in the way we approach danger on the roads.
Total 20 provides the catalyst for that change. Its starts with the community aspiration for lower speeds where people live. And that aspiration means that compliance is not some driver reaction to a speed limit sign but a conscious lifestyle decision that we should all take steps to make our streets better places for us all. 20 becomes plenty when we see the presence of people for Speed becomes Greed when it dissuades others from walking or cycling due to fear of traffic.
It asks us to recognise that our journey times are hardly affected by our maximum speed but largely determined by the time we are stopped or in congestion.
And it is because that authority-wide decision requires the democratic and political processes for it to be implemented that it forces the community debate and creates that paradigm shift. And this is where the approach radically differs from most “Data led” road safety interventions.
You see there is no constraint in “Total 20” that anyone can rely upon. No guarantees to give councillors. It is “social engineering” rather than “highway engineering”.
It requires a move away from the drawing board and the statistical analysis of past collisions and asks how can we best act as a catalyst for behaviour change. How can we take that universal aspiration for a better place to live and transform that into our society examining its actions and making that “lifestyle decision” to slow down?
How can we transform the aspiration of children to cycle or walk to school and transfer that into their parents recognising that their driving may be part of the problem?
And we need to have faith in the people. And most of all we need to engage with those people. And that is the key to the success of Total 20. The more you do to reach out and engage and debate and discuss and inform and consult and listen, then the greater will be the success.
You see “Total 20” is an initiative that is community led but establishment endorsed. It needs that community leadership. And we know that 75% of those asked, including 72% of drivers believe that 20mph is the right speed limit for residential roads.
There are some key aspects to the “Total 20” approach :-
1) It delivers the benefit of lower speeds on most driver’s home streets. Hence giving them ownership of that benefit.
2) It is consistent with the message that wherever you mix motor vehicles with people then the people must come first.
3) It takes away the current isolated 20mph patches which merely re-inforce higher speeds on the rest of the network.
I have been campaigning for lower speeds on our urban and residential roads since I travelled to Warrington’s twin town in 2004 and observed that their 23% of in town trips being made by bicycle. This was not built on cycle facilities or off road routes, but on a 30kph (18.5 mph) speed limit for residential roads across the whole town in the early 90s.
Since then I have noticed is a huge shift towards the acceptance of lower speeds as a requirement for improving not only road safety, but the quality of life in our communities. So many organisations from Association of Directors of Public Health, to the National Audit Office and now the Dept for Transport say that 20mph limits are needed for residential roads. 20’s plenty for Us now has 60 local campaigns around the country and our feedback from those communities is that more and more politicians and council officers and police are looking to “Total 20” as a modern, cost effective initiative as a response to community aspirations.
But it is simply not enough to just “ask” people to slow down. It needs the establishment endorsement that comes with a mandatory speed limit being set.
We need to leave behind our “baggage” of what didn’t work in the 1980s and realise that our communities have changed.
We need to think way outside the traditional road safety box. We need to recognise that active travel and its consequent health benefits, better road utilisation, a less car dependent culture, lower noise and lower pollution are all valuable deliveries alongside lower casualties.
These cannot and will not be achieved by mere tinkering with a few isolated speed reduction techniques. The obsession with physical constraints creates that isolation. It creates the view that we can drive at 30 mph on most residential roads but only need to slow down occasionally. Indeed it even promotes faster speeds by large 30mph signs at the end of every isolated 20mph zone.
20mph zones with physical calming are 50 times more expensive per km than Total 20 schemes with their authority-wide economies of scale and communities with a collective commitment to safer roads. Or to put it another way “Total 20” allows 50 times the coverage than isolated zones for the same cost.
And I know that some will talk of the need to “manage community expectations”. Otherwise everyone will want lower speeds on their streets. I say harness those expectations, ride the tiger and use it to deliver a better and fairer sharing of the roads.
I know that some of you will be sceptics. Some will say people won’t change. But in towns across the country communities are asking for that change and politicians and officers are delivering it. Portsmouth is proving that slower roads stay slow and faster roads get slower.
The time has come to give all our citizens a “quality street”. Its time to humanise the space between houses which we call streets and give it back to the people who live in those houses.
20 is already Plenty for the citizens of Portsmouth, and Oxford, and Islington, and Newcastle, and Wirral, and Leicester, and Hilden, and Copenhagen, and Brussels, and Amsterdam, and Rotterdam and Ghent and Graz, and so many more. I trust that you also think that its time that we started to make 20 Plenty for our Northwest towns and villages as well.
