The Big 'Let's sell our cars and take buses/ebikes instead' thread (warning: probably very dull)

First.Aspect

I could be overestimating the influence of Richard Ghammond though, I accept that.

kingstongraham

I can understand why someone who has been used to driving to a 30mph limit for decades thinks that is the natural speed for the road, but it isn't the road that's doing that.

The fact that "home zones" or "20mph zones" are needed to slow drivers down just means that drivers generally drive to the limit of the perceived risk to their car, not a sensible speed for the environment. To slow them down where needed either needs physical impediments or speed enforcement.

rick_chasey

First.Aspect said:

rick_chasey said:

You overestimate how much media affects opinions IMO and instead underestimate how much it reflects opinion.

That's not what has happened in the US. Or here, with regard to Brexit.

Yeah we'll disagree on that. Am very much of the view that the media is a mirror; they can pick what is covered but how that is received is very much not in their control. If they want to survive, they need to be popular.

The email exchanges released around fox leaders feeling 'trapped' by Trump is a really good illustration of how media reflects what its audiences want back at them.

kingstongraham

When they do, look what happens:

https://twitter.com/DC_RPT/status/1694644824949829772

pblakeney

kingstongraham said:

I can understand why someone who has been used to driving to a 30mph limit for decades thinks that is the natural speed for the road, but it isn't the road that's doing that.

The fact that "home zones" or "20mph zones" are needed to slow drivers down just means that drivers generally drive to the limit of the perceived risk to their car, not a sensible speed for the environment. To slow them down where needed either needs physical impediments or speed enforcement.

I'd question how many actually drive those roads at under 30 mph in the first place.

First.Aspect

pblakeney said:

kingstongraham said:

I can understand why someone who has been used to driving to a 30mph limit for decades thinks that is the natural speed for the road, but it isn't the road that's doing that.

The fact that "home zones" or "20mph zones" are needed to slow drivers down just means that drivers generally drive to the limit of the perceived risk to their car, not a sensible speed for the environment. To slow them down where needed either needs physical impediments or speed enforcement.

I'd question how many actually drive those roads at under 30 mph in the first place.

I think I read that in Edinburgh, the speeds had dropped on some of the key routes from around 32-33 to 25-27. Something like that anyway.

briantrumpet

TheBigBean said:

Is the summary of the current debate that speed doesn't kill dangerous people do? Sounds familiar.

Actually, in the case of cars, the way to stop cars is with more cars. They won't be able to move anywhere if there are enough.

pblakeney

First.Aspect said:

pblakeney said:

kingstongraham said:

I can understand why someone who has been used to driving to a 30mph limit for decades thinks that is the natural speed for the road, but it isn't the road that's doing that.

The fact that "home zones" or "20mph zones" are needed to slow drivers down just means that drivers generally drive to the limit of the perceived risk to their car, not a sensible speed for the environment. To slow them down where needed either needs physical impediments or speed enforcement.

I'd question how many actually drive those roads at under 30 mph in the first place.

I think I read that in Edinburgh, the speeds had dropped on some of the key routes from around 32-33 to 25-27. Something like that anyway.

Is that due to restrictions or congestion?
I doubt it is restraint.

First.Aspect

pblakeney said:

First.Aspect said:

pblakeney said:

kingstongraham said:

I can understand why someone who has been used to driving to a 30mph limit for decades thinks that is the natural speed for the road, but it isn't the road that's doing that.

The fact that "home zones" or "20mph zones" are needed to slow drivers down just means that drivers generally drive to the limit of the perceived risk to their car, not a sensible speed for the environment. To slow them down where needed either needs physical impediments or speed enforcement.

I'd question how many actually drive those roads at under 30 mph in the first place.

I think I read that in Edinburgh, the speeds had dropped on some of the key routes from around 32-33 to 25-27. Something like that anyway.

Is that due to restrictions or congestion?
I doubt it is restraint.

