# More than 32,000 people have died on British roads in the past 10 years



## User (16 Dec 2009)




----------



## Cab (16 Dec 2009)

Ahh, but they are _other_ people. And _other_ people dying, you know, people not in your car, are an acceptable risk.

A 'right mind' doesn't come in to it


----------



## very-near (16 Dec 2009)

*Interactive map of road fatalities on the UK roads in the last 10 years*

Interesting road map on the BBC website HERE. From a cursory glance of the area I live in, it appears that the very vast majority of victims (70%) are actually the occupants of the cars themselves, and cyclists didn't even get on to the map last year as a user group in the county of Gloucestershire. 

So if you want to live longer, don't use the car!


----------



## very-near (16 Dec 2009)

> Put it like that, and I don't see how anyone in their right mind can argue against the increase in measures proven to reduce death on the roads
> 
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8415351.stm



What is this expressed as a percentage of the population ?

Edit - 0.05% of the population of the UK have been killed on the roads over the last 10 years by other people operating heavy machinery. This is news ??


----------



## dellzeqq (16 Dec 2009)

User3094 said:


> Puts the Afghan war in perspective doesnt it.
> 
> (102 soldiers in 8 years)


a very good point. I get a little bored with all the manufactured grief when most road casualties don't make it past page 11.


----------



## Cab (16 Dec 2009)

dellzeqq said:


> a very good point. I get a little bored with all the manufactured grief when most road casualties don't make it past page 11.



Perhaps the tragedy is not that we grieve too much or too publicly for our war heroes, but that we do not also grieve more vocally for those killed on our roads.


----------



## dellzeqq (16 Dec 2009)

Cab said:


> Perhaps the tragedy is not that we grieve too much or too publicly for our war heroes, but that we do not also grieve more vocally for those killed on our roads.


possibly, but a greater tragedy is that, as a country, we lack the political will to do much about it.


----------



## very-near (16 Dec 2009)

User3094 said:


> Yup and because another 30K die using their Black and Deckers (see post above) its somehow acceptable.



Using figures like the OP has does nothing to strengthen the argument when they are put in perspective. Life is risk - now put the bacon buttie down and step away from the frying pan if you want to keep the number of avoidable deaths in the UK down


----------



## yenrod (16 Dec 2009)

*Deaths on British Roads*

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/uk/2009/crash/8414354.stm


----------



## very-near (16 Dec 2009)

Is is a conincidence that they have released an interactive accident map at the same time  They get the stats down to figures which are IMO amazinly low given there are 30million vehicles on theroad, and they then realise that most people see this as acceptable risk for personal freedom so they move the goal posts and quote over a 10 year period to beef up the numbers again  Apart frrom the fact that there has been a 20% drop in the numbers over that time as well.

Who is the cynic, those organising these 'offensives' or the ones seeing them for what they are... Are you suitably scared shitless of getting on your bike now as you have seen these numbers as cycling is a very safe pastime/mode by comparison to drving or any other mode on the roads.


----------



## StuartG (16 Dec 2009)

And lets not forget the 10 x number who are seriously injured. The dead don't suffer any more. Many more are having to live the hell created by a thoughtless or misjudged act.

While we can never eliminate either - just the awareness of the consequences might make us all more careful. As a car driver I do get lulled into the protective comfort zone that is Magic Radio, a nice sweetie or two and 'dam why did that cyclist have to do that!!!"

I'm not convinced shock ads will do it. Putting more restrictions in place can just jack-up the aggro - after all I'm a good driver, I've never actually killed anybody - yet.

Attitude change is very difficult. Its moving away from rather than to cycling IMHO.


----------



## nosherduke996 (16 Dec 2009)

If the proposed speed limit of 20mph is introduced in places then in my village we will be going faster. Just another Nanny state law by the goverment.
The way people are taught to drive is the issue.


----------



## Lurker (16 Dec 2009)

very-near said:


> Using figures like the OP has does nothing to strengthen the argument when they are put in perspective. Life is risk - now put the bacon buttie down and step away from the frying pan if you want to keep the number of avoidable deaths in the UK down



You're missing the point. This is a cycling forum. The risk we're worried about is the risk of death or injury from *other* road users, who may choose to impose it on us. We choose for ourselves whether to eat a bacon buttie.


----------



## upsidedown (16 Dec 2009)

Was looking at the map earlier. Quite interseting to see that in the West Midlands there were no cyclng deaths in 2008, and 1 in 2007. Most of the fatal crashes that i could see happened late at night.
Puts it into perspective really how safe cycling is against the perceived risk, at least outside of London.


----------



## Cab (16 Dec 2009)

nosherduke996 said:


> If the proposed speed limit of 20mph is introduced in places then in my village we will be going faster. Just another Nanny state law by the goverment.
> The way people are taught to drive is the issue.



If theres a 20mph limit and its enforced, it could well make roads flow far more freely in areas with some congestion. You've got a lot more road space with shorter stopping distances. 

Its an excellent idea for urban areas.


----------



## StuartG (16 Dec 2009)

In London - fatalities have dropped markedly over the period. Particulary for motorists - in better protected cars. Pedestrians have fallen too - better protected behind those steel barriers? Bikers/Cyclists are taking increased hits (or at least propotionately - the maps don't give actual numbers). So cars are getting safer, pavements are getting safer - despite pavement cyclists. But roads paradoxically are getting more dangerous for anyone without some sheet steel between them and the next guy?


----------



## dellzeqq (16 Dec 2009)

it only tells a portion of the story. Your chances of getting killed while cycling per thousand miles are lower in London than anywhere else in the country. (And that is a crap sentence, but hopefully it can be understood...)


----------



## dellzeqq (16 Dec 2009)

I don't think they are. The death rate/mileage for cyclists is lower in London than in the rest of the country. You run a far higher risk cycling 1000 miles on rural roads than in London.

The really striking thing is that cycling deaths in London are almost all attributable to lorries, and particular types of lorries at that.


----------



## dellzeqq (16 Dec 2009)

I go through Newdigate frequently - some of you will have been through it on the FNRttC to Bognor. I doubt that cars exceed 30mph there because the road is too narrow. I also doubt that a 20mph speed limit will be introduced unless the people of Newdigate ask for it. If they do ask for it then it seems reasonable to apply it.


----------



## ComedyPilot (16 Dec 2009)

dellzeqq said:


> it only tells a portion of the story. Your chances of getting killed while cycling per thousand miles are lower in London than anywhere else in the country. (And that is a crap sentence, but hopefully it can be understood...)



Is that because in London you're not likely to ride thousands of miles, like out here in the sticks?


----------



## dellzeqq (16 Dec 2009)

no


----------



## very-near (16 Dec 2009)

Lurker said:


> You're missing the point. This is a cycling forum. The risk we're worried about is the risk of death or injury from *other* road users, who may choose to impose it on us. We choose for ourselves whether to eat a bacon buttie.




If you look at the interactive road map and the associated stats, you will see that the very vast majority of KSI's are not cyclists or Pedestrians, but the car drivers themselves -http://www.cyclechat.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=50698

As being hit from behind on a cycle is actually a fairly rare occurence, I'd suggest you consider using the primary position more to skew the odds if you are that worried about a car hitting you off at either 50mph or 60mph - either one is going to hurt if they do.


----------



## very-near (16 Dec 2009)

StuartG said:


> In London - fatalities have dropped markedly over the period. Particulary for motorists - in better protected cars. Pedestrians have fallen too - better protected behind those steel barriers? Bikers/Cyclists are taking increased hits (or at least propotionately - the maps don't give actual numbers). So cars are getting safer, pavements are getting safer - despite pavement cyclists. But roads paradoxically are getting more dangerous for anyone without some sheet steel between them and the next guy?




I think that the reduction in deaths for pedestrian is down to the improvements in car safety, and nothing to do with what goes on on the pavements.


----------



## StuartG (16 Dec 2009)

dellzeqq said:


> The death rate/mileage for cyclists is lower in London than in the rest of the country. You run a far higher risk cycling 1000 miles on rural roads than in London.


With respect that is not relevant. In London what is the direction of travel on road incidents? That is when two or more vehicles/people come in serious contact. I would read these figures to say upward with the consequences becoming more concentrated on two wheel riders. Two wheeled rider/miles is increasing so that has to be discounted. Bottom line is risk of death and (IMHO more importantly) serious injury per mile increasing/decreasing?

Same for rural roads. Safer or less safe for cyclists than 10 years ago? Comparing the two is not that helpful as you admit the nature of who causes what to whom is rather different in all areas.

We should surely concentrate on making things (relatively) better.


----------



## dellzeqq (16 Dec 2009)

if I understood that I'd respond. But I don't

Except for the last sentence. Knowing that it's construction traffic that kills London cyclists is a step on the way to doing something about it


----------



## StuartG (16 Dec 2009)

Apologies Del. I'll rephrase my question as I am hoping you will save me hours of Googling by having the answer. 

Is the the fatality & injury rates of cyclists and bikers measured per mile travelled in London rising or falling? Same for rural roads? 

Sorry I find English difficult.


----------



## yenrod (16 Dec 2009)

From what I could see for my area - the highest times for fatalities are 10-11pm and subsequently 5-6pm..


----------



## dellzeqq (16 Dec 2009)

the apologies should be mine - I was being lazy.

Casualties per bike mile in London have dropped. That's the very good news. The better news is that the more people cycle the more the casualties per bike mile drop. The really fantastically wonderful news is that if you strip out one particular type of incident the casualties per bike mile don't so much drop as fall off a cliff.

The bad news is that, collectively, we lack the political will to do anything about that one particular type of accident - and there is plenty that we could do.


----------



## StuartG (16 Dec 2009)

To continue the lazy theme Del - could you kindly point me to the statistics on the construction traffic issue. I can then be out of everybody's hair as I really do prefer crunching numbers to putting words together.

TIA


----------



## very-near (16 Dec 2009)

yenrod said:


> From what I could see for my area - the highest times for fatalities are 10-11pm and subsequently 5-6pm..



Pub kicking out time, or when people are thinking about their stomachs


----------



## Glow worm (16 Dec 2009)

Even travelling by bus doesn't look too great either!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/8415726.stm


----------



## Lurker (16 Dec 2009)

very-near said:


> If you look at the interactive road map and the associated stats, you will see that the very vast majority of KSI's are not cyclists or Pedestrians, but the car drivers themselves -http://www.cyclechat.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=50698
> 
> As being hit from behind on a cycle is actually a fairly rare occurence, I'd suggest you consider using the primary position more to skew the odds if you are that worried about a car hitting you off at either 50mph or 60mph - either one is going to hurt if they do.




I'm not sure of the relevance of your first statement. From a cycling perspective what concerns me most is my exposure to risk while cycling. And the source of that exposure is overwhelmingly motorised road users.

Actually I'm not sure of the relevance of your second statement either.... again, since the danger comes from cars driven by people at speed, isn't the onus on those people to change their behaviour? (and, yes, I am aware of the primary position and how to use it to mitigate other people's poor driving).


