The new mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, has called for a ‘zero tolerance approach’ to road traffic casualties after his election success last week (5 May).
Mr Khan believes his package of plans, outlined in a letter to the London Road Safety Council (LRSC), will ‘bring about a marked improvement on London’s roads’.
Among the key points is a continuation of his long-term support for 20mph speed limits in the capital’s residential areas.
In March 2014, the then Labour MP for Tooting received a road safety award from the charity Brake, recognising his commitment to increasing the number of 20mph speed limits in his constituency.
His support for 20mph limits, which he believes will reduce average speed, has been backed by the campaign group 20’s Plenty for Us.
In his letter to the LRSC, Mr Khan also mentioned car-free weekends in central London, following the blueprint of a similar event which takes place in Paris.
Mr Khan’s plans to create a ‘better balance between all road users’ include continued investment in cycling (including the next phase of Cycle Superhighways), more Quietways and enhanced cycle storage in residential and business areas.
In terms of pedestrians, Mr Khan is hoping to establish ‘Safe Routes to School’, identifying routes children can use away from the most polluted roads. He also wants to appoint a ‘pedestrian champion’ to lead on measures to promote walking across the city.
He also says he wants to work with cycle groups, TfL, businesses and local authorities to identify ways of cutting the number of the ‘most dangerous’ lorries on London’s roads.
This is part of a push to make London’s roads cleaner and safer for all users, which also includes widening the area covered by the Ultra Low Emission Zone and investigating bringing its proposed introduction forward from 2020.
In response, the Freight Transport Association (FTA) has urged Mr Khan to review the London Lorry Control Scheme which restricts the industry’s ability to deliver at night.
The FTA has also called for a discount on the congestion charge for the latest generation of clean lorries and vans, to encourage these vehicles into London well ahead of the introduction of the Ultra-Low Emission Zone.
Photo: Policy Exchange, via Flickr. Used under Creative Commons.
Mark, exactly. But what I’m suggesting is that the space might be better used as a drop-off zone, which, rather than encouraging traffic to speed up (which is what these unobstructed zones do) right outside the school, would actually force all traffic to stop. Slower traffic and more convenient drop-off equals a win-win situation.
Charles, England
0
Charles
The Yellow zig-zag markings that you mention are ‘School Keep Clear’ markings and they mean just that. When these marking are observed correctly, they give an area of inter-visibility between drivers of passing vehicles and child pedestrians wishing to cross the road. They are not a designated ‘drop off’ zone.
Mark, Bexley
0
Charles – My post was not supposed to give the meaning that parents do not have the choice of which school to apply to send their children to. The point I was trying to make was if your children get into a school a considerable distance from your house then you may have to expect that their journey to it by car might not be as easy as if you lived near to it.
I’m not sure that “the people” will ever agree to pay enough taxes to fund improving all the potential routes to and from schools so that parents have an easier journey? Mightn’t it be more worthwhile to improve schools so it doesn’t matter which one children go to? Or am I still in cloud cuckoo land? No time to write anymore on this.
Nick, Lancashire
0
In Answer to both Nick’s posts challenging my contributions…
Why should you be expected to accept being told which school your children have to attend based on where you live any more than you would being told which supermarket you have to use? Freedom of choice means exactly that, especially with something as important as your children’s education. Just because one lives near a poorly performing school or an uncompetitive supermarket should not mean one is obliged to use them, especially if there somewhere better that one is prepared to travel to. And why do you think there would be, or even could be, a conflict between those choosing to travel by car and those choosing to travel by other means? If all modes can coexist quite comfortably for one activity why not for the school run?
A drop-off zone is where you can stop to drop-off passengers. Many schools already have plenty of space suitable for this on the road outside – it is already kept clear of parked vehicles with yellow zig-zag markings – this would be ideal, and traffic would be calmed too – win-win. There is a difference between expecting to park somewhere for an extended period and expecting to be able to stop to drop someone off – compare bus stops and bus garages. We do (or at least should) all have equal rights of safe access on our public roads.