It was a pre/post 20 mph speed limit thing. Not sure where the sampling was taken, or when. Doubt it was comparing overall average speeds, because the data was justifying the change so will have been selected favourably for that.

mully79

First.Aspect said:

pblakeney said:

First.Aspect said:

pblakeney said:

kingstongraham said:

I can understand why someone who has been used to driving to a 30mph limit for decades thinks that is the natural speed for the road, but it isn't the road that's doing that.

The fact that "home zones" or "20mph zones" are needed to slow drivers down just means that drivers generally drive to the limit of the perceived risk to their car, not a sensible speed for the environment. To slow them down where needed either needs physical impediments or speed enforcement.

I'd question how many actually drive those roads at under 30 mph in the first place.

I think I read that in Edinburgh, the speeds had dropped on some of the key routes from around 32-33 to 25-27. Something like that anyway.

Is that due to restrictions or congestion?
I doubt it is restraint.

It was a pre/post 20 mph speed limit thing. Not sure where the sampling was taken, or when. Doubt it was comparing overall average speeds, because the data was justifying the change so will have been selected favourably for that.

That’s the problem with all this bs.
Over the last 2 weeks, I have been performing my own future 20mph zone pedestrian exposure danger tally.

Results show I have past 2 people (and 1 dog) over 10 separate 180mile commutes.
Estimated loss of my time in the zones will be 10 mins per day. Some might say it’s a price worth paying.

Pross

mully79 said:

First.Aspect said:

pblakeney said:

First.Aspect said:

pblakeney said:

kingstongraham said:

I can understand why someone who has been used to driving to a 30mph limit for decades thinks that is the natural speed for the road, but it isn't the road that's doing that.

The fact that "home zones" or "20mph zones" are needed to slow drivers down just means that drivers generally drive to the limit of the perceived risk to their car, not a sensible speed for the environment. To slow them down where needed either needs physical impediments or speed enforcement.

I'd question how many actually drive those roads at under 30 mph in the first place.

I think I read that in Edinburgh, the speeds had dropped on some of the key routes from around 32-33 to 25-27. Something like that anyway.

Is that due to restrictions or congestion?
I doubt it is restraint.

It was a pre/post 20 mph speed limit thing. Not sure where the sampling was taken, or when. Doubt it was comparing overall average speeds, because the data was justifying the change so will have been selected favourably for that.

That’s the problem with all this bs.
Over the last 2 weeks, I have been performing my own future 20mph zone pedestrian exposure danger tally.

Results show I have past 2 people (and 1 dog) over 10 separate 180mile commutes.
Estimated loss of my time in the zones will be 10 mins per day. Some might say it’s a price worth paying.

How much of the 180 mile commute was in built up areas?

mully79

Pross said:

mully79 said:

First.Aspect said:

pblakeney said:

First.Aspect said:

pblakeney said:

kingstongraham said:

I can understand why someone who has been used to driving to a 30mph limit for decades thinks that is the natural speed for the road, but it isn't the road that's doing that.

The fact that "home zones" or "20mph zones" are needed to slow drivers down just means that drivers generally drive to the limit of the perceived risk to their car, not a sensible speed for the environment. To slow them down where needed either needs physical impediments or speed enforcement.

I'd question how many actually drive those roads at under 30 mph in the first place.

I think I read that in Edinburgh, the speeds had dropped on some of the key routes from around 32-33 to 25-27. Something like that anyway.

Is that due to restrictions or congestion?
I doubt it is restraint.

It was a pre/post 20 mph speed limit thing. Not sure where the sampling was taken, or when. Doubt it was comparing overall average speeds, because the data was justifying the change so will have been selected favourably for that.

That’s the problem with all this bs.
Over the last 2 weeks, I have been performing my own future 20mph zone pedestrian exposure danger tally.

Results show I have past 2 people (and 1 dog) over 10 separate 180mile commutes.
Estimated loss of my time in the zones will be 10 mins per day. Some might say it’s a price worth paying.

How much of the 180 mile commute was in built up areas?

You appear to be falling into the trap that as 20mph zones are only in built up areas there will be lots of 30mph zones left.

Pross

mully79 said:

Pross said:

mully79 said:

First.Aspect said:

pblakeney said:

First.Aspect said:

pblakeney said:

kingstongraham said:

I can understand why someone who has been used to driving to a 30mph limit for decades thinks that is the natural speed for the road, but it isn't the road that's doing that.