At 20’s Plenty for Us we would be pleased to help you. Please contact us.
Thank You
For many years Britain has led the world in terms of lowest deaths per head of population on our roads. But that has led us into a state of complacency. It is true that we have been gradually engineering our roads to be safer. But for whom. Whilst in the Netherlands 10% of road deaths are pedestrians, in the UK it is 22.5% .
Our levels of active travel in the UK are some of the worst in Europe. And in a recent survey by Road Safety Analysis of UK child road casualties it found that for the worst 10 local authorities, 1 in 15 children would be injured or killed on our roads before the age of 16. And 9 of those 10 local authorities were in the North West.
So we may have gradually engineered away many of our black spots, and have better trauma care, and better in-car safety, but for our vulnerable road users we are, collectively failing to meet their needs for free and safe passage on our roads.
We use the term “Total 20” for the setting of 20mph as the default for all residential roads in a local authority. This allows the local traffic engineers to determine the exception as appropriate for local conditions. It does so without putting in additional speed bumps and only “light touch” enforcement. “Total 20” stands on its own merits in terms of cost effectively reducing speeds and casualties.
In Portsmouth we know that on faster roads, where casualties are most common and severe, there has been a 6mph reduction in speeds and a 22% overall town-wide reduction in casualties.
In Warrington the recent 20mph pilots resulted in a 800% First Year Rate of Return when the costs and achieved casualty reductions were analysed.
• We know that 30mph streets will never provide the basis for encouraging active travel.
• We know that children are far more at casualty risk around their homes than around their schools.
• We know that a 30mph limit set in 1934 as better than nothing is now inappropriate for so many of our streets.
• We know that a large percentage of all casualties are unclustered and cannot be addressed by data led interventions.
• We know that whilst speed may only be the cause of some collisions it is implicated in the inability to take avoiding action in the majority of incidents.
• And we know that in European cities the 30kph limit is the foundation of their cycling and walking strategies.
We need a fundamental change,…. A paradigm shift in the way we approach danger on the roads.
Total 20 provides the catalyst for that change. Its starts with the community aspiration for lower speeds where people live. And that aspiration means that compliance is not some driver reaction to a speed limit sign but a conscious lifestyle decision that we should all take steps to make our streets better places for us all. 20 becomes plenty when we see the presence of people for Speed becomes Greed when it dissuades others from walking or cycling due to fear of traffic.
It asks us to recognise that our journey times are hardly affected by our maximum speed but largely determined by the time we are stopped or in congestion.
And it is because that authority-wide decision requires the democratic and political processes for it to be implemented that it forces the community debate and creates that paradigm shift. And this is where the approach radically differs from most “Data led” road safety interventions.
You see there is no constraint in “Total 20” that anyone can rely upon. No guarantees to give councillors. It is “social engineering” rather than “highway engineering”.
It requires a move away from the drawing board and the statistical analysis of past collisions and asks how can we best act as a catalyst for behaviour change. How can we take that universal aspiration for a better place to live and transform that into our society examining its actions and making that “lifestyle decision” to slow down?
How can we transform the aspiration of children to cycle or walk to school and transfer that into their parents recognising that their driving may be part of the problem?
And we need to have faith in the people. And most of all we need to engage with those people. And that is the key to the success of Total 20. The more you do to reach out and engage and debate and discuss and inform and consult and listen, then the greater will be the success.
You see “Total 20” is an initiative that is community led but establishment endorsed. It needs that community leadership. And we know that 75% of those asked, including 72% of drivers believe that 20mph is the right speed limit for residential roads.
There are some key aspects to the “Total 20” approach :-
1) It delivers the benefit of lower speeds on most driver’s home streets. Hence giving them ownership of that benefit.
2) It is consistent with the message that wherever you mix motor vehicles with people then the people must come first.
3) It takes away the current isolated 20mph patches which merely re-inforce higher speeds on the rest of the network.
I have been campaigning for lower speeds on our urban and residential roads since I travelled to Warrington’s twin town in 2004 and observed that their 23% of in town trips being made by bicycle. This was not built on cycle facilities or off road routes, but on a 30kph (18.5 mph) speed limit for residential roads across the whole town in the early 90s.
