The Big 'Let's sell our cars and take buses/ebikes instead' thread (warning: probably very dull)
Comments
-
I don't like this getting a couple of grand to scrap your car business. It's the disposable culture which is the problem.0
-
Since when have speed limits become a leftie rightie political thing Stevo?
You are going to tell us that seatbelts are Marxist next.0 -
-
Depends whether that place is a set of traffic lights.rick_chasey said:How much faster are you getting places at 30 rather than 20?
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.0 -
Depends whether that place is a set of traffic lights.rick_chasey said:How much faster are you getting places at 30 rather than 20?
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.0 -
I meant the idea that there are local authority transport officers sitting around dreaming up ways to make road up motorists' lives difficult. I mean come on.Stevo_666 said:
You're a very poor mind readerrjsterry said:
Sounding just a teeny bit paranoid there 🙂Stevo_666 said:
Not backtracking at all, just careful with my use of language, unlike your reading of itPross said:
Nice try but I covered that attempt at backtracking. How do you decide if someone is ignoring speed limits because they are bad laws if you want to go down that route?Stevo_666 said:
Read my post again. If I had said that all bad laws get ignored then you might have a point, but I didn't so you don't. Your attempted nitpicking backfired.Pross said:
Have you got short term memory loss? It’s in the quote thread on this post but to make it easy for youStevo_666 said:
Where did I say that specifically?Pross said:
But a huge amount of people use a mobile phone when driving which is your definition of a bad law.Stevo_666 said:
No, but that is a different issue. Good attempted whataboutery though.Pross said:
Is using a mobile when driving a bad law too then?Stevo_666 said:
The law is the law but its well known that bad laws get ignored. A lot of 20mph limits are a good case in point.photonic69 said:
It's quite irrelevant whether people question them or not. The limit is set and to not adhear to it is unlawful. End of. What pee's me off is the lack of enforcement of so many laws in this country. It's more of a lottery IF you get caught and not WHEN. Highway Code broken by probably 85% of drivers daily. Maybe more. So few caught and if they do get caught and you read about it in the papers, the level of sentencing handed down by the courts is so arbitrary. For instance - local paper reported a driver doing over 100mph in a 40, 58mph in a 30 and 45mph in a 20 over the course of a few days. Gets SIX points on licence and fines of £300 odd. No ban. Same article in paper mentions a woman getting caught for doing 79mph on the M-Way and gets banned for 6 months plus 6 points on licence with £450 fine and costs.Stevo_666 said:Quite amusing how some people never question whether a 20mph limit is the appropriate limit for a given bit of road. These are often the same people who cannot understand why so many people ignore them.
Let's remember that many limits may well be set with aims other than safety in mind.
What the other safety aspects of driving and why do they not get anywhere near the attention or enforcement as speed? Could it be to do with the draft that it's easier to catching and fine people for speeding? Call me a cynic if you will.
“The law is the law but its well known that bad laws get ignored”.
The mobile phone laws get widely ignored so therefore, by your rationale, it is a bad law. Or do good laws also get ignored in which case it isn’t much use of evidence that drivers ignore speed limits as they are bad laws. You can’t have it both ways.
People ignore laws that they don’t want to be constrained by and the punishment isn’t severe enough to be a major deterrent to the risk of being caught. In the case of speeding a lot of people will risk going a few mph over on the off chance of getting caught, given a few points and a fine. Fewer will risk speeding to an extent where they would pick up a ban or risk jail time.
20mph is actually a far more evidence based limit than 30mph as it is the point where a slow increase in the rate of fatalities for pedestrians hit by a car starts to steepen. The pedestrian is 5 times more likely to die if hit at 50 kph than 30kph (I appreciate 30kph is slightly under 20mph and 50kph is slightly over 30mph but that’s the research data I’ve seen most recently that was used in the Welsh Government study).
Likewise, how do those setting the rules demonstrate that their aims are purely safety and not just making life difficult for motorists or raising revenue from fines on roads where the 'natural' speed is higher?