The fact that "home zones" or "20mph zones" are needed to slow drivers down just means that drivers generally drive to the limit of the perceived risk to their car, not a sensible speed for the environment. To slow them down where needed either needs physical impediments or speed enforcement.

I'd question how many actually drive those roads at under 30 mph in the first place.

I think I read that in Edinburgh, the speeds had dropped on some of the key routes from around 32-33 to 25-27. Something like that anyway.

Is that due to restrictions or congestion?
I doubt it is restraint.

It was a pre/post 20 mph speed limit thing. Not sure where the sampling was taken, or when. Doubt it was comparing overall average speeds, because the data was justifying the change so will have been selected favourably for that.

That’s the problem with all this bs.
Over the last 2 weeks, I have been performing my own future 20mph zone pedestrian exposure danger tally.

Results show I have past 2 people (and 1 dog) over 10 separate 180mile commutes.
Estimated loss of my time in the zones will be 10 mins per day. Some might say it’s a price worth paying.

How much of the 180 mile commute was in built up areas?

You appear to be falling into the trap that as 20mph zones are only in built up areas there will be lots of 30mph zones left.

Sorry, not sure what that means.

kingstongraham

Is that 5 miles either end of a 180 mile each way commute that is on 30mph roads? And assuming that all of those would be turned into 20mph roads?

mully79

kingstongraham said:

Is that 5 miles either end of a 180 mile each way commute that is on 30mph roads? And assuming that all of those would be turned into 20mph roads?

Basically yes. It’s about 5 mile from my village to the M4. Built up is a little bit of an exaggeration for a steep valley with the odd row of houses on one side with no schools, shops or other amenities anywhere near.

Pross

'Built up area' refers to a restricted road and is defined as an area with a system of 3 or more street lights spaced at no more than 200 yards apart. In these situations th e speed limit is automatically 30mph unless signed otherwise. It doesn't have to have a set number of houses, schools, shops or amenities.

kingstongraham

mully79 said:

kingstongraham said:

Is that 5 miles either end of a 180 mile each way commute that is on 30mph roads? And assuming that all of those would be turned into 20mph roads?

Basically yes. It’s about 5 mile from my village to the M4. Built up is a little bit of an exaggeration for a steep valley with the odd row of houses on one side with no schools, shops or other amenities anywhere near.

How long have you been doing that insane daily commute? Must be a quarter of each day in the car.

mully79

kingstongraham said:

mully79 said:

kingstongraham said:

Is that 5 miles either end of a 180 mile each way commute that is on 30mph roads? And assuming that all of those would be turned into 20mph roads?

Basically yes. It’s about 5 mile from my village to the M4. Built up is a little bit of an exaggeration for a steep valley with the odd row of houses on one side with no schools, shops or other amenities anywhere near.

How long have you been doing that insane daily commute? Must be a quarter of each day in the car.

Only for 2 or 3 weeks. I would usually stay in hotels for that far but premier inn is regularly £160 a night so I’m doing my bit to help get hospitality inflation down. 😂

TheBigBean

briantrumpet said:

TheBigBean said:

Is the summary of the current debate that speed doesn't kill dangerous people do? Sounds familiar.

Actually, in the case of cars, the way to stop cars is with more cars. They won't be able to move anywhere if there are enough.

That makes sense, but I thought there was an additional theory that congestion could be solved by other people driving less.

briantrumpet

TheBigBean said:

briantrumpet said:

TheBigBean said:

Is the summary of the current debate that speed doesn't kill dangerous people do? Sounds familiar.

Actually, in the case of cars, the way to stop cars is with more cars. They won't be able to move anywhere if there are enough.

That makes sense, but I thought there was an additional theory that congestion could be solved by other people driving less.

Maybe we just need enough *good* people with cars, then the *bad* people with cars will stop driving.

photonic69

mully79 said:

kingstongraham said:

mully79 said:

kingstongraham said:

Is that 5 miles either end of a 180 mile each way commute that is on 30mph roads? And assuming that all of those would be turned into 20mph roads?