Since then I have noticed is a huge shift towards the acceptance of lower speeds as a requirement for improving not only road safety, but the quality of life in our communities. So many organisations from Association of Directors of Public Health, to the National Audit Office and now the Dept for Transport say that 20mph limits are needed for residential roads. 20’s plenty for Us now has 60 local campaigns around the country and our feedback from those communities is that more and more politicians and council officers and police are looking to “Total 20” as a modern, cost effective initiative as a response to community aspirations.
But it is simply not enough to just “ask” people to slow down. It needs the establishment endorsement that comes with a mandatory speed limit being set.
We need to leave behind our “baggage” of what didn’t work in the 1980s and realise that our communities have changed.
We need to think way outside the traditional road safety box. We need to recognise that active travel and its consequent health benefits, better road utilisation, a less car dependent culture, lower noise and lower pollution are all valuable deliveries alongside lower casualties.
These cannot and will not be achieved by mere tinkering with a few isolated speed reduction techniques. The obsession with physical constraints creates that isolation. It creates the view that we can drive at 30 mph on most residential roads but only need to slow down occasionally. Indeed it even promotes faster speeds by large 30mph signs at the end of every isolated 20mph zone.
20mph zones with physical calming are 50 times more expensive per km than Total 20 schemes with their authority-wide economies of scale and communities with a collective commitment to safer roads. Or to put it another way “Total 20” allows 50 times the coverage than isolated zones for the same cost.
And I know that some will talk of the need to “manage community expectations”. Otherwise everyone will want lower speeds on their streets. I say harness those expectations, ride the tiger and use it to deliver a better and fairer sharing of the roads.
I know that some of you will be sceptics. Some will say people won’t change. But in towns across the country communities are asking for that change and politicians and officers are delivering it. Portsmouth is proving that slower roads stay slow and faster roads get slower.
The time has come to give all our citizens a “quality street”. Its time to humanise the space between houses which we call streets and give it back to the people who live in those houses.
20 is already Plenty for the citizens of Portsmouth, and Oxford, and Islington, and Newcastle, and Wirral, and Leicester, and Hilden, and Copenhagen, and Brussels, and Amsterdam, and Rotterdam and Ghent and Graz, and so many more. I trust that you also think that its time that we started to make 20 Plenty for our Northwest towns and villages as well.
At 20’s Plenty for Us we would be pleased to help you. Please contact us.
Thank You
Wednesday, 6 October 2010
Statement to Warrington Bourough Council
Warrington Borough Council recently asked me for a statement to go into their report on their recent 20mph pilots. It was as follows :-
Driving slower where people live is nothing new or radical. In fact it is already common in towns and communities all over Europe. Indeed, it was a trip to our twin town, Hilden, in 2004 which made me realise that so many of our attitudes to sharing the streets were unfair to the young, the old, the disabled, the disadvantaged and every one of us who wants their streets to be as much a place to live as to drive. From this came the formation of 20’s Plenty for Us as the national voluntary organisation supporting communities who want better streets through lower motor vehicle speeds.
In Hilden and other European towns the vast majority of in-town trips are made by walking, cycling or by bus. In Hilden an 18mph speed limit on residential roads was put in during the 90’s and became a foundation for active travel. Their children largely cycle or walk to school and drivers accept that a few seconds longer on a journey is no real inconvenience.
The only thing stopping us doing this in Warrington and other UK towns is our resistance to change. Whilst we disagree with the need for the pilots (there is ample evidence that 20mph limits do work), the recent 20mph pilots have shown not only that Warrington drivers will elect to travel slower, but also that residents will feel that their streets have become better places to live. The evidence from other towns which have adopted 20mph across the whole town is that this delivers even greater results. On slower roads it keeps the speeds low and on faster roads reduces it by 6mph or more.
That reduction makes a huge difference in reducing the danger on our roads. And Warrington really is in need of such a change. Every 12 hours in 2009 someone was injured on Warrington roads, every 4 days someone was seriously injured and every 60 days someone died. In Warrington 1 in 26 children will be killed or injured on the roads before their 16th birthday. For child road casualties we are in the worst 25% of towns in the country. This is not simply about reducing pedestrian and cycle casualties, but also motor vehicle occupants as well.
We all know that council budgets are tight, but the cost of road casualties in Warrington is put at £50m per annum. That’s £253 for every man, woman and child and 50% more than most towns of our size. The cost of implementing a 20mph limit throughout the town on all residential roads and excluding arterial roads is just £1m. Whilst it will not instantly reduce our casualties to zero it can become the foundation for making all of Warrington a better and safer place to be.