There are places where 20 is appropriate (including one in my village), but not nearly as many places as the are actually in force. Some I have experienced are just plain ridiculous. Anyway, I'm sure you'll be happy given that's going to be the default limit in Wales
. Pross just needed to be corrected, that's all.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Not a problem, just an observation.Stevo_666 said:
I guess that's a townie problem.rjsterry said:
Can't think of anywhere locally bar a quarter mile bit of dual carriageway where you could sensibly do more than 20 anyway, so it's really not an issue. Just seems to be one of those things that people like to get upset about 🤷🏻♂️.Stevo_666 said:
As mentioned above there are some place where 20 is appropriate, including my village Hight Street. However round here they are used by exception rather than sprayed around literally (excuse the pun) by leftie councils - a few good examples in London - or worse, set as the default limit as in Wales.rjsterry said:
Seems to be a county policy I'm afraid. KCC has a page of very supportive stuff on their website. Time to stand for election?Stevo_666 said:
Ooh good marks for effort. Luckily I dont live in Sevenoaksrjsterry said:
Not what it says here. https://letstalk.kent.gov.uk/sevenoaks-town-wide-20mph-limit-and-traffic-calming#:~:text=Traffic Regulation Orders (TROs),-There are two&text=The effects of the proposed,Road in a southerly direction.Stevo_666 said:
Dont worry, I'm part of the backlash against the car hating lefties/tree huggers. Also living in a nice Tory area means you don't get those sorts trying to put unnecessarily low limits in place to start withrjsterry said:
If you really can't bear it then get the limit changed. Better than sitting here moaning about it.Stevo_666 said:
No, but that is a different issue. Good attempted whataboutery though.Pross said:
Is using a mobile when driving a bad law too then?Stevo_666 said:
The law is the law but its well known that bad laws get ignored. A lot of 20mph limits are a good case in point.photonic69 said:
It's quite irrelevant whether people question them or not. The limit is set and to not adhear to it is unlawful. End of. What pee's me off is the lack of enforcement of so many laws in this country. It's more of a lottery IF you get caught and not WHEN. Highway Code broken by probably 85% of drivers daily. Maybe more. So few caught and if they do get caught and you read about it in the papers, the level of sentencing handed down by the courts is so arbitrary. For instance - local paper reported a driver doing over 100mph in a 40, 58mph in a 30 and 45mph in a 20 over the course of a few days. Gets SIX points on licence and fines of £300 odd. No ban. Same article in paper mentions a woman getting caught for doing 79mph on the M-Way and gets banned for 6 months plus 6 points on licence with £450 fine and costs.Stevo_666 said:Quite amusing how some people never question whether a 20mph limit is the appropriate limit for a given bit of road. These are often the same people who cannot understand why so many people ignore them.
Let's remember that many limits may well be set with aims other than safety in mind.
What the other safety aspects of driving and why do they not get anywhere near the attention or enforcement as speed? Could it be to do with the draft that it's easier to catching and fine people for speeding? Call me a cynic if you will.
This backlash sounds exciting. Do you meet in secret with balaclavas and angle grinders or something?
Can't say I find a 30mph limit any less tedious than 20, but whatever.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
First.Aspect said:
Depends whether that place is a set of traffic lights.rick_chasey said:How much faster are you getting places at 30 rather than 20?
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.1 -
The Archbishop of Canterbury got done for doing 25 in a 20 so I doubt it’s ignored.First.Aspect said:
Depends whether that place is a set of traffic lights.rick_chasey said:How much faster are you getting places at 30 rather than 20?
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.
If you’re on roads that justify 20 I sincerely doubt you’re saving more than dozens of seconds on an average car journey.0 -
Indeed. There are topics far more worthy of hand wringing. If I'm in an area with a 30 or 40 limit chances are I'm not there for driving pleasure anyway so yes it's just time. Or not, in reality.rick_chasey said:
The Archbishop of Canterbury got done for doing 25 in a 20 so I doubt it’s ignored.First.Aspect said:
Depends whether that place is a set of traffic lights.rick_chasey said:How much faster are you getting places at 30 rather than 20?