Charles, England
0
Charles – What exactly is a drop-off zone using the existing roads near a school? Are you recommending that large areas of the surrounding streets would need Traffic Regulation Orders on them so that they are kept clear of residents’ vehicles at those times to ensure that there is sufficient road space to safely accommodate the 15 minutes of influx of parents’ vehicles so they can access the area without obstruction?
Perhaps I am in the minority when I think that if I want to access a facility using my car then the onus is on me to find a parking space which balances the desire to be close to the facility with the ease of getting to and from it bearing mind traffic conditions in the location at the time I want to access the facility. Oh that takes into account my understanding that other people may want to access the facility at a similar time and I can accept that I have no more right than them to be there!
Life can be frustrating at times but that is the very nature of living amongst others and only with tolerance can it happen successfully.
Nick, Lancashire
0
Of course people should be free to do as they choose. However “society” has to implement laws which regulate actions/choices so they do not adversely affect individuals or the population as a whole. Extremely complex subject but I think that is the gist of how “society” runs?
For all those that want to drive their children to get to school in the quickest time to enable them to get on with the rest of their day there are a number of people who want their children to be able to walk/cycle/run/scoot/bus/skateboard to school to teach them independence and for health benefits. Those two “wants” have conflicts. “Society” has to then identify policies and actions which can best facilitate/accommodate both courses of actions. The individual is then entitled to base their decisions on the options open to them and if they have feelings that the options need to be amended or added to then they should contact the authorities which have the power to change them.
For society to survive successfully the individual needs to be able to tolerate “legal” ideas and choices which other individuals make that are contrary to theirs. Freedom of choice does not mean that I should choose to get a job for myself or a school for my child then choose to live somewhere away from either or both those locations then expect/demand that infrastructure is put in place to facilitate my chosen lifestyle to the detriment of others.
To add more of a safety theme to this post it should be considered where child casualties are happening during the school run. It is my understanding that the majority are not in the immediate vicinity of the school but that does not necessarily mean that there is no work to be done by schools themselves but let’s not neglect the surrounding areas.
Nick, Lanacshire
0
Steve, yes – in these more enlightened times, parents can and do plan their working hours around school hours. Also, as presumably there are already roads outside most schools, there is no need to build anything extra as they could be used as drop-off zones. That would provide a free traffic calming effect too – the last thing you want at school start/finish times is free flowing traffic outside.
Charles, England
0
Duncan and Clive. Your wish is coming true. There are at present great differences between planes and cars and that’s not just 50,000 ft. Planes are large passenger carriers just like buses and coaches and are similar in that they are subject to fewer incidents. They also have a more defined lawful requirement for the safety of passengers. That and the fact that the plane generally flies by itself on auto pilot enabling a simple onlook from pilots etc. It’s also greatly monitored over civilian air space which enables early warning of possible disasters. Cars will soon be driving round on auto pilot so we are getting there.
R.Craven Blackpool
0
“Steve, parents will do what they perceive as most convenient for them”
It usually isn’t actually more convenient for them, the costs, the time, it is simply habit borne from ignorance.
” – and should be free to do so.”
The spirit of all legislation is to stop folk from doing as they pleae.
” They might be on their way to work or whatever, and we should not pass judgement on their motives.”
If they are also on their way to work, why the cut in my journey times from 45 to less than a third of that? Must I assume that all these people only work school hours during term time?
“And if many choose to use cars then surely it makes sense to have convenient drop-off zones outside the schools rather than trying to make it even more difficult for them.”
How? Demolish houses? Dig up pavements, playgrounds? Un-install the zebra crossings put there for safety?
steve, watford
0
Steve, parents will do what they perceive as most convenient for them – and should be free to do so. They might be on their way to work or whatever, and we should not pass judgement on their motives. And if many choose to use cars then surely it makes sense to have convenient drop-off zones outside the schools rather than trying to make it even more difficult for them. Traffic and parked cars slow traffic down anyway, which makes it safer and not more dangerous.