It will show that we can make the right judgements about what matters to a civilised and compassionate community. It is time for all of us to take a hard look at our collective sharing of roads and simply say that 20’s Plenty Where People Live. And that time is now.
Driving slower where people live is nothing new or radical. In fact it is already common in towns and communities all over Europe. Indeed, it was a trip to our twin town, Hilden, in 2004 which made me realise that so many of our attitudes to sharing the streets were unfair to the young, the old, the disabled, the disadvantaged and every one of us who wants their streets to be as much a place to live as to drive. From this came the formation of 20’s Plenty for Us as the national voluntary organisation supporting communities who want better streets through lower motor vehicle speeds.
In Hilden and other European towns the vast majority of in-town trips are made by walking, cycling or by bus. In Hilden an 18mph speed limit on residential roads was put in during the 90’s and became a foundation for active travel. Their children largely cycle or walk to school and drivers accept that a few seconds longer on a journey is no real inconvenience.
The only thing stopping us doing this in Warrington and other UK towns is our resistance to change. Whilst we disagree with the need for the pilots (there is ample evidence that 20mph limits do work), the recent 20mph pilots have shown not only that Warrington drivers will elect to travel slower, but also that residents will feel that their streets have become better places to live. The evidence from other towns which have adopted 20mph across the whole town is that this delivers even greater results. On slower roads it keeps the speeds low and on faster roads reduces it by 6mph or more.
That reduction makes a huge difference in reducing the danger on our roads. And Warrington really is in need of such a change. Every 12 hours in 2009 someone was injured on Warrington roads, every 4 days someone was seriously injured and every 60 days someone died. In Warrington 1 in 26 children will be killed or injured on the roads before their 16th birthday. For child road casualties we are in the worst 25% of towns in the country. This is not simply about reducing pedestrian and cycle casualties, but also motor vehicle occupants as well.
We all know that council budgets are tight, but the cost of road casualties in Warrington is put at £50m per annum. That’s £253 for every man, woman and child and 50% more than most towns of our size. The cost of implementing a 20mph limit throughout the town on all residential roads and excluding arterial roads is just £1m. Whilst it will not instantly reduce our casualties to zero it can become the foundation for making all of Warrington a better and safer place to be.
It will show that we can make the right judgements about what matters to a civilised and compassionate community. It is time for all of us to take a hard look at our collective sharing of roads and simply say that 20’s Plenty Where People Live. And that time is now.
Saturday, 4 September 2010
20's Plenty for Us video by Streetfilms
We were delighted to take part in a video made by Streetfilms of New York.
For more information and to view the video then go to the Streetfilms website page by clicking here.
Many thanks to Elizabeth Press at Streetfilms for her time and efforts.
For more information and to view the video then go to the Streetfilms website page by clicking here.
Many thanks to Elizabeth Press at Streetfilms for her time and efforts.
Tuesday, 27 April 2010
Speed limits reduce deaths, but can they also cause more pollution?
That was the question put by Leo Hickman in his Ask Leo and Lucy column for the Guardian last week :-
There an estimated 450 20mph speed limit zones across the UK, many of which are located near schools. Since the first ones were introduced in 1991, they have become an increasingly popular traffic calming measure. Bristol, Portsmouth, Leicester, Oxford and a number of other towns now have city centre-wide 20mph limits.
Although they cut down on accidents, do they trigger other unintended consequences, such as increased pollution (both carbon dioxide and particulates) and traffic tail-back further afield? As ever, please share your thoughts on this subject below and I'll be back on Friday to add my own thoughts to the discussion.
We replied as follows :-
First, lets deal with this myth about cars being most efficient at 50-60 mph.
A study, by Peter De Nayer, a former AA fuel efficiency expert, involved fitting cars with a fuel flow meter and testing them at Millbrook proving ground in Bedfordshire. He found that a Citroën C4 1.6 diesel achieved 99.6mpg at 20mph but only 29.3mpg at 90mph.
The average car consumes 38 per cent more fuel at 70mph than it does over the same distance at 50mph. At 60mph it uses 34 per cent more than at 40mph.
The study, commissioned by What Car? magazine and based on five cars of different sizes ranging from a 1 litre Toyota Aygo to a 2.2 litre Land Rover Freelander, found that the most efficient speed was below 40mph for all five and as low as 20mph for two.