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.
If you’re on roads that justify 20 I sincerely doubt you’re saving more than dozens of seconds on an average car journey.
Really, 20 limits just make it safer to operate a touch screen.
So, are 20mph zones compensating in safety terms for the fact that auto makers have integrated smart phones into the dashboard?
Discuss.0 -
The entertainment screen in my car can be operated by touchscreen.First.Aspect said:
...
So, are 20mph zones compensating in safety terms for the fact that auto makers have integrated smart phones into the dashboard?
Discuss.
Such a stupid idea, I never use it. Steering wheel buttons are easier and safer.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
Mine has one of those dial things, which is great. Wife's doesn't, so I have to read it and aim. Incredibly dangerous.
And I don't want to talk to my car, because it will get it wrong. I want to press a button.0 -
😂 oh well others can read so I’ll leave them to decide if you corrected me or made a comment that you then had to backtrack from as it was clearly nonsense.Stevo_666 said:
You're a very poor mind readerrjsterry said:
Sounding just a teeny bit paranoid there 🙂Stevo_666 said:
Not backtracking at all, just careful with my use of language, unlike your reading of itPross said:
Nice try but I covered that attempt at backtracking. How do you decide if someone is ignoring speed limits because they are bad laws if you want to go down that route?Stevo_666 said:
Read my post again. If I had said that all bad laws get ignored then you might have a point, but I didn't so you don't. Your attempted nitpicking backfired.Pross said:
Have you got short term memory loss? It’s in the quote thread on this post but to make it easy for youStevo_666 said:
Where did I say that specifically?Pross said:
But a huge amount of people use a mobile phone when driving which is your definition of a bad law.Stevo_666 said:
No, but that is a different issue. Good attempted whataboutery though.Pross said:
Is using a mobile when driving a bad law too then?Stevo_666 said:
The law is the law but its well known that bad laws get ignored. A lot of 20mph limits are a good case in point.photonic69 said:
It's quite irrelevant whether people question them or not. The limit is set and to not adhear to it is unlawful. End of. What pee's me off is the lack of enforcement of so many laws in this country. It's more of a lottery IF you get caught and not WHEN. Highway Code broken by probably 85% of drivers daily. Maybe more. So few caught and if they do get caught and you read about it in the papers, the level of sentencing handed down by the courts is so arbitrary. For instance - local paper reported a driver doing over 100mph in a 40, 58mph in a 30 and 45mph in a 20 over the course of a few days. Gets SIX points on licence and fines of £300 odd. No ban. Same article in paper mentions a woman getting caught for doing 79mph on the M-Way and gets banned for 6 months plus 6 points on licence with £450 fine and costs.Stevo_666 said:Quite amusing how some people never question whether a 20mph limit is the appropriate limit for a given bit of road. These are often the same people who cannot understand why so many people ignore them.
Let's remember that many limits may well be set with aims other than safety in mind.
What the other safety aspects of driving and why do they not get anywhere near the attention or enforcement as speed? Could it be to do with the draft that it's easier to catching and fine people for speeding? Call me a cynic if you will.
“The law is the law but its well known that bad laws get ignored”.
The mobile phone laws get widely ignored so therefore, by your rationale, it is a bad law. Or do good laws also get ignored in which case it isn’t much use of evidence that drivers ignore speed limits as they are bad laws. You can’t have it both ways.
People ignore laws that they don’t want to be constrained by and the punishment isn’t severe enough to be a major deterrent to the risk of being caught. In the case of speeding a lot of people will risk going a few mph over on the off chance of getting caught, given a few points and a fine. Fewer will risk speeding to an extent where they would pick up a ban or risk jail time.