Basically yes. It’s about 5 mile from my village to the M4. Built up is a little bit of an exaggeration for a steep valley with the odd row of houses on one side with no schools, shops or other amenities anywhere near.

How long have you been doing that insane daily commute? Must be a quarter of each day in the car.

Only for 2 or 3 weeks. I would usually stay in hotels for that far but premier inn is regularly £160 a night so I’m doing my bit to help get hospitality inflation down. 😂

What's the cost of the commute? E.g. say 56mpg on a run of 180miles would be about £22?

mully79

photonic69 said:

mully79 said:

kingstongraham said:

mully79 said:

kingstongraham said:

Is that 5 miles either end of a 180 mile each way commute that is on 30mph roads? And assuming that all of those would be turned into 20mph roads?

Basically yes. It’s about 5 mile from my village to the M4. Built up is a little bit of an exaggeration for a steep valley with the odd row of houses on one side with no schools, shops or other amenities anywhere near.

How long have you been doing that insane daily commute? Must be a quarter of each day in the car.

Only for 2 or 3 weeks. I would usually stay in hotels for that far but premier inn is regularly £160 a night so I’m doing my bit to help get hospitality inflation down. 😂

What's the cost of the commute? E.g. say 56mpg on a run of 180miles would be about £22?

It’s a hybrid petrol car so only does 42mpg but you’re not far off. Usually around £600 a month. I’m just about as far as it’s possible to be from ditching the car and using public transport !

Stevo_666

kingstongraham said:

Stevo_666 said:

kingstongraham said:

Stevo_666 said:

kingstongraham said:

Stevo_666 said:

briantrumpet said:

Stevo_666 said:

briantrumpet said:

Stevo_666 said:

briantrumpet said:

First.Aspect said:

rick_chasey said:

How much faster are you getting places at 30 rather than 20?

Depends whether that place is a set of traffic lights.

Is unnecessarily slow in most cases if you ask me, and most people ignore it. But then that also includes the police on the whole.

Ages ago I posted link to research that even if ignored to a degree, it led to an average decrease of 2-3mph IIRC), which could be statistically significant in casualty severity terms.

In other words, 'success' might be best measured in outcomes of casualties rather than strict adherence to 20mph limits: if the limits slow people down to degree in higher risk areas, that's a win.

If speed were the only relevant factor then why don't they just set the limits at 5mph everyehere and be done with it? Everyone will be safe...

Is anyone saying speed is the only relevant factor?

It's the only one that is getting any debate on here, apart from my occasional reminder that there are other relevant factors.

Of course there are other relevant factors, but as Pross has pointed out, it is a factor, so it's worth discussing, especially given the data that at 20mph injuries and death are much lower, even if other factors have come into play.

I'm sure CS will discuss the other 'relevant factors', and how they interact with speed, if you want to highlight them.

See my post above replying to KG. It's better to promote things which belp avoid accidents happening, rather than just reduce the speed at which they happen - which as I've said is often applied where not needed.

Reducing speed does help prevent accidents happening.

It can do in some situations. Do you think that drivers and pedestrians paying attention, anticipating etc is also helpful?

Yes. I think it's good if drivers look out of their windows. And that pedestrians don't run into the road in front of cars.

It would seem obvious, but the message we seem to get is that those things don't matter as long as motorists stay below the posted speed limit.

Apart from the campaigns around drink driving, drug driving, phone driving, not driving while tired, road safety for schoolkids etc.

Which aspect do you think gets the most focus and investment?

Stevo_666

First.Aspect said:

kingstongraham said:

Stevo_666 said:

kingstongraham said:

Stevo_666 said:

kingstongraham said:

Stevo_666 said:

briantrumpet said:

Stevo_666 said:

briantrumpet said:

Stevo_666 said:

briantrumpet said:

First.Aspect said:

rick_chasey said:

How much faster are you getting places at 30 rather than 20?

Depends whether that place is a set of traffic lights.

Is unnecessarily slow in most cases if you ask me, and most people ignore it. But then that also includes the police on the whole.