It was found that for most cars there was a variation of between plus or minus 10% in fuel economy between 20 and 30 mph. This was dependent upon gearing and engine characteristics. Hence for steady speeds there is probably no difference between 20 mph and 30 mph when averaged out across all cars.
However, as has been pointed out, it is acceleration and particualrly repeated acceleration that uses most fuel. By capping the speed at 20 mph the ALL acceleration between 20 to 30 mph is removed.
Whilst advocating wide area 20 mph limits for urban and residential areas we would prefer to see behaviour change used rather than speed bumps to control the speed of motor vehciles.
Where speed bumps are used it would seem perverse to reason that one only needs to travel slowly on the bumps and it is expected to speed up between them. If they exist within a low speed limit then it is actually illegal to speed up between them. Hence any argument that claims that speed bumps (where used) causes increased pollution through repeated acceleration is flawed by the fact that such acceleration is at best unwise/unnessecary and at worst illegal.
Reference can also be made to a report on pollution within Belgian 30 kph zones. This suggested that they reduce particulates and may be found at the 20's Plenty for Us website together with a wide range of other pertinent reports See :-
http://www.20splentyforus.org.uk/reports.htm
Of course the points made about modal shift to walking and cycling are very pertinent and I endorse the view that streets with 30 mph speed limits will never encourage active travel and will always by child unfriendly.
I do note that the question specifically relates to pollution caused by carbon dioxide and particulates. However maybe we should widen our perspective on "pollution" and ask how much our streets have become blighted by the presence and speed of so many vehicles in those public spaces between the houses where we live.
Rod King
20's Plenty for Us
Leo's conclusion was :-
So, if reducing emissions is your goal, the all-important factor seems to be what traffic-calming measures you use to ensure speeds are reduced from 30mph down to 20mph. It seems there's universal agreement, though, that speed humps are not the way to go.
I think Rod King of 20's Plenty for Us raises some very interesting and valid points on this issue. And I agree with the point made by Rod and others that 20mph limits assists in encouraging a modal shift away from residential streets being predominantly the domain of motorised vehicles and not pedestrians and cyclists. My own vote would be for more, not fewer, 20mph limits, regardless of whether evidence exists to suggest they might create marginally more emissions.
The full article may be viewed at http://tinyurl.com/34g2oey
There an estimated 450 20mph speed limit zones across the UK, many of which are located near schools. Since the first ones were introduced in 1991, they have become an increasingly popular traffic calming measure. Bristol, Portsmouth, Leicester, Oxford and a number of other towns now have city centre-wide 20mph limits.
Although they cut down on accidents, do they trigger other unintended consequences, such as increased pollution (both carbon dioxide and particulates) and traffic tail-back further afield? As ever, please share your thoughts on this subject below and I'll be back on Friday to add my own thoughts to the discussion.
We replied as follows :-
First, lets deal with this myth about cars being most efficient at 50-60 mph.
A study, by Peter De Nayer, a former AA fuel efficiency expert, involved fitting cars with a fuel flow meter and testing them at Millbrook proving ground in Bedfordshire. He found that a Citroën C4 1.6 diesel achieved 99.6mpg at 20mph but only 29.3mpg at 90mph.
The average car consumes 38 per cent more fuel at 70mph than it does over the same distance at 50mph. At 60mph it uses 34 per cent more than at 40mph.
The study, commissioned by What Car? magazine and based on five cars of different sizes ranging from a 1 litre Toyota Aygo to a 2.2 litre Land Rover Freelander, found that the most efficient speed was below 40mph for all five and as low as 20mph for two.
It was found that for most cars there was a variation of between plus or minus 10% in fuel economy between 20 and 30 mph. This was dependent upon gearing and engine characteristics. Hence for steady speeds there is probably no difference between 20 mph and 30 mph when averaged out across all cars.
However, as has been pointed out, it is acceleration and particualrly repeated acceleration that uses most fuel. By capping the speed at 20 mph the ALL acceleration between 20 to 30 mph is removed.
Whilst advocating wide area 20 mph limits for urban and residential areas we would prefer to see behaviour change used rather than speed bumps to control the speed of motor vehciles.
Where speed bumps are used it would seem perverse to reason that one only needs to travel slowly on the bumps and it is expected to speed up between them. If they exist within a low speed limit then it is actually illegal to speed up between them. Hence any argument that claims that speed bumps (where used) causes increased pollution through repeated acceleration is flawed by the fact that such acceleration is at best unwise/unnessecary and at worst illegal.