20mph is actually a far more evidence based limit than 30mph as it is the point where a slow increase in the rate of fatalities for pedestrians hit by a car starts to steepen. The pedestrian is 5 times more likely to die if hit at 50 kph than 30kph (I appreciate 30kph is slightly under 20mph and 50kph is slightly over 30mph but that’s the research data I’ve seen most recently that was used in the Welsh Government study).
Likewise, how do those setting the rules demonstrate that their aims are purely safety and not just making life difficult for motorists or raising revenue from fines on roads where the 'natural' speed is higher?
There are places where 20 is appropriate (including one in my village), but not nearly as many places as the are actually in force. Some I have experienced are just plain ridiculous. Anyway, I'm sure you'll be happy given that's going to be the default limit in Wales . Pross just needed to be corrected, that's all.0 -
Run out of arguments have we?First.Aspect said:Since when have speed limits become a leftie rightie political thing Stevo?
You are going to tell us that seatbelts are Marxist next."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Good try, but you failed on the detail no matter how much you claim otherwisePross said:
😂 oh well others can read so I’ll leave them to decide if you corrected me or made a comment that you then had to backtrack from as it was clearly nonsense.Stevo_666 said:
You're a very poor mind readerrjsterry said:
Sounding just a teeny bit paranoid there 🙂Stevo_666 said:
Not backtracking at all, just careful with my use of language, unlike your reading of itPross said:
Nice try but I covered that attempt at backtracking. How do you decide if someone is ignoring speed limits because they are bad laws if you want to go down that route?Stevo_666 said:
Read my post again. If I had said that all bad laws get ignored then you might have a point, but I didn't so you don't. Your attempted nitpicking backfired.Pross said:
Have you got short term memory loss? It’s in the quote thread on this post but to make it easy for youStevo_666 said:
Where did I say that specifically?Pross said:
But a huge amount of people use a mobile phone when driving which is your definition of a bad law.Stevo_666 said:
No, but that is a different issue. Good attempted whataboutery though.Pross said:
Is using a mobile when driving a bad law too then?Stevo_666 said:
The law is the law but its well known that bad laws get ignored. A lot of 20mph limits are a good case in point.photonic69 said:
It's quite irrelevant whether people question them or not. The limit is set and to not adhear to it is unlawful. End of. What pee's me off is the lack of enforcement of so many laws in this country. It's more of a lottery IF you get caught and not WHEN. Highway Code broken by probably 85% of drivers daily. Maybe more. So few caught and if they do get caught and you read about it in the papers, the level of sentencing handed down by the courts is so arbitrary. For instance - local paper reported a driver doing over 100mph in a 40, 58mph in a 30 and 45mph in a 20 over the course of a few days. Gets SIX points on licence and fines of £300 odd. No ban. Same article in paper mentions a woman getting caught for doing 79mph on the M-Way and gets banned for 6 months plus 6 points on licence with £450 fine and costs.Stevo_666 said:Quite amusing how some people never question whether a 20mph limit is the appropriate limit for a given bit of road. These are often the same people who cannot understand why so many people ignore them.
Let's remember that many limits may well be set with aims other than safety in mind.
What the other safety aspects of driving and why do they not get anywhere near the attention or enforcement as speed? Could it be to do with the draft that it's easier to catching and fine people for speeding? Call me a cynic if you will.
“The law is the law but its well known that bad laws get ignored”.
The mobile phone laws get widely ignored so therefore, by your rationale, it is a bad law. Or do good laws also get ignored in which case it isn’t much use of evidence that drivers ignore speed limits as they are bad laws. You can’t have it both ways.
People ignore laws that they don’t want to be constrained by and the punishment isn’t severe enough to be a major deterrent to the risk of being caught. In the case of speeding a lot of people will risk going a few mph over on the off chance of getting caught, given a few points and a fine. Fewer will risk speeding to an extent where they would pick up a ban or risk jail time.