----------



## very-near (16 Dec 2009)

Lurker said:


> I'm not sure of the relevance of your first statement. From a cycling perspective what concerns me most is my exposure to risk while cycling. And the source of that exposure is overwhelmingly motorised road users.
> 
> Actually I'm not sure of the relevance of your second statement either.... again, since the danger comes from cars driven by people at speed, isn't the onus on those people to change their behaviour? (and, yes, I am aware of the primary position and how to use it to mitigate other people's poor driving).



Given what you have just said, we are in agreement that poor driving standards play a significant part in these accidents. We have covered this at length before now on other threads recently, but what really stands out is tha inexperience behind the wheel increases the risk far above that of just speed on its own. This is consistent with the high premiums charged by insurance companies to young drivers.


----------



## dellzeqq (16 Dec 2009)

StuartG said:


> To continue the lazy theme Del - could you kindly point me to the statistics on the construction traffic issue. I can then be out of everybody's hair as I really do prefer crunching numbers to putting words together.
> 
> TIA


there are no official statistics - which is, in itself, desperate. Only newspaper reports. My recollection is that six out of eight lorry deaths in 2008 were caused by construction lorries.

Can I crave your indulgence by going over a bit of old ground. I used to be on a TfL committee (with Tom Bogdanovich of the LCC amongst others) that considered the contribution that cycling might make to the 2012 Olympics. We met the chap responsible for the construction phase transport plan - I'd have to look up his name - and asked for 
a) every driver entering or leaving the site to have a criminal records check
 left side mirrors with fresnel lenses to be fitted to every lorry entering or leaving the site

our motivation was twofold - to reduce the risk of injury from these lorries, and to set a benchmark. We were rebuffed. This was in 2006.


----------



## gavintc (16 Dec 2009)

User3094 said:


> Puts the Afghan war in perspective doesnt it.
> 
> (102 soldiers in 8 years)



I know that the detailed numbers do not change the principle, but for accuracy, the number of deaths is 237 in 8 years and 102 this year.


----------



## jonesy (16 Dec 2009)

dellzeqq said:


> there are no official statistics - which is, in itself, desperate. Only newspaper reports. My recollection is that six out of eight lorry deaths in 2008 were caused by construction lorries.
> 
> Can I crave your indulgence by going over a bit of old ground. I used to be on a TfL committee (with Tom Bogdanovich of the LCC amongst others) that considered the contribution that cycling might make to the 2012 Olympics. We met the chap responsible for the construction phase transport plan - I'd have to look up his name - and asked for
> a) every driver entering or leaving the site to have a criminal records check
> ...



There is some relevant analysis here:
http://londonroadsafety.tfl.gov.uk/...research_police-collision-files_2001-2006.pdf

and here:
http://www.trl.co.uk/online_store/r..._britain_s_roads_establishing_the_causes_.htm


----------



## very-near (16 Dec 2009)

> One road, 300 cars, 2 bikes. A collision involving a car and a bike results in the death of 2 car occupants and the cyclist.
> 
> Are cars more dangerous because twice as many in the car died?



Is there any chance you can re-work that one as it doesn't make a lot of sense


----------



## very-near (16 Dec 2009)

> Of course it does.
> 
> There are millions more cars on the road than bikes. KSI stats need to be read proportionally.


 As in KSIs per miles travelled ?


----------



## StuartG (16 Dec 2009)

dellzeqq said:


> Can I crave your indulgence by going over a bit of old ground. I used to be on a TfL committee (with Tom Bogdanovich of the LCC amongst others) that considered the contribution that cycling might make to the 2012 Olympics.


To go off topic I could not help noticing that last night I drove (sorry) passed Olympic Park on the link from the Blackwall tunnel to the M11 the first building nearing completion was not the velodrome but, wait for it, a multistorey carpark! 

Is this the venue for a new British Olympic sport? 
View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qKAME9fAA-4


----------



## very-near (16 Dec 2009)

> A more direct question, if I may-
> 
> 20mph speed limits have been shown to improve road safety.
> 
> What's the problem with them?



Well they wouldn't help reduce congestion where an existing road has an average speed of 40mph, and consequentially, and they would increase pollution at a local level as the vehicles would stay in the area for longer, as well as there would be less stirring of the air to dissipate any fumes they give off. Lower limits also increase journey times and in turn will increase fatigue and that in turn increases the risk of driver error which is as we know the primary cause of accidents in the first place - innit


----------



## jonesy (16 Dec 2009)

> A more direct question, if I may-
> 
> *20mph speed limits have been shown to improve road safety.*
> 
> What's the problem with them?



Just to highlight the key point here, lest anyone have forgotten it...


----------



## Lurker (16 Dec 2009)

very-near said:


> Given what you have just said, we are in agreement that poor driving standards play a significant part in these accidents. We have covered this at length before now on other threads recently, but what really stands out is tha inexperience behind the wheel increases the risk far above that of just speed on its own. This is consistent with the high premiums charged by insurance companies to young drivers.



It would be more accurate to say that poor driving standards play an overwhelmingly significant part in these collisions. The extent to which drivers are at fault in such collisions (rather than cyclists) has been quantified in a number of reports, most recently that discussed at 
http://www.cyclechat.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=50675

I don't agree that inexperience in driving can be separated out from 'just speed on its own'. Driving at speed is an expression of inexperience - hence the term 'boy racers'. If we can cut the speed, inexperience becomes much less of a problem since as we know both the likelihood and severity of a crash decreases with decreasing speed.


----------



## very-near (16 Dec 2009)

Lurker said:


> It would be more accurate to say that poor driving standards play an overwhelmingly significant part in these collisions. The extent to which drivers are at fault in such collisions (rather than cyclists) has been quantified in a number of reports, most recently that discussed at
> http://www.cyclechat.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=50675
> 
> I don't agree that inexperience in driving can be separated out from 'just speed on its own'. Driving at speed is an expression of inexperience - hence the term 'boy racers'. If we can cut the speed, inexperience becomes much less of a problem since as we know both the likelihood and severity of a crash decreases with decreasing speed.


 The problem with this mindset is that if the general public considers the limits to be set arbitrarily and not relevant to an open and empty stretch of road, then they will ignore them and revert to the mantra 'proceed in a manner at which you can stop within the distrance you see to be safe'. This isn't a problem for experienced drivers but the inexperienced ones are less able to judge this with any degree of accuracy - which uis born out in the stats on young drivers.


----------



## Lurker (16 Dec 2009)

very-near said:


> The problem with this mindset is that if the general public considers the limits to be set arbitrarily and not relevant to an open and empty stretch of road, then they will ignore them and revert to the mantra 'proceed in a manner at which you can stop within the distrance you see to be safe'



Your point being...?

I would have no objection if people obeyed the Highway Code (rule 126) which states clearly that drivers should: 

"Drive at a speed that will allow you to stop well within the distance you can see to be clear....". 

If we could manage to get them to obey this simple instruction, this thread wouldn't have been created.


----------



## very-near (16 Dec 2009)

Lurker said:


> Your point being...?
> 
> I would have no objection if people obeyed the Highway Code (rule 126) which states clearly that drivers should:
> 
> ...



There is a risk that lower speed limits will become a poor substitute for experience and alertness behind the wheel. 
Ta for the quote anyway, I've used it myself in the past in debates and was refering to the sprit which it is applied.


----------



## StuartG (16 Dec 2009)

Yes, if we could rely on every driver to be experienced, use sound judgement at all times and have a care for all other road users - then we would need virtually no traffic laws beyond 'drive on the left', 'give way to those on a roundabout' and a few others. Cars would probably get there faster as would cyclists and uninjured.

But realistically and with the huge burden of deaths and maimings I move sadly towards the direction of legislating for the lowest common denominator not the good. I was against 20mph zones. But if the evidence is compelling, and it is given a severe grilling by independent experts before we act on it, then what is the problem? Just be careful of politicians bearing statistics, this is about as reliable as their science (or treatment of scientists).


----------



## Lurker (16 Dec 2009)

very-near said:


> There is a risk that lower speed limits will become a poor substitute for experience and alertness behind the wheel.
> Ta for the quote anyway, I've used it myself in the past in debates and was refering to the sprit which it is applied.



Sorry, can't see the logic of that. 

How does one gain experience without repeating an experience over and over again? In the absence of experience, it would seem that lower speed limits are a good way of protecting road users (including the drivers themselves) from inexperienced drivers' poor driving. The recent BMJ article on 20mph zones across London is further evidence, if it were needed, of how remarkably effective lower speed limits are in preventing death and injury in that part of the public realm that we call our roads and streets.

As for lower speed limits becoming a substitute for alertness behind the wheel, of course they're not a substitute. Nobody's suggesting this. However they do reduce the consequences of lack of alertness behind the wheel.

If you wish to paraphrase, it's better to make clear that this is what you're doing, in order to avoid confusion in the reader's mind. Here's the link to HC Rule 126 (need to scroll down): 
www.direct.gov.uk/en/TravelAndTransport/Highwaycode/DG_070304


----------



## very-near (16 Dec 2009)

StuartG said:


> Yes, if we could rely on every driver to be experienced, use sound judgement at all times and have a care for all other road users - then we would need virtually no traffic laws beyond 'drive on the left', 'give way to those on a roundabout' and a few others. Cars would probably get there faster as would cyclists and uninjured.
> 
> But realistically and with the huge burden of deaths and maimings I move sadly towards the direction of legislating for the lowest common denominator not the good. I was against 20mph zones. But if the evidence is compelling, and it is given a severe grilling by independent experts before we act on it, then what is the problem? Just be careful of politicians bearing statistics, this is about as reliable as their science (or treatment of scientists).



There are many instances where it makes a lot of sense to have a lower limit, but I was refering to the NSLs, and not the urban environment - around schools etc.

As an example of where it would not make a lot of sense to reduce the limit to a 20mph zone is on the north circular. I don't think we are that far away from each other in common ground as you seem to come across with some fairly sensible stuff.


----------



## StuartG (16 Dec 2009)

I keep trying to get my head around how we get drivers to be content with control like this. 

I think of train drivers and pilots. Both drive inherently dangerous vehicles. One mistake and a hundred dead. Concentrates the mind. We know exactly why nearly all train and air crashes occur and huge efforts are taken so that incidents are never repeated. Their actions are closely monitored with black boxes and external controllers. Result is a very safe method of transport in most countries. As a passenger you would be very worried if a pilot had the freedom to overtake/undertake another plane to get to the runway first and so on ... yet driving to and from the airport, well we do things differently.

If we imposed the same conditions on drivers of commercial vehicles (who are disproportionately represented in the stats) it would be a start. Organise them into a zero-tolerence of error. Then for the boy racers ...


----------



## Cab (16 Dec 2009)

very-near said:


> Well they wouldn't help reduce congestion where an existing road has an average speed of 40mph



Why not? You've got a drastic reduction in stopping distance, hence traffic load can be greater without stopping or slowing due to other vehicles, meaning less congestion.


----------



## Cab (16 Dec 2009)

> 20mph speed limits have been shown to improve road safety.



*bumbs User to see whether his needle is stuck*

The thing is, irriating though his repetition is getting, he's right. The 'but 20mph limits are bad becasue...' is twaddle, the evidence is now clear that for improving road safety slowing the traffic down is a good thing. Set lower limits and enforce them and you save lives.