Reference can also be made to a report on pollution within Belgian 30 kph zones. This suggested that they reduce particulates and may be found at the 20's Plenty for Us website together with a wide range of other pertinent reports See :-
http://www.20splentyforus.org.uk/reports.htm
Of course the points made about modal shift to walking and cycling are very pertinent and I endorse the view that streets with 30 mph speed limits will never encourage active travel and will always by child unfriendly.
I do note that the question specifically relates to pollution caused by carbon dioxide and particulates. However maybe we should widen our perspective on "pollution" and ask how much our streets have become blighted by the presence and speed of so many vehicles in those public spaces between the houses where we live.
Rod King
20's Plenty for Us
Leo's conclusion was :-
So, if reducing emissions is your goal, the all-important factor seems to be what traffic-calming measures you use to ensure speeds are reduced from 30mph down to 20mph. It seems there's universal agreement, though, that speed humps are not the way to go.
I think Rod King of 20's Plenty for Us raises some very interesting and valid points on this issue. And I agree with the point made by Rod and others that 20mph limits assists in encouraging a modal shift away from residential streets being predominantly the domain of motorised vehicles and not pedestrians and cyclists. My own vote would be for more, not fewer, 20mph limits, regardless of whether evidence exists to suggest they might create marginally more emissions.
The full article may be viewed at http://tinyurl.com/34g2oey
Sunday, 7 March 2010
Article published in Local Transport Today
The recent DfT report on "Pedestrian casualties in reported road accidents:2008", which was referred to in LTT 539, misses a worrying trend that since 2004 road fatalities in the UK have become increasingly skewed towards pedestrians. From pedestrians being 20.8% of road deaths in 2004 we have seen this increase this every year. (2005 - 21%, 2006 - 21.3%, 2007 - 21.9%, 2008 - 22.5%).
The report identifies that for pedestrian safety the UK does less well than other EU countries based on pedestrian deaths per 100,000 people. In fact, it puts us 8th out of the EU 19. However when comparing the %age road fatalities that are pedestrians then United Kingdom comes 17th out of 19. Only Hungary and Poland are worse. (European Road Safety Observatory)
Whilst absolute pedestrian casualties have been reducing, this has been at a far lower rate than that experienced by other forms of transport. Hence in the UK a road death is more likely to be a pedestrian than any time since 2001. Our road danger reduction is simply not working for pedestrians.
With 96% of pedestrian casualties on built-up roads, then now is the time for radical action to create a "paradigm shift" in the way we share roads with pedestrians, cyclists and motor vehicle users.
Whilst the DfT has recently made steps to encourage the use of lower speed limits for all residential roads through the use of "Total 20" schemes as in Portsmouth, it needs to relax its signage requirements and enable local authorities to make 20 mph the default speed limit (without repeaters) unless otherwise signed.
By providing clear "gateways" to 20 mph limited areas then no additional 20 mph signage should be required. In order to enable progressive local authorities to move forward with "Total 20" then the government should commit to underwrite any current signage erection and removal costs in the event of them retrospectively changing the default signage requirements on a national basis.
Such a move would overcome one of the major factors inhibiting local authorities from implementing this civic and life enhancing initiative. It would also enable them to meet many LPT3 targets at a far lower cost and greater value for money.
Note: Local Transport Today is the publication read by transport planners and officers in the UK.
The report identifies that for pedestrian safety the UK does less well than other EU countries based on pedestrian deaths per 100,000 people. In fact, it puts us 8th out of the EU 19. However when comparing the %age road fatalities that are pedestrians then United Kingdom comes 17th out of 19. Only Hungary and Poland are worse. (European Road Safety Observatory)
Whilst absolute pedestrian casualties have been reducing, this has been at a far lower rate than that experienced by other forms of transport. Hence in the UK a road death is more likely to be a pedestrian than any time since 2001. Our road danger reduction is simply not working for pedestrians.
With 96% of pedestrian casualties on built-up roads, then now is the time for radical action to create a "paradigm shift" in the way we share roads with pedestrians, cyclists and motor vehicle users.
Whilst the DfT has recently made steps to encourage the use of lower speed limits for all residential roads through the use of "Total 20" schemes as in Portsmouth, it needs to relax its signage requirements and enable local authorities to make 20 mph the default speed limit (without repeaters) unless otherwise signed.
