littlehamptonareaclimateactiongroup @ outlook.com

20mph default speed in urban areas

Background

  1. Safer: 1/3 fewer serious accidents
  2. Popular: 80% want slow speeds in their street and nearby
  3. Journey times: Unchanged or a few seconds slower due to less stopping/starting.
  4. Pollution and noise: 12% reduced, less disease from particulates and noise.
  5. Fuel economy: 12% less fuel used. Supports climate action.
  6. Highly recommended: endorsed by WHO, UN, and many UK and European towns.
  7. Improved health: encourages walking, cycling, and community involvement.
  8. Youth engagement: young people become more independent leading to less screen use and in more socialising, making it easier to attend youth clubs and sport activities without parnet involvement.
  9. Economy: slower speeds have been shown to boost local spending, reduces absenteeism, creating local jobs.
  10. Cost-effective: £4-10 a person one off cost. Cameras aid compliance, but will be a little more expensive. (I suggest no fines initially, but fines for multiple or severe offenders caught on camera with funds directed to cycle paths building or youth workers.)
  11. Community benefits: particularly beneficial for poorer communities. Increases social capital. Poorer communities suffer more from fast speed.
  12. Lower car insurance costs: car insurance is lower for those living in 20mph zones.
  13. 33% cycling rates have been achieved in Holland and central London. This has been achieved after many years of a gradual increase, with step increases when infrastructure such as cycle lanes are built. These are expensive, but our long term objective is to achieve such cycling rates in 10 years and even greater health and economic benefits. I see 20mph as the first stage, and very cheap.

Local surveys

  1. We have carried out local surveys of over 200 homes with an averge of about 73% in favour of 20mph limits. Homes in cul-de-sacs (where effectively there is already a 20mph limits but theses drivers want to go faster on the bigger roads ) are less in favour (60%), Homes on busy roads are nearly 100% in favour.
  2. National surveys indicate similar figures.

Nationally

  1. Many places have 20 mph limits already .
  2. Streets in Bognor and Brighton and central Chichester.
  3. But central London and urban parts of Wales and Cambridge have adopted our preferred default limit of 20 in urban areas.
  4. The benefits have been confirmed.

Objections

  1. There is a vocal objection, but from our survey this is only 10%.
  2. So 70+% in favour, 10% object loudly, the rest in between.
  3. The main objection is the time of journies, but it has been confirmed that in urban areas time is taken at junctions; slowing down traffic to 20 makes very little difference.
  4. A second objection is fuel efficiency, but driving at a steady 20 uses less fuel than stopping and starting all the time.

Littlehampton town Council and West Sussex County Council (WSCC)

  1. WSCC (Mr David Brittain, Transportation objected, but did not provide any evidence for the reasons.
  2. Littlehampton Town Council did not object as such, but refused to support the idea (when approached 1-2 years ago). They did not believe the evidence. I estimate there is about 70% support from councillors, but again 1 or 2 will object vocally. Councillors are worried by the cost, even though it is small at £4-10 a person as a one off cost . 40,000 people, cost £400,000 nearly all of this of this on consultation, leaflets , etc.
    Sign posting will me a very small percentage of the cost.

    Councillors are also worried by the time and effort of consultation.

  3. Statistically there is 2/3 of a serious road injury/death each year in Littlehampton. As you can’t perform a before implementation and after analysis over years, detailed local evidence cannot be collected. We have to judge by looking at the evidence from other places, which I have outlined above.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

@page { size: 21cm 29.7cm; margin: 2cm } h1 { margin-bottom: 0.21cm; background: transparent; page-break-after: avoid } h1.western { font-family: "Liberation Sans", sans-serif; font-size: 18pt; font-weight: bold } h1.cjk { font-family: "Microsoft YaHei"; font-size: 18pt; font-weight: bold } h1.ctl { font-family: "Arial"; font-size: 18pt; font-weight: bold } h3 { margin-top: 0.25cm; margin-bottom: 0.21cm; background: transparent; page-break-after: avoid } h3.western { font-family: "Liberation Sans", sans-serif; font-size: 14pt; font-weight: bold } h3.cjk { font-family: "Microsoft YaHei"; font-size: 14pt; font-weight: bold } h3.ctl { font-family: "Arial"; font-size: 14pt; font-weight: bold } p { line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: 0.25cm; background: transparent } a:link { color: #000080; text-decoration: underline }

Dear Ms Griffiths,

Standardising the fittings of electric batteries for bicycles, cars, etc


Thank you for the helpful phone call from Joseph in your office. Further to previous letters and this phone call, he stated you might be able to write to the relevant minister.