Ages ago I posted link to research that even if ignored to a degree, it led to an average decrease of 2-3mph IIRC), which could be statistically significant in casualty severity terms.

In other words, 'success' might be best measured in outcomes of casualties rather than strict adherence to 20mph limits: if the limits slow people down to degree in higher risk areas, that's a win.

If speed were the only relevant factor then why don't they just set the limits at 5mph everyehere and be done with it? Everyone will be safe...

Is anyone saying speed is the only relevant factor?

It's the only one that is getting any debate on here, apart from my occasional reminder that there are other relevant factors.

Of course there are other relevant factors, but as Pross has pointed out, it is a factor, so it's worth discussing, especially given the data that at 20mph injuries and death are much lower, even if other factors have come into play.

I'm sure CS will discuss the other 'relevant factors', and how they interact with speed, if you want to highlight them.

See my post above replying to KG. It's better to promote things which belp avoid accidents happening, rather than just reduce the speed at which they happen - which as I've said is often applied where not needed.

Reducing speed does help prevent accidents happening.

It can do in some situations. Do you think that drivers and pedestrians paying attention, anticipating etc is also helpful?

Yes. Also being an important part of that sentence.

So why the disproprortionate focus on speed enforcement compared to other relevant aspects?

I think it's because that's not true.

It is certainly true that there is overwhelmingly more enforcement of speeding offences than other road traffic offences. The question is whether it is disproportionate.

One could argue that the most dangerous behaviour on a motorway, for example, is following too close. Yet you have to almost be pushing the vehicle in front to have this enforced as careless or dangerous driving.

Similarly, our most dangerous roads by far are rural national speed limit A and B roads, where it is possible to comfortably kill yourself and others within the speed limit. Most effectively by overtaking unwisely.

The actual hazards of this type of thing exceed those caused by being 10mph over, per se, but they can't be detected or enforced with technology.

So, I would say that the ease of detecting speeding means it is disproportionately enforced.

Tell that to KG who seems to be in denial.

Stevo_666

Pross said:

Stevo_666 said:

briantrumpet said:

Stevo_666 said:

briantrumpet said:

Stevo_666 said:

briantrumpet said:

Stevo_666 said:

briantrumpet said:

Stevo_666 said:

briantrumpet said:

First.Aspect said:

rick_chasey said:

How much faster are you getting places at 30 rather than 20?

Depends whether that place is a set of traffic lights.

Is unnecessarily slow in most cases if you ask me, and most people ignore it. But then that also includes the police on the whole.

Ages ago I posted link to research that even if ignored to a degree, it led to an average decrease of 2-3mph IIRC), which could be statistically significant in casualty severity terms.

In other words, 'success' might be best measured in outcomes of casualties rather than strict adherence to 20mph limits: if the limits slow people down to degree in higher risk areas, that's a win.

If speed were the only relevant factor then why don't they just set the limits at 5mph everyehere and be done with it? Everyone will be safe...

Is anyone saying speed is the only relevant factor?

It's the only one that is getting any debate on here, apart from my occasional reminder that there are other relevant factors.

Of course there are other relevant factors, but as Pross has pointed out, it is a factor, so it's worth discussing, especially given the data that at 20mph injuries and death are much lower, even if other factors have come into play.

I'm sure CS will discuss the other 'relevant factors', and how they interact with speed, if you want to highlight them.

See my post above replying to KG. It's better to promote things which belp avoid accidents happening, rather than just reduce the speed at which they happen - which as I've said is often applied where not needed.

Why not do all of these things, including targeted speed reduction? Try to prevent accidents happening, and reduce the (literal) impact when they do? I assume you're not disputing the severity v. speed data that Pross has posted. Not sure if you do risk assessments, but if you identify a risk and then ignore obvious mitigations, you'll be in deep doodoo.

Provided it is targeted and the limits are reasonable. The biggest issue for me is that too often they seem to be set by people who assume that drivers must all be in their 80s or half blind.

Seems like a fair initial assumption. Any better than that is a bonus.

Although bear in mind that speed and safety sometimes go hand in hand. Statistically, motorways are our safest roads.