By providing clear "gateways" to 20 mph limited areas then no additional 20 mph signage should be required. In order to enable progressive local authorities to move forward with "Total 20" then the government should commit to underwrite any current signage erection and removal costs in the event of them retrospectively changing the default signage requirements on a national basis.
Such a move would overcome one of the major factors inhibiting local authorities from implementing this civic and life enhancing initiative. It would also enable them to meet many LPT3 targets at a far lower cost and greater value for money.
Note: Local Transport Today is the publication read by transport planners and officers in the UK.
Sunday, 1 November 2009
“It’s the speed of motor vehicles stupid”
The following article was published by ACT Travelwise in their recent newsletter
“It’s the speed of motor vehicles stupid”
In 1992, during the American presidential campaign Bill Clinton had a sign in his office proclaiming “It’s the economy stupid”. At the same time the German town of Hilden in North-Rhine Westphalia on the outskirts of Dusseldorf was looking at its falling cycling and pedestrian numbers. The urban planners recognised that the safe mobility of their citizens was one of the key tasks of municipal self determination. Their conclusion was that “It’s the speed of the motor vehicles stupid” and they introduced 30 kph (18.5 mph) speed limits on all residential streets and some main roads. They did so with a great deal of public engagement and appropriate police enforcement. Their reasoning was that reducing the differential speed between road users that was the biggest factor in road danger reduction. And now with 24% of in town trips by bicycle and 25% by public transport they have a successful and sustainable transport model that some UK towns would die for.
So many of our towns in the UK are blighted by policies which see transport issues in terms of the movement of motor cars rather than people. And if we look at the percentage road deaths that are pedestrians, then in 2005 in the UK it was 21%, one of the highest in Europe. And since then it has risen to 21.3% in 2006, 21.9% in 2007 and 22.5% in 2008.
When the DfT found that we were being knocked off our previous Road Safety pedestal by France and Finland and Japan and Sweden and Germany and Portugal and the Netherlands and Denmark and Switzerland, who all now have lower child road deaths per 100,000 population than the UK, then the alarm bells started ringing. Its recent “A Safer Way” White Paper recommended that “highway authorities, over time, introduce 20 mph zones and limits into streets that are primarily residential in nature”.
A reduction in perceived road danger is key to any significant promotion of cycling or walking. Almost half of the public questioned (47%) strongly agree that “the idea of cycling on busy roads frightens me”, with a further 27% agreeing with this.
Whilst we can attract some new “fit and brave” cyclists onto the roads and also create off road routes that may work for a few people who live in the right place, unless we address this very real fear then any progress on modal shift will have limited returns.
And of course, unless we can get towards 20% of all in-town trips being made by bicycle then we fail to make any real reduction in the unsustainable transport to which those initiatives are targeted.
We need a “paradigm shift” in our thinking which starts to recognise that the spaces between houses that we call streets are there to be used equitably by all, regardless of their wealth, health, age, or choice of transport mode.
We need to ask ourselves how moral it is to promote walking and cycling if at the same time we do not make our streets safer places for people to cycle and walk.
We need to ask whether “speed becomes greed” when it keeps the elderly in their homes and our children “bussed” to schools by parents through fear of traffic.
And in town halls throughout the country these questions are being asked and there is gradual recognition that “It’s the speed of the motor vehicles stupid”.
Portsmouth was the first city to take advantage of the changes in the DfT Guidance in 2006 which lowered the “before” speed threshold for implementing 20 mph speed limits without traffic calming. The circular also recommended the use of 20 mph speed limits in residential areas and in the vicinity of schools where there is a high presence of vulnerable road users.
In2008 Portsmouth completed the setting of 1,200 residential streets at a 20 mph speed limit. The cost was just £475,000 or £333 per street. And now the DfT have reported on its audit of the 1st year of operation with results which show a 7 mph drop in average speeds on roads where previously the average was above 24 mph. There was also a 15% reduction in casualties. Ongoing audits will confirm the effect of this “collective community commitment” to safer roads on cycling and pedestrian activity.
The reduction in speeds is also leading to the delivery of contraflow cycling on one-way streets so increasing cycling permeability and accessibility. There is also evidence that air-bourn PM10 diesel particulates are reduced at 20 mph .
And it’s not just Portsmouth. Local authorities representing over 1.5 million residents in the UK are now in the course of implementing 20 mph as the default speed limit for all residential streets. And in doing so their communities are debating just how they want to create a better environment for children to walk and cycle, for the elderly to shop and for everyone to have real choice in their transport choices.
