20 mph zones and limits - what are the technical requirements?

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Eddie Finnegan on July 1, 2008 at 16:37

Once again, all hail to my Chief and Chairman, Paul, and to Cllr Alexander, for ferreting out the essentials. This LoTAG link is essential reading for residents, users and friends of Wightman Road. Interesting, too, to have expert opinion from seven inner and outer London local authorities.

Let me be a little simple-minded in applying some of this to our own beloved road.

1. It's not illegal, but might be inadvisable, to introduce 20mph limits without calming measures.

2. Whole-zone 20 reduces speed by 9mph; discrete-road 20 limits (even with flashing warning lights) result in no more than a 1-2mph reduction.

3. Traffic calming measures come in various shapes, e.g
traffic refuge islands
carriageway narrowing
existing sharp bends
traffic humps (clearly not what residents would invent where they do not already exist)

4. In a 20mphZone traffic calming devices must occur at minimum intervals of 100 metres.

WIGHTMAN ROAD at (?) 1430-1500 mtrs should have 14 or 15 t/c devices. In fact we have at least 22 at intervals of (?) 60-70 mtrs.
Each of these has accompanying carriageway narrowing by 0.5 mtrs.
These do not include three existing light-controlled crossings (and a fourth earnestly demanded near Pemberton jct) - nor indeed do they include the quite sharp switchback bends at the Railway Bridge and Hewitt/Allison jcts.

Given the contiguity of the existing "Ladders"20Zone, wouldn't it be 'reasonable' for LBHEnvironment and Highways to treat Wightman's case as unfinished business?

It is something we hope to air more fully at the next Area Assembly mtg on 1st September.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Alison P on July 6, 2008 at 15:25

Hello Eddie

You might remember an earlier post this year about traffic on Wightman Rd. At the time I wrote to Tony Kennedy and got the following response, the key point being that Wightman Rd isn't on their priority list for this year. It would be fantastic if that could change - I would welcome a 20 MPH zone on that road.



Thank you for your enquiry regarding road safety issues on Wightman Road.

I will respond to the points you have made in the same order as set out in your e-mail.

1. Pedestrians

I am pleased to inform you that we will be carrying out footway maintenance work along Wightman Road during the current financial year. The work will involve improvements to the existing footway and remarking the areas where two wheeled vehicle parking is permitted. There is a criteria for the introduction of footway parking, which includes a minimum footway width that must be maintained for pedestrians. When introducing the improvements to the footway we will ensure that a suitable unobstructed width of footway is maintained for the passage of pedestrians. Please contact Laurence Pratt on 0208 489 1710 should you wish to discuss the above further.

2. Cyclists

I take note of your concerns regarding the dangers experienced by cyclists. As I am sure you will appreciate, when considering safety measures for a road we need to take an overall view of the objectives we are seeking to achieve. The refuge islands were implemented to encourage vehicles to reduce their speed and, to a lesser extent, provide uncontrolled crossing facilities for pedestrians. I appreciate however that the islands may cause difficulties for cyclists due to the narrowing of the road, particularly if negotiated at the same time as a vehicle. As with all narrow sections of highways we would encourage roads users to proceed with due care and attention when using the public highway.

3. Motorists

To reduce conflict at the junctions of the side roads with Wightman Road we introduced a traffic management system making the roads one way. As part of this scheme we also introduced waiting restrictions at the junctions that permitted access onto Wightman Road to improve sightlines for exiting vehicles. In view of your concerns however I will arrange for the existing restrictions to be reviewed to see if improvements can be made.

I can assure you that the Council regards road safety, particularly pedestrian safety, as a high priority and actively promotes road safety measures across the Borough to reduce traffic speeds and enhance the environment for the benefit of all road users. Unfortunately, Wightman Road is not included in our 2008/09 Highway Works Programme for further consideration of road safety measures at this time. I will however keep your views on file for further consideration should additional funding become available during the year.

Please contact me on 0208 489 1765 should you wish to discuss the above further.

Yours sincerely

Tony Kennedy
Group Manager
Traffic and Road Safety

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Karen Alexander on July 6, 2008 at 19:36

I am still bugging the council and Tony Kennedy on this one - we all want the limited reduced to 20mph! Looks like Wightman Road is on the list for additional funding for 2009/10 and I am trying to find out if this means a speed reduction is in sight - rest assured, Cllr Baker and myself are keeping the pressure on!

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by John McMullan on July 6, 2008 at 21:33

Can't they just reduce the speed limit (not much above 20mph anyway), put in a speed camera and make up for all those boxed junction losses in Tottenham?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Karen Alexander on July 6, 2008 at 21:41

There need to be loads of accidents on a road for speed cameras to be considered. Fortunately (though surprisingly!) there are not enough on Wightman Road to warrant them. Not surprisingly, reducing the speed limit involves miles and miles of red tape! We needs loads and loads of pressure from us (the councillors) and you guys, the residents.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Eddie Finnegan on July 7, 2008 at 8:34

Thanks Alison for the Tony Kennedy letter. Unfortunately as far as this year's WR pavement maintenance goes it seems to be going to apply to the northern half of the road only- N8. I had a 'discussion' with Brian Haley at last Area Assembly mtg and he is adamant that allocation from their £9million funding will not include our N4 half - based on judgement of their 'road engineer' that N4 footways are in a better condition than those of N8. I asked him to apply the 'baby buggy test' or at least join us on a fact finding stroll along both parts. Let's not hold our breaths!

• ▶ Reply