----------



## snorri (16 Dec 2009)

very-near said:


> From a cursory glance of the area I live in, it appears that the very vast majority of victims (70%) are actually the occupants of the cars themselves, and cyclists didn't even get on to the map last year as a user group in the county of Gloucestershire.


Had you noticed there have been no victims amongst the elephant riding sector of the travelling population either:?:
Maybe something to think about there linf.


----------



## dellzeqq (16 Dec 2009)

StuartG said:


> To go off topic I could not help noticing that last night I drove (sorry) passed Olympic Park on the link from the Blackwall tunnel to the M11 the first building nearing completion was not the velodrome but, wait for it, a multistorey carpark!
> 
> Is this the venue for a new British Olympic sport?
> View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qKAME9fAA-4



believe it or not it took some big squealing to get the ODA to agree to cycling parking anywhere near the velodrome. Ho-hum.


----------



## dellzeqq (16 Dec 2009)

snorri said:


> Had you noticed there have been no victims amongst the elephant riding sector of the travelling population either:?:
> Maybe something to think about there linf.


that is because the mahouts are all COASTers


----------



## very-near (16 Dec 2009)

> 5 people killed in cars on a road.
> 
> 1 cyclist killed on the same road.
> 
> ...



If you are suggesting that cycling is a dangerous mode of transport, may I point you in the direction of this as possible reason why many would agree with you.


----------



## very-near (16 Dec 2009)

snorri said:


> Had you noticed there have been no victims amongst the elephant riding sector of the travelling population either:?:
> Maybe something to think about there linf.



It could turn nasty if they fall off, but you are right, I've not seen Elephants riding cycles up my way lately


----------



## very-near (16 Dec 2009)

Cab said:


> *bumbs User to see whether his needle is stuck*
> 
> The thing is, irriating though his repetition is getting, he's right. The 'but 20mph limits are bad becasue...' is twaddle, the evidence is now clear that for improving road safety slowing the traffic down is a good thing. Set lower limits and enforce them and you save lives.



His needle is stuck. I don't have a problem with lower limits in residential streets, but in the name of balance, struggle to see the justification with a blanket application across a large area like a town.
I think it is important to separate actual danger from perceived danger as the stats just don't bear it out in the way that the KSI stats which a country like India does. The standard in the UK is generally fairly high when compared to other developed countries even if we do have a moan about it


----------



## dellzeqq (16 Dec 2009)

> It's the way they do things these days with big developments. It gives them somewhere to park the hundreds of contractors' vans that arrive on site each day.


could be - but the ODA undertook to get the workers to the Park by bike and bus


----------



## Cab (16 Dec 2009)

very-near said:


> His needle is stuck. I don't have a problem with lower limits in residential streets, but in the name of balance, struggle to see the justification with a blanket application across a large area like a town.



Because..? I mean, as you accept that it is safer, and as it is a mathematical certainty that it eases congestion, why ever not?



> I think it is important to separate actual danger from perceived danger as the stats just don't bear it out in the way that the KSI stats which a country like India does. The standard in the UK is generally fairly high when compared to other developed countries even if we do have a moan about it



So, its other people getting killed so its acceptable? Sorry, no, I don't accept that rationale at all.


----------



## very-near (16 Dec 2009)

Cab said:


> Because..? I mean, as you accept that it is safer, and as it is a mathematical certainty that it eases congestion, why ever not?
> 
> *The biggest problem in my town is a combination of a poorly designed one way system (infamous to the point Clarkson even brought it up on Top Gear a while back) and also that we have strings of traffic light controlled junctions which have been poorly designed and are not connected to each other to keep the traffic flowing. This is in my instance the root cause, and not that the roads themselves are incapable of handing the volume of traffic adequately at all but peak times/race days etc. The traffic is in my town reduced to an average of about 10mph by these obstructions, so it is a bit pointless to add another layer of restrictions to the system. If the police were that concerned, they would make a better effort to actually enforce them*
> 
> ...



I belong to the highest risk group of all on the roads in the UK (motorcyclist). I as well as the very vast majority who take to the roads on 'powered two wheelers' accept that at some stage, it is going to go wrong and either they will make a mistake or we will and the rider and the bike will part company.

We have to accept these risks or we would never get on them. You will never get the numbers to zero year on year - but cycling comes close. Be grateful that cyclists don't make up the 20% of KSIs which motorcyclists have to contend with. As well as living with a lifelong injury myself, these people are my mates, so when you say I don't give a shoot about people getting injured on the roads is more than a bit disingenuous of you.


----------



## Cab (17 Dec 2009)

very-near said:


> The biggest problem in my town is a combination of a poorly designed one way system (infamous to the point Clarkson even brought it up on Top Gear a while back) and also that we have strings of traffic light controlled junctions which have been poorly designed and are not connected to each other to keep the traffic flowing. This is in my instance the root cause, and not that the roads themselves are incapable of handing the volume of traffic adequately at all but peak times/race days etc. The traffic is in my town reduced to an average of about 10mph by these obstructions, so it is a bit pointless to add another layer of restrictions to the system. If the police were that concerned, they would make a better effort to actually enforce them



So the road management there is bad. Big deal. So the _average_ speed when those roads are busy is 10mph. So what? A 20mph limit will save lives (it isn't the 'average' speed that kills). None of what you have said there is relevant.



> I belong to the highest risk group of all on the roads in the UK (motorcyclist). I as well as the very vast majority who take to the roads on 'powered two wheelers' accept that at some stage, it is going to go wrong and either they will make a mistake or we will and the rider and the bike will part company.
> 
> We have to accept these risks or we would never get on them. You will never get the numbers to zero year on year - but cycling comes close. Be grateful that cyclists don't make up the 20% of KSIs which motorcyclists have to contend with. As well as living with a lifelong injury myself, these people are my mates, so when you say I don't give a shoot about people getting injured on the roads is more than a bit disingenuous of you.



Its what it looks like. Falling in to the Mr.P's scratched records, a 20mph limit saves lives, thats proven beyond reasonable doubt. I don't accept that the current rate of losing lives is good enough, why should I? Why do you?


----------



## StuartG (17 Dec 2009)

20mph max may be good, but it is a pity no one is proposing a minimum. Like anything greater than 0mph. Here in my part of London it is the parked cars on both sides of already narrow residential streets that make roads extra hazardous for cyclists. Keeping clear of the door zone puts you more or less on the centre line and any passing vehicle in either direction is a squeeze. Plus spotting pedestrians suddenly appearing between vehicles is difficult and vice versa.

I do remember the days when you had to have lights on a parked car at night which ensured most people arranged off road parking at home. Hence roads were also fairly clear in the day. Though one did have to navigate kids playing footie. Kids playing in the street ... am I that old?

Why should cyclists have to pay for motorists' on-road garaging?


----------



## very-near (17 Dec 2009)

Cab said:


> So the road management there is bad. Big deal. So the _average_ speed when those roads are busy is 10mph. So what? A 20mph limit will save lives (it isn't the 'average' speed that kills). None of what you have said there is relevant.
> 
> 
> 
> Its what it looks like. Falling in to the Mr.P's scratched records, a 20mph limit saves lives, thats proven beyond reasonable doubt. I don't accept that the current rate of losing lives is good enough, why should I? Why do you?



Firstly, the average speed of the traffic on my town when quiet is also 10mph as the spacing and sequence of the lights dictate this. They cause congestion even when there isn't any real number of vehicles in the system. It is a manufactured situation which encourages frustration, RLJing and road users to nail it when they see a gap which is IMO counter to careful and considerate use.

Secondly, it is nice to have a goal, but the reality is that you will never reduce the number of KSI's to zero - especially in the case of cyclists. Case in point is the HGV turning left at traffic lights and running over a hapless rider in the process. HGVs negotiate these junctions at fast walking pace yet still people die so your logic that it will achieve this goal is really flawed. A cyclist i my town lost his life under the wheels of a bus a couple of years ago. He was high on drugs and rode off the pavement without looking into its path. The bus was doing no more than 20 mph when this happened but having any vehicle which weighs 8 tonnes sat on your chest isn't going to help even if it rolls over you at walking pace. 

Traffic speeds are set according to risk management assessment. You will never take away risk on the roads from operator use and to think differently demonstrates a total detachment from reality!


----------



## very-near (17 Dec 2009)

> Clarkson says all kinds of stuff. If you take everything that he says as legitimate and correct then you need to get off the road now.
> 
> Now you're banging on about what you think the causes of congestion are in Cheltenham, as an argument against the fact that 20mph limits reduce congestions????
> 
> ...



Risk is always going to be present - even in pedestrianised zones where buses and cyclists have access.


----------



## dellzeqq (17 Dec 2009)

StuartG said:


> Why should cyclists have to pay for motorists' on-road garaging?


that is a very good thought, brilliantly expressed. It remains only for me to point to the pathetic performance of the English team at successive world cups, and the predominance of overseas players in the Premiership. On street parking has destroyed our footballing base. To the crusher with them all!


----------



## Cab (17 Dec 2009)

very-near said:


> Risk is always going to be present - even in pedestrianised zones where buses and cyclists have access.



*sigh*

And the risk is lower if the speed limit is 20mph. Why do you resist that proven fact?


----------



## Cab (17 Dec 2009)

very-near said:


> Firstly, the average speed of the traffic on my town when quiet is also 10mph as the spacing and sequence of the lights dictate this.



It is not the average speed that is the problem; a 20mph zone reduces hard acceleration between lights, leading to a situation where some may be safely removed. 



> They cause congestion even when there isn't any real number of vehicles in the system. It is a manufactured situation which encourages frustration, RLJing and road users to nail it when they see a gap which is IMO counter to careful and considerate use.



Which isn't anything to do with a 20mph limit...



> Secondly, it is nice to have a goal, but the reality is that you will never reduce the number of KSI's to zero - especially in the case of cyclists.



Yet you are resisting a measure that is proven to save lives, taking us closer to that goal. Why?


----------



## very-near (17 Dec 2009)

Cab said:


> It is not the average speed that is the problem; a 20mph zone reduces hard acceleration between lights, leading to a situation where some may be safely removed.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Can you answer my points on HGVs turning left on cyclists and people not looking bofore crossingthe path of large vehicles in your zero KSI approach ?


----------



## StuartG (17 Dec 2009)

What would be good is if 20mph zones were actually enforced rather than calmed. Without that a serious downside would be the proliferation of these hazards that compromise the best line to take through traffic and target us with no suspension (and small cars).

When I have to drive through these zones I choose our largest car which has axles wide enough to straddle the humps. Hence they encourage the use of urban/eco unfriendly vehicles and the purchase of more Chelsea Tractors.

An unthought out expansion of calmed 20mph zones could re-make the 4x4 market.


----------



## Cab (17 Dec 2009)

very-near said:


> Can you answer my points on HGVs turning left on cyclists and people not looking bofore crossingthe path of large vehicles in your zero KSI approach ?



Your points are irrelevant. 20mph speed limits save lives (damned record needle), _regardless_ of other factors such as HGV management. You're confusing different safety issues, arguing that because one is not addressed by this the whole thing isn't worthwhile. Turns out that we've got hard numerical evidence that shows you're wrong.