20mph is actually a far more evidence based limit than 30mph as it is the point where a slow increase in the rate of fatalities for pedestrians hit by a car starts to steepen. The pedestrian is 5 times more likely to die if hit at 50 kph than 30kph (I appreciate 30kph is slightly under 20mph and 50kph is slightly over 30mph but that’s the research data I’ve seen most recently that was used in the Welsh Government study).
Likewise, how do those setting the rules demonstrate that their aims are purely safety and not just making life difficult for motorists or raising revenue from fines on roads where the 'natural' speed is higher?
There are places where 20 is appropriate (including one in my village), but not nearly as many places as the are actually in force. Some I have experienced are just plain ridiculous. Anyway, I'm sure you'll be happy given that's going to be the default limit in Wales . Pross just needed to be corrected, that's all. "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]1 -
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...briantrumpet said:First.Aspect said:
Depends whether that place is a set of traffic lights.rick_chasey said:How much faster are you getting places at 30 rather than 20?
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."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Shhhhhh. The original speed limit was 10 mph, and that was reduced to 2 mph in town. We know how the tories like harking back to the good old days.Stevo_666 said:
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...briantrumpet said:First.Aspect said:
Depends whether that place is a set of traffic lights.rick_chasey said:How much faster are you getting places at 30 rather than 20?
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.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
Not sure that even the most swivel eyed members of the anti car brigade would go for that. Expecially not on the motorwaypblakeney said:
Shhhhhh. The original speed limit was 10 mph, and that was reduced to 2 mph in town. We know how the tories like harking back to the good old days.Stevo_666 said:
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...briantrumpet said:First.Aspect said:
Depends whether that place is a set of traffic lights.rick_chasey said:How much faster are you getting places at 30 rather than 20?
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.
But if we take the arguments of some on here about lower speed limits to their logical conclusion..."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
I'm not arguing. I think 20 limits are over used. I just don't see it as a left wing conspiracy.Stevo_666 said:
Run out of arguments have we?First.Aspect said:Since when have speed limits become a leftie rightie political thing Stevo?
You are going to tell us that seatbelts are Marxist next.
0 -
Lol. Never change.Stevo_666 said:
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...briantrumpet said:First.Aspect said:
Depends whether that place is a set of traffic lights.rick_chasey said:How much faster are you getting places at 30 rather than 20?
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.
1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Hooray, this comment triggered the likebot that has no voice of their own.Stevo_666 said:
Good try, but you failed on the detail no matter how much you claim otherwisePross said:
😂 oh well others can read so I’ll leave them to decide if you corrected me or made a comment that you then had to backtrack from as it was clearly nonsense.Stevo_666 said:
You're a very poor mind readerrjsterry said:
Sounding just a teeny bit paranoid there 🙂Stevo_666 said:
Not backtracking at all, just careful with my use of language, unlike your reading of itPross said:
Nice try but I covered that attempt at backtracking. How do you decide if someone is ignoring speed limits because they are bad laws if you want to go down that route?Stevo_666 said:
Read my post again. If I had said that all bad laws get ignored then you might have a point, but I didn't so you don't. Your attempted nitpicking backfired.Pross said:
Have you got short term memory loss? It’s in the quote thread on this post but to make it easy for youStevo_666 said:
Where did I say that specifically?Pross said:
But a huge amount of people use a mobile phone when driving which is your definition of a bad law.Stevo_666 said:
No, but that is a different issue. Good attempted whataboutery though.Pross said:
Is using a mobile when driving a bad law too then?Stevo_666 said:
The law is the law but its well known that bad laws get ignored. A lot of 20mph limits are a good case in point.photonic69 said:
It's quite irrelevant whether people question them or not. The limit is set and to not adhear to it is unlawful. End of. What pee's me off is the lack of enforcement of so many laws in this country. It's more of a lottery IF you get caught and not WHEN. Highway Code broken by probably 85% of drivers daily. Maybe more. So few caught and if they do get caught and you read about it in the papers, the level of sentencing handed down by the courts is so arbitrary. For instance - local paper reported a driver doing over 100mph in a 40, 58mph in a 30 and 45mph in a 20 over the course of a few days. Gets SIX points on licence and fines of £300 odd. No ban. Same article in paper mentions a woman getting caught for doing 79mph on the M-Way and gets banned for 6 months plus 6 points on licence with £450 fine and costs.Stevo_666 said:Quite amusing how some people never question whether a 20mph limit is the appropriate limit for a given bit of road. These are often the same people who cannot understand why so many people ignore them.