If you supported this proposal, that would be very helpful, but even if you didn’t it would be helpful if you could forward this proposal to the relevant minister.


This proposal has 95% local support.


Would you be kind enough to forward this proposal and write to the relevant minister?


Your sincerely

Davidkinshuck@live.co.uk

www.carbonfootprintlabelling.org.uk




Standardising electric batteries.

Background

Benefits

  1. Easier to repair eg electric bikes

  2. less stock needed, leading to

  3. lower costs of replacing batteries

  4. more cycle shops would be able to support electric bikes (not all shops can at present)

  5. new batteries would be more accessible to consumers: at present many bikes are replaced rather than replacing just the battery, but bike replacement would become unnecessary

  6. and so the cost of keeping bikes longer would be lower

  7. As bikes would last longer, they would have a lower carbon footprint

In practice

  1. We propose that sizes and fittings would be standardised, similar to AA or AAA torch batteries, perhaps 3 fittings

  2. manufacturers would provide batteries of different capacity (and cost!)

  3. power outputs could also be standardised

  4. if the UK standardised, other countries would follow

  5. Cars, power tools, and so on would benefit similarly

  6. One bicycle battery for instance, perhaps size ‘CC’, would fit all bikes with that CC fitting. Similarly, One bicycle battery size CCC, would fit all bikes with that CCC fitting.

Relevant ministers

Support and opposition

Dear Ms Griffiths,

Proposal for the labelling of all goods and services with their carbon footprint.


Thank you for the helpful phone call from Joseph in your office. Further to previous letters and this phone call, he stated you might be able to write to the relevant minister.

If you supported this proposal, that would be very helpful, but even if you didn’t it would be helpful if you could forward this proposal to the relevant minister.


This proposal has 95% local support.


Would you be kind enough to forward this proposal and write to the relevant minister?


Your sincerely

Davidkinshuck@live.co.uk

www.carbonfootprintlabelling.org.uk

Proposal for the labelling of all goods and services with their carbon footprint.

Plan

  1. label all goods and services with their carbon footprint,

  2. certain items may be excluded eg fresh unwrapped carrots!

  3. cars, services, houses, the purchase of pets, flights, holidays and so on would all be labelled or at least the carbon footprint indicated.

  4. Figures would include the

    1. footprint of the item as sold and

    2. in its use per year and

    3. per lifetime.

Result

As with food labelling of salt etc to encourage healthy eating, the aim is to encourage the purchase and use of items and services with lower footprints.

Background

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, United Nations panel) has indicated there is strong evidence that each ton of CO2 produces 1.5 trillionths of a degree in global warming for 650 years.

One tonne of concrete for instance, produces one ton of CO2 and thereby 1.5 trillionths of a degrees warming.

We need (building) concrete, but can often manage using less, and so knowing the consequences would encourage us to use less concrete or a substitute material with a lower footprint such as wood.

There is strong evidence this ‘nudging’ is effective, if not as large as some would wish.

Support and opposition

Dear Ms Griffiths,

20mph default urban speed limits locally and nationally


Thank you for the helpful phone call from Joseph in your office. Further to previous letters and this phone call, he stated you might be able to write to Littlehampton Town Council

If you supported this proposal, that would be very helpful, but even if you didn’t it would be helpful if you could forward this proposal.


This proposal has 65% local support. All the evidence can be found from links from my website www.cabonfootprintalbelling.org.uk


Would you consider forwarding this proposal for local implementation

  1. to the Littlehampton Town Council

  2. to West Sussex County Council as traffic is their responsibility


Would you consider forwarding this proposal for national implementation (urban 20mph limits) to the

  1. Secretary of State for Transport and the

  2. Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Children and Families ?


Your sincerely

Davidkinshuck@live.co.uk

www.carbonfootprintlabelling.org.uk



-