----------



## very-near (17 Dec 2009)

Cab said:


> Your points are irrelevant. 20mph speed limits save lives (damned record needle), _regardless_ of other factors such as HGV management. You're confusing different safety issues, arguing that because one is not addressed by this the whole thing isn't worthwhile. Turns out that we've got hard numerical evidence that shows you're wrong.



It appears that more cyclists in London are lost to HGVs carrying out slow speed manouvers on junctrions than anything else so why should the rest of the traffic have to be needlessly held up on high volume main roads to fit this ideal of yours. Perhpas your efforts should go on driver and cyclist training to raise standards to keep the vehicles apart ?

You will be demanding the bloke with a the red flag in front of all cars again in the name of 'safety'.

You might consider that you attitude to the restrictin of movement on others is a bit selfish as I do.


----------



## very-near (17 Dec 2009)

User3094 said:


> So the stats are wrong? Your 'freedom of movement' and right to drive 30mph (as opposed to 20mph) is a higher priority than even the _potential_ of saving just a _few_ lives?
> 
> Remind me again, who's the selfish one here?
> 
> [sorry Cab - but had to]




Given your track record for admitting you have done 100mph marathon drives from one end of the country to the other, and accumulation of 9 points on your license for speeding, I think it best you stay out of this one old chap. Your record of acknowledging them is poor to non existent whatever is posted up


----------



## Cab (17 Dec 2009)

very-near said:


> It appears that more cyclists in London are lost to HGVs carrying out slow speed manouvers on junctrions...



Which is no justification for your adamant refusal to deal with the proven fact that 20mph speed limits save lives. So there are _other_ ways to save lives too, ways that should be looked at. What of it?


----------



## dellzeqq (17 Dec 2009)

lorries turning left kill cyclist and speeding cars on suburban streets kill children and the elderly. They're different things.

The BBC's map is instructive. 203 deaths in London (140 male, 63 female). 39 deaths in Gloucestershire. Given the huge disparity between the populations (eight million as opposed to half a million), this makes Gloucestershire the place to avoid. The question is why is the death toll in Gloucestershire so high? Are the residents just a little bit blase about deaths on the road?

It's rural A-roads, by the way. The very roads that some of us suggest shoud be limited to 50.


----------



## very-near (17 Dec 2009)

User3094 said:


> I dont claim to have a right to drive 100mph. You see the difference?



Funny enough, nor do I, but what I am arguing is that the speed limits in place already does balance the requirement for traffic to move at a reasonable pace against unacceptable risk for the greater majority of users. Unless users breaking the limits canproven to be the direct cause of accidents on a given stretch of road, or indeed that the existing limit is allowing the majority of users to drive beyind their limits or that of the road conditions/geography surface/hazards etc and actually creating a history of accidents, then arbitrary application will be seen to be punitive and unneccessary.


----------



## very-near (17 Dec 2009)

Cab said:


> Which is no justification for your adamant refusal to deal with the proven fact that 20mph speed limits save lives. So there are _other_ ways to save lives too, ways that should be looked at. What of it?



What roads do you want to see these 20mph limits applied on ?


----------



## very-near (17 Dec 2009)

> Reducing deaths on the roads is unnecessary.
> 
> That's what you're saying, right?


 I'm still waiting for an answer on which roads you think should have the 20mph limits applied ?


----------



## very-near (17 Dec 2009)

User3094 said:


> So a 20mph limit in the right places are a _good_ idea then?




Have I ever said it wasn't  . You need to follow this thread before you jump in with your size 12's


----------



## Cab (17 Dec 2009)

very-near said:


> What roads do you want to see these 20mph limits applied on ?



Primarily, urban ones. And suburban and country ones where pedestrians and cyclists are frequently encountered, plus of course any such roads where we're trying to encourage pedestrians and cyclists.


----------



## very-near (17 Dec 2009)

> Why? You haven't asked me that. You need to follow this thread. Or at least what you're saying.
> 
> And this isn't what the discussion is. It's been proven that 20mph limits improve road safety, and they will increase. You're arguing against it.




Sorry, it was actually Cab who I asked, but seeing as you are both singing from the same song sheet, perhaps you can give a straight answer. I have already stated that this is a sensible idea around schools (certainly when they are actually being used during term time) and also around pedestrianised areas where there is a high foot fall. I don't have aproblem with it being applied to narrow residential streets, but to stick it on dual carriageways with an existing 40/50 or NSL like the North circular makes little sense at all.

Are you suggesting it be applied nationwide on all roads which aren't designated as motorways ?


----------



## very-near (17 Dec 2009)

Cab said:


> Primarily, urban ones. And suburban and country ones where pedestrians and cyclists are frequently encountered, plus of course any such roads where we're trying to encourage pedestrians and cyclists.



Oh, right - can I join in with this NIMBY attitude ?

If we accept this as a reasonable suggestion to make life easier for the more vulnerable users on the transport network, can I chip in that I'd like to see all lycra clad MTBers banned from bridlepaths as they were built for horseriders and my horses don't like irresponsible and inconsiderate riders charging past them with reckless abandon ? (as they have done)


----------



## very-near (17 Dec 2009)

User3094 said:


> I think by their very nature, only roads with an existing speed limit of 30mph would be deemed appropriate _given due consideration_ for a reduction?



Corrected


----------



## Cab (17 Dec 2009)

very-near said:


> Oh, right - can I join in with this NIMBY attitude ?
> 
> If we accept this as a reasonable suggestion to make life easier for the more vulnerable users on the transport network, can I chip in that I'd like to see all lycra clad MTBers banned from bridlepaths as they were built for horseriders and my horses don't like irresponsible and inconsiderate riders charging past them with reckless abandon ? (as they have done)



Demonstrate an increased risk associated with cyclists on such routes and we can talk about it. You know the kind of thing I mean, like the clear and proven fact that 20mph limits work really well to improve safety.


----------



## very-near (17 Dec 2009)

User3094 said:


> Non Sequiter alert!



A Bearded lycra clad roadie caused my kids pony to bolt through fear when they were hacking down a main road as he came too close to them and was 'grunting' with effort as he cycled up the hill towards them. Should we ban beards on cycles because the pony didn't like him ?


----------



## Cab (17 Dec 2009)

very-near said:


> A Bearded lycra clad roadie caused my kids pony to bolt through fear when they were hacking down a main road as he came too close to them and was 'grunting' with effort as he cycled up the hill towards them. Should we ban beards on cycles because the pony didn't like him ?



On the basis of one incident? No. But as the study on 20mph zones has nothing whatsoever to do with that and bears no similarity at all to that incident, who gives a $417?


----------



## very-near (17 Dec 2009)

Cab said:


> Demonstrate an increased risk associated with cyclists on such routes and we can talk about it. You know the kind of thing I mean, like the clear and proven fact that 20mph limits work really well to improve safety.



Most horses don't like cyclists. They don't hear a cycle approaching as they do a car or motorcycle and are only aware of them when they come into their field of vision. When a cycle does come past, they can do so at great speed and cause the horse to bolt if they don't take the time to consider the animal. This is common knowledge amongst horse riders and I've personally had many more near misses on the horse with cyclists not slowing down when passing than cars or m/cyclists or HGV's (both do actually take more care than any other groups as they are aware of the noise factor from their machines/lorries)

Is that good enough ?


----------



## very-near (17 Dec 2009)

Cab said:


> On the basis of one incident? No. But as the study on 20mph zones has nothing whatsoever to do with that and bears no similarity at all to that incident, who gives a $417?



I was actually following behind on my MTB at the time without fazing the animal one bit and this demonstrates the difference between the right and wrong way to approch animals on the road, but this last bit of your sentence just demonstrates that your attitude is one of a self serving NIMBY and really shows that this crusade of yours has little to do with the welfare of the other vulnerable groups who share the road with you and might be put at risk by the inconsiderate - Well done


----------



## very-near (17 Dec 2009)

User3094 said:


> Statistical Analysis not a strong point then mate?




OK, ride into a any field full of horses , and see how many run when you try to ride close to them. 

Do you really need to see statistics to figure that they will either 'fight or flight' or are you that ignorant of them that you don't know how they will react when faced with a fast moving and nearly silent possible 'predator' bearing their teeth (as they see us all). Your lack of awareness of others around you is worrying me


----------



## very-near (17 Dec 2009)

User3094 said:


> ^ He meant who gives a sh!t in that its not relevent to this thread, plumpty.



He wants 20mph limits to be applied everywhere to safeguard vulnerable users. I gave an example of a similar solution to safeguard other vulnerable users on bridlepaths and he considered it was not of value. I beg to differ and say it will save lives because we remove rhe risk of dangerous cyclists on bridleways completely - you don't like my plan


----------



## Cab (17 Dec 2009)

User3094 said:


> ^ He meant who gives a sh!t in that its not relevent to this thread, plumpty.



Indeed.

What he's saying is about as relevant as 'I once stubbed my toe, so there's no point in road safety'.


----------



## Cab (17 Dec 2009)

very-near said:


> He wants 20mph limits to be applied everywhere



Wrong. Wrong. Wrong.


----------



## marinyork (17 Dec 2009)

very-near said:


> He wants 20mph limits to be applied everywhere to safeguard vulnerable users.



Why not speak to some people actually involved in 20 campaigns. Unfortunately main roads are often excluded. 

The "everywhere" is rather like speed cameras where people rabbit on about them endlessly and they are on what 1 or 2% of roads even measured in a very generous sense of just counting a road with a camera on it. 

The bridle path comparison I don't see. Many of the "must have" 20 stretches on people's wish lists are crawling with peds, sometimes very inebriated ones.


----------



## StuartG (17 Dec 2009)

User3094 said:


> ... Do you think the study into the possible effects of a 20mph speed limit was as equally scientific? I do hope so.


Ahem, the 20mph report was a serious statistical study. Science is about laws of nature. Big difference.

You didn't bother to read/understand the new report did you? No wonder you have come up with a load of arguments irrelevant to the discussion topic. You don't want 20mph zones and you are just wasting the thread with irrelevant opinions on random topics. Please go away until you have something relevant to add.


----------



## StuartG (17 Dec 2009)

BTW this is the published study as a PDF: http://www.bmj.com/cgi/reprint/339/dec10_3/b4469


----------



## marinyork (17 Dec 2009)

StuartG said:


> Ahem, the 20mph report was a serious statistical study. Science is about laws of nature. Big difference.
> 
> You didn't bother to read/understand the new report did you? No wonder you have come up with a load of arguments irrelevant to the discussion topic. You don't want 20mph zones and you are just wasting the thread with irrelevant opinions on random topics. Please go away until you have something relevant to add.



I'm glad you brought this up. So in the favour of 20mph zones we have (a) laws of nature in the form of Lagrangians/Newtons Laws etc ( a study that finds just what we'd expect. And people still argue about it.


----------



## StuartG (17 Dec 2009)

marinyork said:


> I'm glad you brought this up. So in the favour of 20mph zones we have (a) laws of nature in the form of Lagrangians/Newtons Laws etc ( a study that finds just what we'd expect. And people still argue about it.