Few vulnerable road users and everything guided in the same direction with very few junctions so it's hardly a surprise which is why higher speeds are appropriate. I'd have no problem with speed limits being raised to 80mph on motorways although I'd rather the split system they have in France where it is lowered in poor weather. The worst roads for fatalties are rural A and B roads which often have speed limits that are higher than are suited to the historic road layout and which tend to have things like nice big trees to catch vehicles that get it wrong.

I'd be in favour of the French arrangement as well. We already do variable speed limits in quite a few places and there are sections of motorway where 80mph would be fine in the right conditions.

Stevo_666

First.Aspect said:

kingstongraham said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

kingstongraham said:

Stevo_666 said:

kingstongraham said:

Stevo_666 said:

kingstongraham said:

Stevo_666 said:

briantrumpet said:

Stevo_666 said:

briantrumpet said:

Stevo_666 said:

briantrumpet said:

First.Aspect said:

rick_chasey said:

How much faster are you getting places at 30 rather than 20?

Depends whether that place is a set of traffic lights.

Is unnecessarily slow in most cases if you ask me, and most people ignore it. But then that also includes the police on the whole.

Ages ago I posted link to research that even if ignored to a degree, it led to an average decrease of 2-3mph IIRC), which could be statistically significant in casualty severity terms.

In other words, 'success' might be best measured in outcomes of casualties rather than strict adherence to 20mph limits: if the limits slow people down to degree in higher risk areas, that's a win.

If speed were the only relevant factor then why don't they just set the limits at 5mph everyehere and be done with it? Everyone will be safe...

Is anyone saying speed is the only relevant factor?

It's the only one that is getting any debate on here, apart from my occasional reminder that there are other relevant factors.

Of course there are other relevant factors, but as Pross has pointed out, it is a factor, so it's worth discussing, especially given the data that at 20mph injuries and death are much lower, even if other factors have come into play.

I'm sure CS will discuss the other 'relevant factors', and how they interact with speed, if you want to highlight them.

See my post above replying to KG. It's better to promote things which belp avoid accidents happening, rather than just reduce the speed at which they happen - which as I've said is often applied where not needed.

Reducing speed does help prevent accidents happening.

It can do in some situations. Do you think that drivers and pedestrians paying attention, anticipating etc is also helpful?

Yes. Also being an important part of that sentence.

So why the disproprortionate focus on speed enforcement compared to other relevant aspects?

I think it's because that's not true.

It is certainly true that there is overwhelmingly more enforcement of speeding offences than other road traffic offences. The question is whether it is disproportionate.

One could argue that the most dangerous behaviour on a motorway, for example, is following too close. Yet you have to almost be pushing the vehicle in front to have this enforced as careless or dangerous driving.

Similarly, our most dangerous roads by far are rural national speed limit A and B roads, where it is possible to comfortably kill yourself and others within the speed limit. Most effectively by overtaking unwisely.

The actual hazards of this type of thing exceed those caused by being 10mph over, per se, but they can't be detected or enforced with technology.

So, I would say that the ease of detecting speeding means it is disproportionately enforced.

Aside from using a mobile phone, what other instances of poor driving do you think are detectable other than by having vast numbers of traffic police patrolling every country road?

Driving into the advanced stop box. (And other red light offences.)

Plenty more if more cars had dashcams and people reported illegally dangerous overtaking etc.

And we all know how dangerous being in a box junction can be. Thank god that can be rigorously enforced also.

Yep, lethal. Chuck 'em in prison and throw away the key

Stevo_666

TheBigBean said:

Is the summary of the current debate that speed doesn't kill dangerous people do? Sounds familiar.

It does sound familiar. I have heard similar debates om other things.

Stevo_666

Pross said:

Stevo_666 said:

pangolin said:

Stevo_666 said:

First.Aspect said:

Stevo_666 said:

briantrumpet said:

Stevo_666 said:

briantrumpet said:

Stevo_666 said:

briantrumpet said:

First.Aspect said:

rick_chasey said:

How much faster are you getting places at 30 rather than 20?

Depends whether that place is a set of traffic lights.

