The Big 'Let's sell our cars and take buses/ebikes instead' thread (warning: probably very dull)
Comments
-
I didn't mention a conspiracy but there is definitely an unnecessary proliferation of these things.First.Aspect said:
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."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
It's the only one that is getting any debate on here, apart from my occasional reminder that there are other relevant factors.briantrumpet said: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?"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Allowing for all the other factors, I'd rather a child running across the road be hit by an inattentive driver going at 20 rather than 30. In most residential streets, motorised vehicles should not be the priority.Stevo_666 said:
It's the only one that is getting any debate on here, apart from my occasional reminder that there are other relevant factors.briantrumpet said: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?2 -
Seems to be an evidence based policy. Sorry Stevo.Pross said: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.
The main counter argument would therefore seem to rely on the presence or absence of pedestrians. Which may or may not be consistent woth the over use or these limits.
0 -
Stevo_666 said:
It's the only one that is getting any debate on here, apart from my occasional reminder that there are other relevant factors.briantrumpet said: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?
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.0 -
That changes everything then.Stevo_666 said:
I didn't mention a conspiracy but there is definitely an unnecessary proliferation of these things.First.Aspect said:
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 -
That has to be it. But like Di2 brifters, which are cheaper and simpler than mechanical ones to make, I somehow doubt the cost savings are being passed on.rick_chasey said:
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 -
I doubt the number of people who won't buy a car because it doesn't have physical buttons is big enough to matter.First.Aspect said:
That has to be it. But like Di2 brifters, which are cheaper and simpler than mechanical ones to make, I somehow doubt the cost savings are being passed on.rick_chasey said:
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 -
Yep although the blanket coverage in Wales applies to built up areas so it is reasonable to assume pedestrians will be around and the exemptions I’ve seen are generally the sort of distributor roads within towns that would have limited pedestrian traffic.First.Aspect said:
Seems to be an evidence based policy. Sorry Stevo.Pross said: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.
The main counter argument would therefore seem to rely on the presence or absence of pedestrians. Which may or may not be consistent woth the over use or these limits.
Some argue that reducing the speed limits will encourage walking and cycling but (based on nothing but guesswork) I don’t think this will be as big as they suggest. Most people who drive journeys they could easily walk or cycle are doing in from choice not because they don’t feel safe (even if they give that as an excuse in surveys).0 -
Not sure. There are some basic functions, the climate control, volume, windows, seats, that people just want buttons for.rick_chasey said:
I doubt the number of people who won't buy a car because it doesn't have physical buttons is big enough to matter.First.Aspect said:
That has to be it. But like Di2 brifters, which are cheaper and simpler than mechanical ones to make, I somehow doubt the cost savings are being passed on.rick_chasey said:
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.
VW have backtracked a bit on this already.0 -
I'd like buttons on a phone, but that is sadly now a lost causeFirst.Aspect said:
Not sure. There are some basic functions, the climate control, volume, windows, seats, that people just want buttons for.rick_chasey said:
I doubt the number of people who won't buy a car because it doesn't have physical buttons is big enough to matter.First.Aspect said:
That has to be it. But like Di2 brifters, which are cheaper and simpler than mechanical ones to make, I somehow doubt the cost savings are being passed on.rick_chasey said:
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.
VW have backtracked a bit on this already.0 -
But mine has both. Given a straight choice one method is far superior.rick_chasey said:
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.
I'd choose it even if it was a cost option.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 -
Surely voice activation with a single button on the steering wheel would be the best? Hopefully it has come on a bit from my 2008 Mini where I would reach Basil Fawlty point with it mishearing me!0
-
https://www.giffgaff.com/mobile-phones/nokia/nokia-215-4g/newTheBigBean said:
I'd like buttons on a phone, but that is sadly now a lost causeFirst.Aspect said:
Not sure. There are some basic functions, the climate control, volume, windows, seats, that people just want buttons for.rick_chasey said:
I doubt the number of people who won't buy a car because it doesn't have physical buttons is big enough to matter.First.Aspect said:
That has to be it. But like Di2 brifters, which are cheaper and simpler than mechanical ones to make, I somehow doubt the cost savings are being passed on.rick_chasey said:
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.
VW have backtracked a bit on this already.
0 -
I've said before that an important point of road safety is for drivers to pay attention. I don't see much effort going into improving that.kingstongraham said:
Allowing for all the other factors, I'd rather a child running across the road be hit by an inattentive driver going at 20 rather than 30. In most residential streets, motorised vehicles should not be the priority.Stevo_666 said:
It's the only one that is getting any debate on here, apart from my occasional reminder that there are other relevant factors.briantrumpet said: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?