Nope. Lagrangians/Newtons Laws you are inferring they studied the dynamics of a collision. That's science. They didn't consider the nature of any accident. Just the reported incident and its location. That's statistics. 

The study also claims it is the first to show a statistical connection. It would be premature to go the whole hog on a 20mph zoning till we know much more. Repeating it in other cities would remove a number of London specific factors. Studying the actual collisions in more detail at a physical level could inform us why kids benefit proportionately more than adults.

Finally I got little feel from the study in variation between zones. One would presume some 20mph zones have a dramatic effect and others much less or none. Teasing this out might point to an implementation plan that delivers maximum benefit at minimum cost and annoyance.


----------



## marinyork (17 Dec 2009)

StuartG said:


> Nope. Lagrangians/Newtons Laws you are inferring they studied the dynamics of a collision. That's science. They didn't consider the nature of any accident. Just the reported incident and its location. That's statistics.



Not sure what you're getting at and I'm aware of the difference between the two. You have one lot of evidence and another lot that is different.



StuartG said:


> The study also claims it is the first to show a statistical connection. It would be premature to go the whole hog on a 20mph zoning till we know much more. Repeating it in other cities would remove a number of London specific factors. Studying the actual collisions in more detail at a physical level could inform us why kids benefit proportionately more than adults.



Er, lab tested stuff has gone very much along these lines. It'd be very nice to get more information on a lot of accidents.



StuartG said:


> Finally I got little feel from the study in variation between zones. One would presume some 20mph zones have a dramatic effect and others much less or none. Teasing this out might point to an implementation plan that delivers maximum benefit at minimum cost and annoyance.



That seems uninformed to me. 20 zones are generally cheaper to do the larger you make them. It's normally the super targeted ones that cost a fortune with interventions.


----------



## StuartG (17 Dec 2009)

The study was of 20mph zones. That's just a signposted speed restriction. It implied enforcement was nearly always passive (humps, chicanes .. ). So what is making the difference in dropping speed by 9mph and KSI by 20/30%? 

The signs? The calming? Or both? Or the type of calming? ...

The study is surely only a first cut. We are doing something right with 20mph zones. In itself it doesn't tell us what. Or that it would necessarily be repeated outside London. Its a beginning.


----------



## marinyork (17 Dec 2009)

StuartG said:


> The study was of 20mph zones. That's just a signposted speed restriction. It implied enforcement was nearly always passive (humps, chicanes .. ). So what is making the difference in dropping speed by 9mph and KSI by 20/30%?
> 
> The signs? The calming? Or both? Or the type of calming? ...
> 
> The study is surely only a first cut. We are doing something right with 20mph zones. In itself it doesn't tell us what. Or that it would necessarily be repeated outside London.



There are various speculations about 20mph zones. One is that you'd get about a 1mph average reduction in speed even if you just put the signs up.

If you do targeted it costs a lot more because you have to put up more signs and more interventions. For example on current budgets it would take 50 years to complete where I live doing it in micro areas. This is totally laughable on one sense because in that time a lot of the child ped testing stuff going on will have filtered through and hopefully saved quite a few lives.

Of course reports are early days, serious efforts for 20mph zones are still early days.


----------



## StuartG (17 Dec 2009)

MarinYork: I don't think we are too far apart. The initial enthusiasm for 20mph zones appears to have evaporated of late. Maybe because no one was sure they were doing any good. The study should, at least, re-ignite the enthusiasm. Maybe not in every part of Gloucestershire ...

But as you say rolling them out to significant parts of the city looks to take time and money we haven't got. The cost is currently installing calming. Do we need it all? Enforcement by other means may be the solution. Random radar traps with high penalties might be one way. Perhaps adding a bit of community service (give the sinners the radar guns to catch the next quota might be fun). You can then declare new zones quickly with minimal cost. Or do we target schools & wide roads or just make 20mph the standard and just sign 30mph and above?

Interesting times. The more serious point may be how do we stop this story being a one week wonder?


----------



## jeltz (17 Dec 2009)

Many of these accidents happen because people are speeding, why would someone be more inclined to keep to 20 if the already ignore 30 or 40?


----------



## marinyork (17 Dec 2009)

StuartG said:


> MarinYork: I don't think we are too far apart. The initial enthusiasm for 20mph zones appears to have evaporated of late. Maybe because no one was sure they were doing any good. The study should, at least, re-ignite the enthusiasm. Maybe not in every part of Gloucestershire ...



There's a lot of work going on. There's a problem when things do work they make no headlines. For example a notorious road near me had a speed limit reduction and enforcement by average speed cameras and the KSIs went into freefall. Such stories either the deaths before or the drop is just not interesting to anybody.



StuartG said:


> But as you say rolling them out to significant parts of the city looks to take time and money we haven't got. The cost is currently installing calming. Do we need it all? Enforcement by other means may be the solution. Random radar traps with high penalties might be one way. Perhaps adding a bit of community service (give the sinners the radar guns to catch the next quota might be fun). You can then declare new zones quickly with minimal cost. Or do we target schools & wide roads or just make 20mph the standard and just sign 30mph and above?



Traffic planners I've listened to are in agreement that probably fewer (but not zero) interventions are needed. The police are fairly against 20 zones round here. I don't like targetting schools with 20 zones because it seems to reinforce poor behaviour by motorists - they associate 20 zones with short periods of time in a day and schools have their own problems. My authority is trying to pioneer parking enforcement for schools. There is an argument that not being able to sign 30 is a good reason to have 20 as the default. Of course one can sign post 30 in a 30 if you have a speed camera installed, it just depends how important it is in that area.

In some areas with 20 zones and 30 zones nearby they are keen on the flashing signs. I think this is just a cheap trick to get a bit of an improvement in behaviour for a tiny sum of money and not offend too many people.



StuartG said:


> Interesting times. The more serious point may be how do we stop this story being a one week wonder?



I'm sure it will be mentioned in future. I think tv is a bit more keen about covering this sort of thing in culture and current affairs light weight programming.


----------



## StuartG (17 Dec 2009)

marinyork said:


> In some areas with 20 zones and 30 zones nearby they are keen on the flashing signs. I think this is just a cheap trick to get a bit of an improvement in behaviour for a tiny sum of money and not offend too many people.


I like them, that's because I take notice. That's the rub - I wonder if they have maximum effect on the margin of people who do a few mph above the limit and shame themselves into slowing a little. Whereas the boy racer sees them as a marker to beat.

Any research you know of?


----------



## marinyork (17 Dec 2009)

StuartG said:


> I like them, that's because I take notice. That's the rub - I wonder if they have maximum effect on the margin of people who do a few mph above the limit and shame themselves into slowing a little. Whereas the boy racer sees them as a marker to beat.
> 
> Any research you know of?



Not that I know of and I think they tend to be in quite small numbers. You'd need a nationwide or London study. When I lived in York (a county that doesn't believe in speed cameras) they bought 11 flashing signs. They cost between £2000 and £11,000 each I think. I'm not against them but they seem to be deployed without other interventions, other enforcement or other ideas. There's one up here in a 40 area and I'm not sure how that worked as the police used to patrol it regularly and I haven't seen them doing so for some considerable time now. I can't say I've lit one up as although I go past it all the time on the bike, and less often in the car I drive substantially below the speed limit on that stretch as I don't think it a particularly good idea to do so at the posted limit.


----------



## very-near (17 Dec 2009)

> No.
> 
> You're arguing against implementing a measure which we know will result in fewer deaths on the roads, by banging on about a time when you irresponsibly put your child at risk by allowing her out riding where you knew cyclists were allowed to be and that the horse didn't like bikes.
> 
> Your going to have to make the link for me. Because there isn't one.



That would be any road in the UK wouldn't it  

Are you suggesting that horses shouldn't be allowed on the public highway in case an inconsiderate cyclist comes the other way baring his teeth and puffing and blowing like a steam train ?. I've yet to see a horse which wouldn't have a problem with this.

You aren't very tolerant of others - but I kind of know this already so nothing new on your part.

The animal doesn't have a problem with the way I move around it whether I am on a cycle or not and that is because I took the time to figure out how to behave. 
I take it you wouldn't want to be accused of being selfish and ignorant when it comes to dealing with those more vulnerable than yourself on the road. Perhaps a bit of education would help you to understand how to behave around horses on the road. There is plenty of sound information for you to digest, and given you tell everyone who will listen how important road safety is to you, will take it on board and be a better road user for it.

http://www.horseawareness.co.uk/rdrule.htm


----------



## just jim (17 Dec 2009)

very-near said:


> Are you suggesting that horses shouldn't be allowed on the public highway in case an inconsiderate cyclist comes the other way baring his teeth and puffing and blowing like a steam train ?



Don't forget the beard. _The beard_.


----------



## very-near (17 Dec 2009)

just jim said:


> Don't forget the beard. _The beard_.



Aye, he was a real weird beard - I could swear he was chewing on the Muesli and Tofu stuck in it as he rode past


----------



## very-near (17 Dec 2009)

User3094 said:


> SPD Sandals* as well presumably?
> 
> 
> * Made of hemp 1
> ...



Bloody hell Smeggers, you've met him as well. He gets around a bit doesn't he


----------



## very-near (17 Dec 2009)

> <sigh>
> 
> 20mph limits are proven to reduce KSIs on the road.



If people are already ignoring the 30mph and 40mph limits and adding to the stats, can you provide evidence that they will be any more inclined to obey the 20mph limits any more than any of the existing limits currently in force ?


----------



## very-near (17 Dec 2009)

> No.
> 
> I'm not tolerant of dangerous road users, no. Or idiots who ignore proven facts and argue against measures which we know will improve road safety.
> 
> ...



I'm sorry, but your previous posts indicate otherwise, so I really would urge you to read it. You could save someones life one day armed with that knowledge and knowing how keen you are on road safety, would make you a total idiot not to prime yourself for the eventuality.


----------



## Beniroscoe (18 Dec 2009)

> <sigh>
> 
> 20mph limits are proven to reduce KSIs on the road.




Totally irrelevant response


----------



## dellzeqq (18 Dec 2009)

as far as bridleways are concerned the BHF supports greater access for cyclists. They've no political reason to do so, but they're not impressed by the kind of anecdotal 'evidence' advanced by...........


----------



## very-near (18 Dec 2009)

> Nothing in that posts suggests that I don't know how to behave on the road around horses. You suggesting otherwise doesn't change anything at all.
> 
> All I did in that post is to suggest that it could very easily be argued that you allowing your daughter to ride a horse on a track that you know cyclists are allowed to and do use, and knowing that the horse is easily spooked by cyclists and that this could put your daughter at risk, was irresponsible.
> 
> ...



Where you theory falls down is that all horses are capable of being spooked by inconsiderate people. That is why you as a responsible road user should behave in a manner which will not cause them to be alarmed to the point that they would ignore the instructions of their handlers. 
It is all in that website I gave you the link to. Additionally to this, whilst on a bridleway, you as a cyclist have by law to 'give way' to a horse rider. The law is quite explicit as to the reasons why this is neccessary and is an indication that this is the way one should behave around horses on the road. Instructions are also i the highway code.