Such a move is hardly controversial, with over 75% of drivers in favour of a 20 mph limit for residential streets .
Whilst we cannot do anything about the mistakes of the past, we can all start to create urban road networks that recognise equality and respect the safety of all our citizens. The time has come for communities to demand that “20’s Plenty where people live”.
“It’s the speed of motor vehicles stupid”
In 1992, during the American presidential campaign Bill Clinton had a sign in his office proclaiming “It’s the economy stupid”. At the same time the German town of Hilden in North-Rhine Westphalia on the outskirts of Dusseldorf was looking at its falling cycling and pedestrian numbers. The urban planners recognised that the safe mobility of their citizens was one of the key tasks of municipal self determination. Their conclusion was that “It’s the speed of the motor vehicles stupid” and they introduced 30 kph (18.5 mph) speed limits on all residential streets and some main roads. They did so with a great deal of public engagement and appropriate police enforcement. Their reasoning was that reducing the differential speed between road users that was the biggest factor in road danger reduction. And now with 24% of in town trips by bicycle and 25% by public transport they have a successful and sustainable transport model that some UK towns would die for.
So many of our towns in the UK are blighted by policies which see transport issues in terms of the movement of motor cars rather than people. And if we look at the percentage road deaths that are pedestrians, then in 2005 in the UK it was 21%, one of the highest in Europe. And since then it has risen to 21.3% in 2006, 21.9% in 2007 and 22.5% in 2008.
When the DfT found that we were being knocked off our previous Road Safety pedestal by France and Finland and Japan and Sweden and Germany and Portugal and the Netherlands and Denmark and Switzerland, who all now have lower child road deaths per 100,000 population than the UK, then the alarm bells started ringing. Its recent “A Safer Way” White Paper recommended that “highway authorities, over time, introduce 20 mph zones and limits into streets that are primarily residential in nature”.
A reduction in perceived road danger is key to any significant promotion of cycling or walking. Almost half of the public questioned (47%) strongly agree that “the idea of cycling on busy roads frightens me”, with a further 27% agreeing with this.
Whilst we can attract some new “fit and brave” cyclists onto the roads and also create off road routes that may work for a few people who live in the right place, unless we address this very real fear then any progress on modal shift will have limited returns.
And of course, unless we can get towards 20% of all in-town trips being made by bicycle then we fail to make any real reduction in the unsustainable transport to which those initiatives are targeted.
We need a “paradigm shift” in our thinking which starts to recognise that the spaces between houses that we call streets are there to be used equitably by all, regardless of their wealth, health, age, or choice of transport mode.
We need to ask ourselves how moral it is to promote walking and cycling if at the same time we do not make our streets safer places for people to cycle and walk.
We need to ask whether “speed becomes greed” when it keeps the elderly in their homes and our children “bussed” to schools by parents through fear of traffic.
And in town halls throughout the country these questions are being asked and there is gradual recognition that “It’s the speed of the motor vehicles stupid”.
Portsmouth was the first city to take advantage of the changes in the DfT Guidance in 2006 which lowered the “before” speed threshold for implementing 20 mph speed limits without traffic calming. The circular also recommended the use of 20 mph speed limits in residential areas and in the vicinity of schools where there is a high presence of vulnerable road users.
In2008 Portsmouth completed the setting of 1,200 residential streets at a 20 mph speed limit. The cost was just £475,000 or £333 per street. And now the DfT have reported on its audit of the 1st year of operation with results which show a 7 mph drop in average speeds on roads where previously the average was above 24 mph. There was also a 15% reduction in casualties. Ongoing audits will confirm the effect of this “collective community commitment” to safer roads on cycling and pedestrian activity.
The reduction in speeds is also leading to the delivery of contraflow cycling on one-way streets so increasing cycling permeability and accessibility. There is also evidence that air-bourn PM10 diesel particulates are reduced at 20 mph .
And it’s not just Portsmouth. Local authorities representing over 1.5 million residents in the UK are now in the course of implementing 20 mph as the default speed limit for all residential streets. And in doing so their communities are debating just how they want to create a better environment for children to walk and cycle, for the elderly to shop and for everyone to have real choice in their transport choices.
Such a move is hardly controversial, with over 75% of drivers in favour of a 20 mph limit for residential streets .
Whilst we cannot do anything about the mistakes of the past, we can all start to create urban road networks that recognise equality and respect the safety of all our citizens. The time has come for communities to demand that “20’s Plenty where people live”.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