Let's remember that many limits may well be set with aims other than safety in mind.
What the other safety aspects of driving and why do they not get anywhere near the attention or enforcement as speed? Could it be to do with the draft that it's easier to catching and fine people for speeding? Call me a cynic if you will.
“The law is the law but its well known that bad laws get ignored”.
The mobile phone laws get widely ignored so therefore, by your rationale, it is a bad law. Or do good laws also get ignored in which case it isn’t much use of evidence that drivers ignore speed limits as they are bad laws. You can’t have it both ways.
People ignore laws that they don’t want to be constrained by and the punishment isn’t severe enough to be a major deterrent to the risk of being caught. In the case of speeding a lot of people will risk going a few mph over on the off chance of getting caught, given a few points and a fine. Fewer will risk speeding to an extent where they would pick up a ban or risk jail time.
20mph is actually a far more evidence based limit than 30mph as it is the point where a slow increase in the rate of fatalities for pedestrians hit by a car starts to steepen. The pedestrian is 5 times more likely to die if hit at 50 kph than 30kph (I appreciate 30kph is slightly under 20mph and 50kph is slightly over 30mph but that’s the research data I’ve seen most recently that was used in the Welsh Government study).
Likewise, how do those setting the rules demonstrate that their aims are purely safety and not just making life difficult for motorists or raising revenue from fines on roads where the 'natural' speed is higher?
There are places where 20 is appropriate (including one in my village), but not nearly as many places as the are actually in force. Some I have experienced are just plain ridiculous. Anyway, I'm sure you'll be happy given that's going to be the default limit in Wales . Pross just needed to be corrected, that's all.1 -
The point Stevo is making is that the data would almost certainly show that slower is better for safety, and that there is no lower limit where you would stop seeing safety improvements. So where do you draw the line? 20 is safer than 30, but 30 is safer than 40. 10 is safer than 20.rjsterry said:
Lol. Never change.Stevo_666 said:
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...briantrumpet said:First.Aspect said:
Depends whether that place is a set of traffic lights.rick_chasey said:How much faster are you getting places at 30 rather than 20?
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.
I'm sure we've all been on industrial sites where there are 5mph limits. For safety. So someone in H&S capacity has in some contexts concluded that is a safe speed, based on a certain risk analysis.
You may not agree, but it is not unreasonable to consider 20 limits to be H&S gone mad.1 -
Generally anyone saying H&S gone mad can be safely ignored.First.Aspect said:
The point Stevo is making is that the data would almost certainly show that slower is better for safety, and that there is no lower limit where you would stop seeing safety improvements. So where do you draw the line? 20 is safer than 30, but 30 is safer than 40. 10 is safer than 20.rjsterry said:
Lol. Never change.Stevo_666 said:
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...briantrumpet said:First.Aspect said:
Depends whether that place is a set of traffic lights.rick_chasey said:How much faster are you getting places at 30 rather than 20?
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.
I'm sure we've all been on industrial sites where there are 5mph limits. For safety. So someone in H&S capacity has in some contexts concluded that is a safe speed, based on a certain risk analysis.