> *215*
> 
> Horse riders and horse-drawn vehicles. Be particularly careful of horse riders and horse-drawn vehicles especially when overtaking. Always pass wide and slowly. Horse riders are often children, so take extra care and remember riders may ride in double file when escorting a young or inexperienced horse or rider. Look out for horse riders’ and horse drivers’ signals and heed a request to slow down or stop. Take great care and treat all horses as a potential hazard; they can be unpredictable, despite the efforts of their rider/driver.



We know that my daughters horse doesn't have a problem in general with consideerate cyclists because I have stateed that I was following them on my MTB. This would indicate to any sensible person that it was indeed this particular cyclist who was on this occasion ignoring the rules of the road. 

I would once again urge you to read up on this subject to prevent an accident caused through ignorance MrP. I'd not want to brandyou a danger to other road users because of this !

You wouldn't argue this if it were a child on the road, you would say that the vehicles should slow down to 20mph or lower as it is proven to reduce the KSI's wouldn't you and as she was a child at the time, the same rule applies as stated in the highway code posted above


----------



## dellzeqq (18 Dec 2009)

> Oh, and I'm waiting for you to provide evidence that cyclists kill enough horses and riders to warrant your campaign to remove them from bridleways .......


at the same time that the BHS (membership 100,000) is trying to persuade DEFRA that they should be allowed on bridleways.


----------



## very-near (18 Dec 2009)

dellzeqq said:


> at the same time that the BHS (membership 100,000) is trying to persuade DEFRA that they should be allowed on bridleways.



If you had even a rudimentary understanding of this subject, you would realise that cyclist to have the right to use bridleways, but have by law to give way to pedestrians and horseriders.


----------



## dellzeqq (18 Dec 2009)

I've just looked at the figures and the map for Wiltshire. 40 deaths, of which 28 were male. What might the explanation for this be? That's a fifth of the figure for London on about one fourteenth of the population - and in the county which (I'm guessing here) has the newest cars. And, once again, the fatalities are out of town, although not as high a proportion are on A-roads.


----------



## dellzeqq (18 Dec 2009)

Essex - 73 deaths, of which 54 were male. Population less than one sixth of London, but over a third of the number of deaths. Why is that?


----------



## dellzeqq (18 Dec 2009)

the BHS campaign is not to change the law, but to see it applied. Doh!!!!


----------



## very-near (18 Dec 2009)

User3094 said:


> Linf. Just out of interest, when 4x4ing do you have to give way to other 'green lane' users?
> 
> Nowt malicious - just curious.



THe lanes by their nature are usually fairly narrow. If this is the case and a walker/walkers or cyclists are coming the other way, If possible I will move over as far as is safe to do so and then stop until they pass. If I see a horserider, I will do the same, but will kill the engine until they are past if they show any signs of nervousness. If the ground is soft and already rutted which would make this difficult. I would just stop and allow them to work their way around the car in their own way. 

Straight question = straight answer. No one goes laning to look for confrontation.


----------



## Cab (18 Dec 2009)

jeltz said:


> Many of these accidents happen because people are speeding, why would someone be more inclined to keep to 20 if the already ignore 30 or 40?



Percepton of safe speed to travel is based on speed limit and other factors; typically reducing speed limit reduces the rate people travel, if not _to_ the limit, it still slows traffic down.


----------



## dellzeqq (18 Dec 2009)

33 deaths in Hertfordshire. Just under one sixth of the number of deaths in London with about one eighth of the population. Rural roads again.


----------



## dellzeqq (18 Dec 2009)

blimey! 60 deaths in Cambridgeshire of which 41 are male. Population of Cambridgeshire less than one sixth of London, yet the deathrate is three tenths. Rural roads again. Speed kills.


----------



## very-near (18 Dec 2009)

dellzeqq said:


> the BHS campaign is not to change the law, but to see it applied. Doh!!!!



I don't quite follow you on this one. Are you suggesting that prosecutions are being attempted for cyclists using bridlepaths as this would clearly not go anywhere, or that cyclists are ignoring the law regarding giving way to horses and pedestrians on them ?


----------



## very-near (18 Dec 2009)

Cab said:


> Percepton of safe speed to travel is based on speed limit and other factors; typically reducing speed limit reduces the rate people travel, if not _to_ the limit, it still slows traffic down.



The other factors are ???? 


experience perhaps!


----------



## dellzeqq (18 Dec 2009)

holy moly. 78 deaths in Sussex of which 61 were male. That's well over a third of the London figure with between one seventh and one sixth of the population. Rural roads again. Including a young woman cyclist dragged under a car going left across her. Why might that be?


----------



## Cab (18 Dec 2009)

very-near said:


> The other factors are ????



Irrelevent to the matter at hand; we've got a proven mechanism to make road travel safer with practically no cost and at with a beneficial impact on congestion. There is no down side. Why do you object?


----------



## very-near (18 Dec 2009)

Cab said:


> Irrelevent to the matter at hand; we've got a proven mechanism to make road travel safer with practically no cost and at with a beneficial impact on congestion. There is no down side. Why do you object?



Why do you come up with this 'irrelevant' statement all the time. You stated that they also work but refuse to name them. 

We know that experience is has a very great effect on the stats because we have data to prove this from the government (which I posted the other week). Insurance companies also carry the risk and load the premiums of inexperienced drivers or ones with bad track records. This is why a 17 year old lad can be quoted £4,000 PA to insure a car, and I with loads of experienvce and a clean license by comparison get charged about £150 PA for the same car.


----------



## very-near (18 Dec 2009)

User3094 said:


> Fair dos.


 Are you going to take Norm up on his offer? There is a private course near Marlborough I've use on a farm as well if you are inclined


----------



## dellzeqq (18 Dec 2009)

who is to assess the need? The local population? The police? The highways department of the local council? Or some supremely gifted being able to determine these things without the hindrance of evidence?


----------



## very-near (18 Dec 2009)

User3094 said:


> If I may be so indulgant may I state the points of view as far as I see them...
> 
> Linford is arguing that a reduction in speed limit to 20mph is fair enough, but must be properly assessed and *limited* to only those areas that really *need* them.
> 
> ...




From where I'm standing it is. I'd say anywhere there is a narrow road with cars parked should have this in place or even a change in the law to reflect this - EG, compulsory reduction from 30 to 20 where parked cars are present limiting driver visiblity in residential roads. When I was in the states in the summer, there were signs stating 'speed cameras operating', 'penalty double if workmen present'. It certainly did the trick and no one abused it from what I saw.


----------



## very-near (18 Dec 2009)

> Yus, I know. Why do you think that you are superior to others by carrying the most basic of knowledge that you don't realise everyone else already has?
> 
> 
> Read it. Waste of time. Knew it all anyway.
> ...



There are many roads I'd not want to hack a horse down (any dual carriageway) but this shouldn't mean that all road work is off limits due to inconsiderate drivers.
Anyway, I'm glad you are aware of and respect the vulnerability of horseriders as there are many who don't


----------



## very-near (18 Dec 2009)

User3094 said:


> K Fair do's. Seems a reasonable angle to take, who has the discretionary authority though? And do you trust them?



It would require a change in the law, but would be fairly easy to prove if it were abused as the first thing done is the police are called who get the tape measure out etc, and no more difficult to implement than the more punitive approch. It would be an easier pill to swallow IMO


----------



## Norm (18 Dec 2009)

User3094 said:


> Is it beyond sight, earshot and smell of any footpaths, canals, bridleways, BOATS or any other publics right of way whatsover?
> 
> Then if so, you're on.
> 
> However, this is Britain, so I doubt it.


Earshot and smell certainly, sight-lines run for many miles up that way, though, so I couldn't guarantee that. The shotguns and rampant packs of hounds do tend to keep the peds at bay, though!


----------



## very-near (18 Dec 2009)

User3094 said:


> Is it beyond sight, earshot and smell of any footpaths, canals, bridleways, BOATS or any other publics right of way whatsover?
> 
> Then if so, you're on.
> 
> However, this is Britain, so I doubt it.


 A canal bisects the farm, but so does a road (and it is a working farm so you get machinery chugging around it all the time). It is 600 acres in size so the likilihood (sp) of you being disturbed by any cars are slim as most of the courses are in woodland and naturally insulated by the foliage


----------



## very-near (18 Dec 2009)

User3094 said:


> I see what your saying but you didnt quite answer the quesion. *Who* re-sets the speed limits back down to 20mph? I'll give you some possibilities...
> 
> The police, the local residents, the Local Authotity (if so which dept), the local Advanced Motorists Group?
> 
> ...



Stick it in the highway code then there is no ambiguity.


----------



## Cab (18 Dec 2009)

very-near said:


> Why do you come up with this 'irrelevant' statement all the time.



In this thread? Because I'm answering you  B)

Really, if you were to try sticking to the point about the proven fact that 20mph speed limits save lives, I'd have less call to point out that your diversionary side-tracks are irrelevant.


----------



## very-near (18 Dec 2009)

User3094 said:


> Who writes the highway code and how would it be worded? Or are you now advocating a blanket 20mph limit?
> 
> See the logic yet Linf?



It would have to be a law passed by parliament along the lines of 

Where street lights are present, the limit is 30mph unless otherwise stated. If vehicles parked at the side of the road reduce visiblity, then a 20mph limit is applicable in that place.

How about that


----------



## very-near (18 Dec 2009)

Cab said:


> In this thread? Because I'm answering you  B)
> 
> Really, if you were to try sticking to the point about the proven fact that 20mph speed limits save lives, I'd have less call to point out that your diversionary side-tracks are irrelevant.



Your plan is all well and done, but the existing limits are already being ignored. 
How many lives do you think it will save anyway given 70% of fatalities are occupants of cars themselves,and another 20% are motorcyclists. 

Do the maths and come back with a convincing argument


----------



## Cab (18 Dec 2009)

very-near said:


> Your plan is all well and done, but the existing limits are already being ignored.
> How many lives do you think it will save anyway given 70% of fatalities are occupants of cars themselves,and another 20% are motorcyclists.
> 
> Do the maths and come back with a convincing argument



When 20mph limits have been trialled, there has been a reduction in the number of people killed on the roads. You don't need to theorise, its a proven fact.

Why do you oppose that?


----------



## very-near (18 Dec 2009)

Cab said:


> When 20mph limits have been trialled, there has been a reduction in the number of people killed on the roads. You don't need to theorise, its a proven fact.
> 
> Why do you oppose that?



Can you provide a link to the trials and also provide some hard numbers as to the before and after for all users at risk ?


----------



## Rhythm Thief (18 Dec 2009)

very-near said:


> Can you provide a link to the trials and also provide some hard numbers as to the before and after for all users at risk ?



Why would he? When people do provide evidence, you've shown time and time again that you don't bother to read it.


----------



## very-near (18 Dec 2009)

User3094 said:


> Not bad. You think it would be fair in every situation you can think of?



I think it would work, and along the lines of what is being taught in driving schools now as best practice. We can never hope to eliminate accidents from the road, but a common sense approach would build on the already very good record we enjoy in the UK given the volumes of traffic on the roads each day.


----------



## Cab (18 Dec 2009)

very-near said:


> Can you provide a link to the trials and also provide some hard numbers as to the before and after for all users at risk ?



Already provided in this thread.