Clear unobstructed roads are where traffic moves faster and causes more crashes and worse injuries is the last thing you need outside a school. Perhaps rather than just free buses, they should try paying children to use buses – if they are not prepared to make reasonable provision for all those who wish to use their cars then they need to find more imaginative ways of persuading parents to use other modes. Each to their own – and remember, politicians and “the authorities” should be the servants of the citizens and not vice-versa.
Charles, England
0
Charles.
This article refers specifically to the greater London conurbation. All school age children in the area are entitled to free bus travel. Many of the selective schools that take from a far wider catchment area even run their own coach services.
I had a friend lived the other side of London, opposite a distinctly average school, so less people travelling miles to get to it. Parents complained it was difficult to cross the road, all the parked cars. A zebra crossing was installed at great cost. It is now the case that zig-zag lines and black & white stripes simply create a “drop-off, pick-up zone” where local residents do not park. Parents who may have previously parked 50 yds up the road, now park on the zebra.
In the local free newspaper from a couple of weeks ago was the headline “school traffic ‘is risking lives'” One local school that has received awards for its travel plans to discourage car use complains that despite the catchment area “the size of a two pence piece”, roads around the school are “like the wild west” at opening and closing times.
As for the “time it saves”, I see you live in a rural area. Here in round London, my 45min depot-depot run drops to a fraction over 10 min when schools are on holiday. There is rarely more than a mile between schools round these parts, there is no valid justification for using a car for school under normal circumstances.
Going back to the original article, I do rather fancy pointing out something else.
“His support for 20mph limits, which he believes will reduce average speed”.
A man who has received awards, installed and pushed for 20 limits only “believes” they reduce speed, he doesn’t actually know if they do, despite now being possibly the second most important elected official in the UK. If people fly down my 30 street at 40+, past speed activated signs that point out they are travelling above the limit, why would they pay any more attention to a 20 limit?
steve, watford
0
Which VRU group ranks highest in KSI statistics? Strange that there is no mention of this group.
Colin, West Midlands
0
To answer Clive Durdle’s question it is simply a case that in aviation safety we have a ‘just culture’, but road safety still clings to the now widely discredited fault, blame and punishment culture. The road safety experts will tell you that it’s because road transport is entirely different to air transport, but as both systems rely on human beings operating complex machines in hostile environments so how different could they be?
Duncan MacKillop. No Surprise – No Accident
0
Charles does have a valid point when he mentions “Freedom of Choice”. It’s parental choice of school that has caused so many problems however. I’m currently working with a school which has horrendous parking problems associated with it. I’ve found that many of the children are travelling over 10 miles each way to get to the school, passing several quite adequate alternative schools on the way.
I fear we now have generations of young people who have never experienced the joys of walking (or cycling) and chatting with their mates as they go to and from school. (I guess that’s why texting has become so popular)
Martin, Suffolk
0
Steve, you asked: “can anyone point out a valid downside to making the school run a thing of the past?” How about freedom of choice? We aren’t all fortunate enough to be in the position of not having to rely on private motorised transport and many of us prefer it anyway for the time it saves. If the roads are too dangerous for the job we expect them to do, then it is the roads and not the users that need changing.
Charles, England
0
I am not clear why this is the case, but is there a problem with using principles from another transport industry to approach safety issues? http://ec.europa.eu/transport/modes/air/safety/safety_management_en.htm
Clive Durdle London
0
“He also says he wants to work with cycle groups, TfL, businesses and local authorities to identify ways of cutting the number of the ‘most dangerous’ lorries on London’s roads. ”
How about he engage with the cycle groups on cutting down the number of cyclists who seem to have little or even no risk awareness?
Each freight operator spends thousands making vehicles safer, extra mirrors, guards, talking indicators, “cyclists dont pass this side” stickers, and so forth, yet still cycling under nearside seems a very common, high injury rate collision.
Time to accept that the hgv/cycle equation has two sides.
Safe routes to school is a viable idea, I have stated many times I believe the biggest danger for school children is cars taking children to school. Less collisions, less pollution, less congestion, can anyone point out a valid downside to making the school run a thing of the past?
steve, watford
0