You may not agree, but it is not unreasonable to consider 20 limits to be H&S gone mad.0 -
This is true to an extent but the gradient of the curve is very slow and gradual until around 20mph at which point it starts to rise more sharply. I've seen it presented at several conferences so I'll try to track it down and post it. As I mentioned above pedestrians hit by a car at 50kph are 5 times more likely to be killed than at 30kph. The reduction to 20mph has a lot more evidence behind it than the 30mph limits we are all used to. The Welsh Government site has a report it commissioned prior to going down this route. I still agree that the coverage is probably more widespread than it could be but '20 unless you see otherwise' is probably less ambiguous than having more exemptions.First.Aspect said:
The point Stevo is making is that the data would almost certainly show that slower is better for safety, and that there is no lower limit where you would stop seeing safety improvements. So where do you draw the line? 20 is safer than 30, but 30 is safer than 40. 10 is safer than 20.rjsterry said:
Lol. Never change.Stevo_666 said:
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...briantrumpet said:First.Aspect said:
Depends whether that place is a set of traffic lights.rick_chasey said:How much faster are you getting places at 30 rather than 20?
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.
I'm sure we've all been on industrial sites where there are 5mph limits. For safety. So someone in H&S capacity has in some contexts concluded that is a safe speed, based on a certain risk analysis.
You may not agree, but it is not unreasonable to consider 20 limits to be H&S gone mad.0 -
Here you go, loads of research and graphs here
https://nacto.org/docs/usdg/relationship_between_speed_risk_fatal_injury_pedestrians_and_car_occupants_richards.pdf
It's a little bit graph heavy but most show fatality rates for pedestrians being close to zero until around 20mph where it starts to rise and then starts to rise more steeply. The report itself is focussing more on the difference between 30 and 40mph but suggests general fatality rates around 9% at 30mph but it is much higher among the elderly. I could only see one graph (below) covering injuries, these show injury rates rise sharply at around 10mph which is possibly why speed limits in workplaces / car parks etc. are set so low (note that this is before linear regression is applied, my knowledge of statistics is too limited to fully understand the methodology). In reality I would suggest a 20mph speed limit is intended to bring speeds down below 30mph rather than hitting 20mph or lower.
0 -
Stevo_666 said:
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...briantrumpet said:First.Aspect said:
Depends whether that place is a set of traffic lights.rick_chasey said:How much faster are you getting places at 30 rather than 20?
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.
Is anyone saying speed is the only relevant factor?0 -
I did 20mph through the (completely valid) 20mph limit section in Hampton on Sunday and got tailgated by a zipcar van, which overtook almost crashing into an oncoming vehicle. Coming into the Kingston one way system 3 miles down the road, I pulled up at some traffic lights and the same van pulled up behind me.
They proceeded to do some more maniac driving, which I doubt made much difference either.0 -
Yeah, sometimes they are annoying. I don't feel the need to be such a victim about it though, let alone creating an imaginary enemy to blame for being slightly annoyed.First.Aspect said:
The point Stevo is making is that the data would almost certainly show that slower is better for safety, and that there is no lower limit where you would stop seeing safety improvements. So where do you draw the line? 20 is safer than 30, but 30 is safer than 40. 10 is safer than 20.rjsterry said:
Lol. Never change.Stevo_666 said:
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...briantrumpet said:First.Aspect said:
Depends whether that place is a set of traffic lights.rick_chasey said:How much faster are you getting places at 30 rather than 20?
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.
I'm sure we've all been on industrial sites where there are 5mph limits. For safety. So someone in H&S capacity has in some contexts concluded that is a safe speed, based on a certain risk analysis.
You may not agree, but it is not unreasonable to consider 20 limits to be H&S gone mad.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Read somewhere one giant touchscreen is a lot cheaper to manufacture than physical buttons.pblakeney said:
The entertainment screen in my car can be operated by touchscreen.First.Aspect said:
...
So, are 20mph zones compensating in safety terms for the fact that auto makers have integrated smart phones into the dashboard?
Discuss.
Such a stupid idea, I never use it. Steering wheel buttons are easier and safer.0 -
It's a terrible idea, and is the one thing I hate about my car.
Why should I need to press a button and a touchscreen to turn up the fan or turn on the AC?0