----------



## very-near (18 Dec 2009)

Rhythm Thief said:


> Why would he? When people do provide evidence, you've shown time and time again that you don't bother to read it.



Because he is trying to force his opinion onto mine. I think in fairness, I should be able to read the trials he has based his standpoint on to see if they have merit.


----------



## very-near (18 Dec 2009)

Cab said:


> Already provided in this thread.



This thread has been merged with another one. A link if you will please ?


----------



## Cab (18 Dec 2009)

very-near said:


> This thread has been merged with another one. A link if you will please ?



Its so very hard to make this any simpler for you. The data you are requesting has already been linked to in this thread; go fish.


----------



## very-near (18 Dec 2009)

Cab said:


> Its so very hard to make this any simpler for you. The data you are requesting has already been linked to in this thread; go fish.



Can I remind you that 'you' are the one trying to prove something here   I'm the one who needs convincing


----------



## joolsybools (18 Dec 2009)

God are you lot still bitching at each other!


----------



## very-near (18 Dec 2009)

User3094 said:


> I've no doubt it would work in the scenario you describe. However the point is, if a 20 mph is *proven* to reduce accidents in *all* 30mph areas (which it is), then why stop there?



We could say the same for all roads though. I don't want to get into a circular argument with you again, but limits are set differently to allow journey times to be kept down to a reasonable level. If we added on 50% journey time for each trip, then there is a real risk that other factirs like driver fatigue would come into play. I think it safer to have an alert driver doing 30mph than a half asleep one doing 20mph - don't you ?


----------



## theclaud (18 Dec 2009)

very-near said:


> I don't want to get into a circular argument with you again



I don't believe that for a minute .


----------



## StuartG (18 Dec 2009)

very-near said:


> Because he is trying to force his opinion onto mine. I think in fairness, I should be able to read the trials he has based his standpoint on to see if they have merit.


You really are ridiculous. I pointed you to the full study and asked you to address that and stop bringing in irrelevant stuff.

You ignored both. Then you repeat 'point me to ...' even after you have been reminded of it is here. So everybody else - remind me why we are not boycotting the troll?


----------



## theclaud (18 Dec 2009)

StuartG said:


> So everybody else - remind me why we are not boycotting the troll?



Quite a few people do make use of the Wittgenstein Interruptor™ when necessary...


----------



## very-near (18 Dec 2009)

theclaud said:


> Quite a few people do make use of the Wittgenstein Interruptor™ when necessary...



Whoops, my misandry detector has gone off again


----------



## theclaud (18 Dec 2009)

There isn't really an argument left against 20mph limits. Really, the onus is on Linf to explain why the limit shouldn't be 20 everywhere (except perhaps motorways). Or even 15.


----------



## theclaud (18 Dec 2009)

very-near said:


> Whoops, my misandry detector has gone off again



That's very funny Linf.


Well, actually, it's just stupid, but I can't remember if I'm allowed to say that.


----------



## very-near (18 Dec 2009)

StuartG said:


> You really are ridiculous. I pointed you to the full study and asked you to address that and stop bringing in irrelevant stuff.
> 
> You ignored both. Then you repeat 'point me to ...' even after you have been reminded of it is here. So everybody else - remind me why we are not boycotting the troll?



Ah, the new boy has squeeked again - You're very sanctimonious for a new member here. You'll fit in well  Anyway, seeing as you have only been here a few weeks, your posts should be easy to track. V-N goes off to investigate further seing as Cab could come up with the goods.


----------



## very-near (18 Dec 2009)

theclaud said:


> That's very funny Linf.
> 
> 
> Well, actually, it's just stupid, but I can't remember if I'm allowed to say that.




I thought you'd like it 

I'm only kidding you. We all know that misandry is a myth don't we Claudine 


Anyway, don't distract me, I'm on a mission now. StuartG has got my dander up


----------



## theclaud (18 Dec 2009)

very-near said:


> I thought you'd like it
> 
> I'm only kidding you. We all know that misandry is a myth don't we Claudine



I know it, Linfy, but I'm not entirely sure that _you_ do. And try being nicer to the newish members so that they don't just give up on the place.


----------



## Crackle (18 Dec 2009)

theclaud said:


> Well, actually, it's just stupid, but I can't remember if I'm allowed to say that.



The answer is in your sig. You put it there in case you got confused about offering honest objective appraisals of peoples posts. No charge for the reminder, just part of the service.


----------



## Crackle (18 Dec 2009)

User3094 said:


> He's reached a level of understanding in 100 posts that you can only dream of in your 3,600 posts of dribble so far.....



New but switched on.


----------



## StuartG (18 Dec 2009)




----------



## theclaud (18 Dec 2009)

Crackle said:


> The answer is in your sig. You put it there in case you got confused about offering honest objective appraisals of peoples posts. No charge for the reminder, just part of the service.



Oh yes! You remember, of course, that The New Rule is a special rule for us P&L louts? This being Campaigning, I assume one is theoretically free in here to point out that The Member for Cheltenham is indeed being an arse?


----------



## Crackle (18 Dec 2009)

theclaud said:


> Oh yes! You remember, of course, that The New Rule is a special rule for us P&L louts? This being Campaigning, I assume one is theoretically free in here to point out that The Member for Cheltenham is indeed being an arse?



I think it's universal now, I've probably just contributed to your demise. As for the rest; it was ever thus. I fail to see why people bother, some things are beyond reason.


----------



## theclaud (18 Dec 2009)

Crackle said:


> I think it's universal now, *I've probably just contributed to your demise*.



That's a bit dramatic. I had a couple of courteous knuckle-rappings from the mods, but I haven't been employing a food taster to see if they've laced my tea with strychnine. Should I be worried? MacB was plotting an ambush a while back...


----------



## MacB (18 Dec 2009)

theclaud said:


> That's a bit dramatic. I had a couple of courteous knuckle-rappings from the mods, but I haven't been employing a food taster to see if they've laced my tea with strychnine. Should I be worried? MacB was plotting an ambush a while back...



I just read through this thread, should of known better, am now considering ambushing myself!


----------



## al78 (18 Dec 2009)

theclaud said:


> There isn't really an argument left against 20mph limits. Really, the onus is on Linf to explain why the limit shouldn't be 20 everywhere (except perhaps motorways). Or even 15.



Because our society and economy has evolved upon the basis of being able to travel and transport goods over a certain distance within a certain time. Reducing ALL limits down to 20 mph would throw all our systems out of equilibrium and whilst it would reduce road deaths (assuming it could be enforced rigorously) it would likely result in a worse quality of life overall than we have currently.

Much better to apply the limits to the areas where they will make the greatest difference to road safety.


----------



## theclaud (18 Dec 2009)

MacB said:


> I just read through this thread, should of known better, am now considering ambushing myself!



We're accumulating some classy options: the strychnine; the pearl-handled Derringer; a sort of internecine cycling ambush project (that one will take some planning). Who'd've thought that everything would start to look so bleak at 43?


----------



## theclaud (18 Dec 2009)

al78 said:


> *Because our society and economy has evolved* *upon the basis of being able to travel and transport goods over a certain distance within a certain time*. Reducing ALL limits down to 20 mph would throw all our systems out of equilibrium and whilst it would reduce road deaths (assuming it could be enforced rigorously) it would likely result in a worse quality of life overall than we have currently.
> 
> Much better to apply the limits to the areas where they will make the greatest difference to road safety.



Yep, and I think that's the problem (I must reinstate my _Energy & Equity_ sig line). But as a first step I don't disagree with your last sentence.


----------



## Crackle (18 Dec 2009)

theclaud said:


> That's a bit dramatic. I had a couple of courteous knuckle-rappings from the mods, but I haven't been employing a food taster to see if they've laced my tea with strychnine. Should I be worried? MacB was plotting an ambush a while back...




Possibly a bit, it's cumulative you know. Once you're 'known'........

I would be more worried about MacB now you mention it. Anyway, talking of food poisining, there's some lamb neck I need to attend to.


----------



## MacB (18 Dec 2009)

theclaud said:


> Who'd've thought that everything would start to look so bleak at 43?



Only really bleak when someone reminds me, thankfully people tend to be too tactful


----------



## theclaud (18 Dec 2009)

MacB said:


> Only really bleak when someone reminds me, thankfully *people tend to be too tactful*



That's a relief. You're not 43 are you? Only the other day I was saying to Smeggers that you don't look a day over 42-and-a-half.


----------



## MacB (18 Dec 2009)

theclaud said:


> That's a relief. You're not 43 are you? Only the other day I was saying to Smeggers that you don't look a day over 42-and-a-half.



Too many cosy chats with Smeggers, he's a bad influence


----------



## theclaud (18 Dec 2009)

MacB said:


> Too many cosy chats with Smeggers, he's a bad influence



I haven't told you his reply yet...


----------



## MartinC (18 Dec 2009)

You're all missing the point. 20mph limits have only been proven to work in practice. No-one's proved that they work in theory.


----------



## very-near (18 Dec 2009)

> Wouldn't be clear enough. Results in subjective assessment. Would mean that a road could go from 30-20-30-20 and so on in a very very short distance.



This is what already happens in commuting traffic so I can't see a problem with this. Don't you slow right down when you see a hazard as 20mph is far too fast when kids are kicking a ball in the road, or someone is hacking a horse, or a young child is dicing with the traffic on their BMX bike ?


----------



## Norm (18 Dec 2009)

MartinC said:


> You're all missing the point. 20mph limits have only been proven to work in practice. No-one's proved that they work in theory.


  

I'm all for properly targeted limits, I'm also all for greater enforcement of the current limits (which would have a significant impact too).

I don't think that the results of the survey can be treated as black'n'white as many are using them. What caused the reduction in the trial areas? Was it down to enforcement? Or publicity? Or signage? I haven't read the report in full, so I don't know if those points were addressed.

There is a "cost" related to the risk of a fatal accident. If we were to throw enough money at, say, rail transport, we could make it safer than it is currently with automatic train monitoring, pendelino trains on every route, GPS tracking and a 100% rail-sensor coverage. But we don't have billions to throw around, so we attribute a notional cost to each life potentially saved and use that as the basis for targeting the expenditure.

The cost of a 20mph limit is not only the real cost of the reduced efficiency of the vehicles but the cost of all the additional hours which people spend on the road. If the limit on a trunk road was reduced from 70 to 20, for instance (an extreme example), then journey times would treble and the notional cost of the journey would increase commensurately. 

Someone somewhere has worked out that allowing people to drive at 60 on the A33 from Reading to Basingstoke will mean the average journey time is x1, the notional cost is y1 and the number of KSI's is z1, whereas reducing the limit to 50 would change the figures to x2, y2 and z2. That someone then decided that it was worth the notional increased cost to reduce the notional accident rate. However, the fail for me is that every part of the calculation is open to criticism but they use the same figures nationwide and we're stuck with the results. 

If we know someone who has died on the roads, what value would we have put on the safety which might have saved them?

We're also stuck with a transport system that we cannot make 100% safe and with our chosen mode of transport being amongst the most vulnerable out there.