Is unnecessarily slow in most cases if you ask me, and most people ignore it. But then that also includes the police on the whole.

Ages ago I posted link to research that even if ignored to a degree, it led to an average decrease of 2-3mph IIRC), which could be statistically significant in casualty severity terms.

In other words, 'success' might be best measured in outcomes of casualties rather than strict adherence to 20mph limits: if the limits slow people down to degree in higher risk areas, that's a win.

If speed were the only relevant factor then why don't they just set the limits at 5mph everyehere and be done with it? Everyone will be safe...

Is anyone saying speed is the only relevant factor?

It's the only one that is getting any debate on here, apart from my occasional reminder that there are other relevant factors.

Of course there are other relevant factors, but as Pross has pointed out, it is a factor, so it's worth discussing, especially given the data that at 20mph injuries and death are much lower, even if other factors have come into play.

I'm sure CS will discuss the other 'relevant factors', and how they interact with speed, if you want to highlight them.

See my post above replying to KG. It's better to promote things which belp avoid accidents happening, rather than just reduce the speed at which they happen - which as I've said is often applied where not needed.

What's your stance on driving penalties and disqualifications? Seems to me that if you'd prefer instead to raise driving standards, you will need to either more heavily penalise people who can't meet them.

Setting aside that punishing someone can't unbreak a leg, or in my case ankle, which should really make the choice obvious, which sort of measure would you oppose least?

The difficulty is how to penalise people who can't drive well. Catching speeders is more straight forward and lucrative - hence the popularity IMO.

But if you don't have an accident because you pay attention while driving and/or crossing the road, there is no broken leg thzt needs to heal.

Do you get the impression in your area that the police are cashing in on this low hanging fruit of catching speeders?

Not sure it's the case in my area but it is entirely possible that n the UK the revenue raised is an incentive to set limits lower than the natural speed for a given road. Not sure it's the police either as they don't set the limits.

The police generally don't support proposals for reduced speed limits unless they are self-enforcing which I assume to be an acknowledgement that they don't have the resources to police the limits. I would also suggest that the proportion of speeding drivers that get caught and fined is low (and as I said the other day that IMHO is the main reason why so many take the chance on speeding).

I suspect that eventually speed limits will be enforced by GPS or similar, possibly linked to a vehicles engine management system and preventing the vehicle exceeding the posted limit. No doubt this will be heralded as a war on motorists (despite it preventing them running the risk of a fine) and that some politicians will campaign off the back of it but I think it will eventually be inevitable.

It would almost certainly be heralded as such. I wonder why?

Stevo_666

First.Aspect said:

pblakeney said:

First.Aspect said:

pblakeney said:

kingstongraham said:

I can understand why someone who has been used to driving to a 30mph limit for decades thinks that is the natural speed for the road, but it isn't the road that's doing that.

The fact that "home zones" or "20mph zones" are needed to slow drivers down just means that drivers generally drive to the limit of the perceived risk to their car, not a sensible speed for the environment. To slow them down where needed either needs physical impediments or speed enforcement.

I'd question how many actually drive those roads at under 30 mph in the first place.

I think I read that in Edinburgh, the speeds had dropped on some of the key routes from around 32-33 to 25-27. Something like that anyway.

Is that due to restrictions or congestion?
I doubt it is restraint.

It was a pre/post 20 mph speed limit thing. Not sure where the sampling was taken, or when. Doubt it was comparing overall average speeds, because the data was justifying the change so will have been selected favourably for that.

Well exactly. A bit like Khan's selective use of scientific research to justify the ULEZ expansion, a lot of the stats will be skewed to justify the action that they want to take rather than guide them to the right decision.

Stevo_666

TheBigBean said:

briantrumpet said:

TheBigBean said:

Is the summary of the current debate that speed doesn't kill dangerous people do? Sounds familiar.

Actually, in the case of cars, the way to stop cars is with more cars. They won't be able to move anywhere if there are enough.

That makes sense, but I thought there was an additional theory that congestion could be solved by other people driving less.

The current restrictions and future regs appear to be designed to do that by pricing less well off motorists off the roads.