Another one is for pedestrians to look and make sure its safe to cross before they do so. Frankly, Anyone who can't do that shouldn't be allowed out unsupervised."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
More of an annoyance and something to be resisted.First.Aspect said:
That changes everything then.Stevo_666 said:
I didn't mention a conspiracy but there is definitely an unnecessary proliferation of these things.First.Aspect said:
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."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
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.briantrumpet said:Stevo_666 said:
It's the only one that is getting any debate on here, apart from my occasional reminder that there are other relevant factors.briantrumpet said: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?
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."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
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.Stevo_666 said:
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.briantrumpet said:Stevo_666 said:
It's the only one that is getting any debate on here, apart from my occasional reminder that there are other relevant factors.briantrumpet said: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?
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.
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?0 -
The difficulty is how to penalise people who can't drive well. Catching speeders is more straight forward and lucrative - hence the popularity IMO.First.Aspect said:
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.Stevo_666 said:
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.briantrumpet said:Stevo_666 said:
It's the only one that is getting any debate on here, apart from my occasional reminder that there are other relevant factors.briantrumpet said: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?
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.
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?
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."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Reducing speed does help prevent accidents happening.Stevo_666 said:
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.briantrumpet said:Stevo_666 said:
It's the only one that is getting any debate on here, apart from my occasional reminder that there are other relevant factors.briantrumpet said: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?
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.1 -
Queue the Clarkson quip - It's not the speed that does the damage, it is the sudden stop.kingstongraham said:
Reducing speed does help prevent accidents happening.Stevo_666 said:
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.briantrumpet said:Stevo_666 said:
It's the only one that is getting any debate on here, apart from my occasional reminder that there are other relevant factors.briantrumpet said: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?
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.
Nonsense of course, but he was saying it for laughs.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 -
It can do in some situations. Do you think that drivers and pedestrians paying attention, anticipating etc is also helpful?kingstongraham said:
Reducing speed does help prevent accidents happening.Stevo_666 said:
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.briantrumpet said:Stevo_666 said:
It's the only one that is getting any debate on here, apart from my occasional reminder that there are other relevant factors.briantrumpet said: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?
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."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Stevo_666 said:
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.briantrumpet said:Stevo_666 said:
It's the only one that is getting any debate on here, apart from my occasional reminder that there are other relevant factors.briantrumpet said: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?
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.
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.0 -
Stevo_666 said:
The difficulty is how to penalise people who can't drive well. Catching speeders is more straight forward and lucrative - hence the popularity IMO.First.Aspect said:
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.Stevo_666 said:
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.briantrumpet said:Stevo_666 said:
It's the only one that is getting any debate on here, apart from my occasional reminder that there are other relevant factors.briantrumpet said: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?
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.
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?
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.
Good reason to do it then, as it's easy, and reminds people to stick to speed limits, and that excess speed increases severity when accidents do occur.
There's also an easy way not to get caught speeding.0 -
Of course, sometime reduced speed can cause accidents.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=gT8GbYL35oU&si=td-b3rD4qab-0Ki5 "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
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.briantrumpet said:Stevo_666 said:
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.briantrumpet said:Stevo_666 said:
It's the only one that is getting any debate on here, apart from my occasional reminder that there are other relevant factors.briantrumpet said: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?
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.
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.
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Stevo_666 said:
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.briantrumpet said:Stevo_666 said:
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.briantrumpet said:Stevo_666 said:
It's the only one that is getting any debate on here, apart from my occasional reminder that there are other relevant factors.briantrumpet said: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?
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.
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.
Seems like a fair initial assumption. Any better than that is a bonus.0 -
Yes. Also being an important part of that sentence.Stevo_666 said:
It can do in some situations. Do you think that drivers and pedestrians paying attention, anticipating etc is also helpful?kingstongraham said:
Reducing speed does help prevent accidents happening.Stevo_666 said:
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.briantrumpet said:Stevo_666 said:
It's the only one that is getting any debate on here, apart from my occasional reminder that there are other relevant factors.briantrumpet said: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?
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.0 -
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.Stevo_666 said:
It can do in some situations. Do you think that drivers and pedestrians paying attention, anticipating etc is also helpful?kingstongraham said:
Reducing speed does help prevent accidents happening.Stevo_666 said:
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.briantrumpet said:Stevo_666 said:
It's the only one that is getting any debate on here, apart from my occasional reminder that there are other relevant factors.briantrumpet said: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?
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.0 -
Do you get the impression in your area that the police are cashing in on this low hanging fruit of catching speeders?Stevo_666 said:
The difficulty is how to penalise people who can't drive well. Catching speeders is more straight forward and lucrative - hence the popularity IMO.First.Aspect said:
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.Stevo_666 said:
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.briantrumpet said:Stevo_666 said:
It's the only one that is getting any debate on here, apart from my occasional reminder that there are other relevant factors.briantrumpet said: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?
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.
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?
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.- Genesis Croix de Fer
- Dolan Tuono0