Personally, I'd be happy if:
1. Drivers were made more aware of the dangers they can cause, even when sticking to the limits.
2. Driver training was more rigorous and re-tested frequently.
3. The laws we have already were more rigorously applied, not just the ones which result in easy wins which help the police and Home Office publicity machine pretend that they are tackling crime by making drivers into criminals.
4. Targeted 20 limits were brought in to residential areas, together with measures to reduce the volume, as well as the speed, of the traffic in those areas.


----------



## very-near (18 Dec 2009)

StuartG said:


> Ahem, the 20mph report was a serious statistical study. Science is about laws of nature. Big difference.
> 
> You didn't bother to read/understand the new report did you? No wonder you have come up with a load of arguments irrelevant to the discussion topic. You don't want 20mph zones and you are just wasting the thread with irrelevant opinions on random topics. Please go away until you have something relevant to add.



Damn, I was right about the sanctimonious bit - you really are far up your own chuff 

Had it occurred to you that the roads with the 20mph limits are being avoided, and the risk has been transfered to other roads (rat runs) where the drivers are putting their foot down to make up for lost time (it does happen you know).

There is nowhere in that report which states what the 20mph zones were previously marked at. For all you know they could well have been 50 or NSLs, and there is nothing to state that they would not have benefited from traffic calming and a 30mph limit.

The reality is that when these 20mph zones are created (and monitored), the traffic speeds in the surrounding areas starts to turn into a fast dash.

If you did this to an entire town, you would get massive disobedience of the 20 limits.

Your assertions are really subjective, missing great parts of the bigger picture, and more importantly than anything else - make you sound a bit pompous


----------



## Origamist (18 Dec 2009)

very-near said:


> Had it occurred to you that the roads with the 20mph limits are being avoided, and the risk has been transfered to other roads (rat runs) where the drivers are putting their foot down to make up for lost time (it does happen you know).



What you're referring to is "collision migration" and in the 20mph studies I have come across there is no or very limited evidence to support this contention.


----------



## very-near (18 Dec 2009)

Origamist said:


> What you're referring to is "collision migration" and in the 20mph studies I have come across there is no or very limited evidence to support this contention.



I used to live very close to a level crossing and every time the barriers went down, the cars approaching this would see this, and dive into the nearest side road at speed (my road) to avoid queuing, and then floor it for the entire length of it to try and make up the time they think they have lost by having to take the detour. The road was narrow with cars parked on either side and only enough space for a single car to pass in either direction. 
I'd say I am a fairy good judge of speed and would estimate 2 or 3 cars an evening would attain between 50 and 60mph along its length, but dozens a day would repeat this but not all get up to that speed.

I saw driver crashing into parked cars because they took the corner too fast, a scaffolding lorry shedding its load whilst cornering and also a couple of head on's when the car turning in, cut the (blind) corner and ran straight into a car coming the other way. I even saw a Reliant Robin roll whilst trying this.

I lived there for years and the pattern never changed - barriers go down, cars cut the corner and floor it big time. Funnily, the authorities ignored it as no one had been killed doing this (but there was one serious one where a family had to be cut out of their car after a moron joyrider nearly killed them at the end of the road). As far as I know, they are still ignoring it due to 'budgetary constraints'.

Oh, the road was turned into a no entry as well but that didn't help as most ignored it 

It has been my experience that when an obstacle is imposed people try to circumvent this by any means without it impacting their perceived journey time


----------



## very-near (19 Dec 2009)

> No, that's something that you've just thought up. So it's not the fact that you claim, but a view. A view which, to hold any value, you're going to have to evidence. Please go ahead...
> 
> ...grabs at straw number one.
> 
> ...



The people most likely to know if people are observing the zones and/or nailing it outside them are the ones who live in the areas both inside and outside these zones. There is not enough information in that report to provide any real information to disprove any of what I have asserted so I still consider the results to be skewed. What has not been considered either is that there has been a downward curve of serious KSIs due to improvements in car design which is entirely in keeping with the stats which show that motorcycles are rising in percentage even thought overall KSIs are still falling (cos they are not as well protected)


----------



## very-near (19 Dec 2009)

> That's all very interesting. But, 20mph limits have been proven to work.
> 
> Rather than blabbering on as you are, you need to show that they do not reduce KSIs on the roads. The evidence for is strong. You need to demolish the evidence rather than go on about what you can see through your net curtains again.



You cannot disregard anecdotal evidence just because it is inconvenient to your assertions.


----------



## al78 (19 Dec 2009)

very-near said:


> You cannot disregard anecdotal evidence just because it is inconvenient to your assertions.



Anecdotal evidence means little when talking about population statistics.

e.g. I know a woman who is 6 ft tall and a man who is 5'5, this doesn't disprove population data which shows that women are on average shorter than men.

Similarily, stating that there may be isolated cases where localised 20 mph limits would decrease road safety does not disprove the observational evidence that localised 20 mph limits on average lead to reduced road casualties.

This is what we are trying to achieve with localised 20 mph limits, an improvement in road safety on average across the whole population.


----------



## MacB (19 Dec 2009)

al78 said:


> Anecdotal evidence means little when talking about population statistics.
> 
> e.g. I know a woman who is 6 ft tall and a man who is 5'5, this doesn't disprove population data which shows that women are on average shorter than men.
> 
> ...




Stupid, stupid post, employing logic and reason in one of these circular madhouses, you'll learn


----------



## StuartG (19 Dec 2009)

Please leave the guy alone. There is no point in a discussion when the ground rules on fact, fantasy and prejudice are not shared. Can we get back to a real discussion on real evidence? As was pointed out - the study shows a reduction but not why a reduction. We surely need to know that before spending serious money?


----------



## very-near (19 Dec 2009)

al78 said:


> Anecdotal evidence means little when talking about population statistics.
> 
> e.g. I know a woman who is 6 ft tall and a man who is 5'5, this doesn't disprove population data which shows that women are on average shorter than men.
> 
> ...



Just because I didn't sit on the corner 24/7 counting cars doesn't mean it wasn't happening. 

Anecdotal evidence is the reason why people chase statistics as it is an indicator that there is a problem which may need to be addressed.

Anyway, enough for one night. You can argue amongst yourselves whilst I'm gone


----------



## very-near (19 Dec 2009)

StuartG said:


> Please leave the guy alone. There is no point in a discussion when the ground rules on fact, fantasy and prejudice are not shared. Can we get back to a real discussion on real evidence? As was pointed out - the study shows a reduction but not why a reduction. We surely need to know that before spending serious money?



Which is in a roundabout way what I am saying - It isn't enough to monitor the target areas, but also those around them. It makes for sloppy science which can skew the results one way or another - and the report is as you acknowledge lacking this background information.

Imagine a driver has to get to work via one of these zones. He is running a bit late so nails it from his house to the edge of the zone, observes the zone, and then nails it for the rest of his journey, or drives well above the safe limits in a detour around it. Is the zone going to make him a safer driver on this journey? Maybe for the duration of the zone, but that is as far as it goes.

I see people like this every morning on the roads driving like this, and taking real risks (as well as RLJing)

I appreciate that there are many instances where 20mph zones do help, but to take their example without looking at the other factors which make up the average car commute is a bit shallow.

I'll apologise for the dig as you are appearing to be giving this issue a bit more than a cursory glance than to just provoke a reaction.

Anyway, I'm really going now


----------



## MacB (19 Dec 2009)

StuartG said:


> Please leave the guy alone. There is no point in a discussion when the ground rules on fact, fantasy and prejudice are not shared. Can we get back to a real discussion? As was pointed out - the study shows a reduction but not why a reduction. We surely need to know that before spending serious money?



I'm all for that, personally I'm quite critical of the various traffic calming measures, but others on here support them. My experience of chicanes, humps, rumble strips, etc, locally, has been that they create more problems than they solve. I also have concerns around driver attention being reduced in their peripheral vision, ie children on/off pavements, and being focused on negotiating the traffic calming measures. The other view is that these measures force the driver to focus on their driving but I'm dubious. I would much rather see lower speed limits used, either in the existing format or via enforced limiting technology(I won't get into the whole limiting debate again though).

I find the chicanes around the local schools especially dangerous for cycling. The congestion they create seems much larger than before and cars even less likely to grant right of way to a bike, or have patience with a cyclist. My sons all cycle but even the eldest resorts to pavements around these. I'll hold my road position but have had to bail out twice and have been swerved at deliberately once. They also create a permanent obstruction and seem to add to rapid acceleration and heavy braking. We have one lengthy chicane, about 40 yards with a full roadwidth hump in the middle. I've grown used to the fact that I get overtaken inside this chicane. Off the six chicanes they've installed around here 2 of them allow for cyclists to go through to the side the other 4 do not. But the 2 that do also feature cars parked either side making entry/exit at chicane more dangerous than going through the main bit. The 4 that don't make provision can, to the idle glance, look like there is. Some cars seem to anticipate you'll be going round the side. I've had several instances of them braking sharply, at my shoulder, as they realise I'm gouing straight ahead.

Unlike others I don't believe that improved driver training will solve these problems and certainly not in an acceptable timescale. The scary thing is that most of my experience of this is via school run cycling. Other parents are nearly always the worst culprits. The 3 schools my sons have been two are all in a line, nearest about 0.5 miles, furthest about 2.2 miles. We cycle past many homes that drive their kids to school.


----------



## marinyork (19 Dec 2009)

MacB said:


> I find the chicanes around the local schools especially dangerous for cycling. The congestion they create seems much larger than before and cars even less likely to grant right of way to a bike, or have patience with a cyclist. My sons all cycle but even the eldest resorts to pavements around these. I'll hold my road position but have had to bail out twice and have been swerved at deliberately once. They also create a permanent obstruction and seem to add to rapid acceleration and heavy braking. We have one lengthy chicane, about 40 yards with a full roadwidth hump in the middle. I've grown used to the fact that I get overtaken inside this chicane. Off the six chicanes they've installed around here 2 of them allow for cyclists to go through to the side the other 4 do not. But the 2 that do also feature cars parked either side making entry/exit at chicane more dangerous than going through the main bit. The 4 that don't make provision can, to the idle glance, look like there is. Some cars seem to anticipate you'll be going round the side. I've had several instances of them braking sharply, at my shoulder, as they realise I'm gouing straight ahead.



Chicanes are usually regarded as overkill. They tend to work too well in slowing the traffic down and can lead to gridlock once traffic is beyond a certain volume. A useful tool but not necessarily applied to the best places. I think 1 is all right, but I know of a location where people from my old department were naughty boys and running simulations to get multiple ones installed. 

I was quite annoyed here where they installed one not far from here on a road that has no speed or traffic problems and they didn't put in an exception for bikes. The other half of the road that has both of these things was left untouched because it is a busy commuting route and they didn't want to offend the motorists.


----------



## Origamist (19 Dec 2009)

very-near said:


> Which is in a roundabout way what I am saying - It isn't enough to monitor the target areas, but also those around them. It makes for sloppy science which can skew the results one way or another - and the report is as you acknowledge lacking this background information.
> 
> Imagine a driver has to get to work via one of these zones. He is running a bit late so nails it from his house to the edge of the zone, observes the zone, and then nails it for the rest of his journey, or drives well above the safe limits in a detour around it. Is the zone going to make him a safer driver on this journey? Maybe for the duration of the zone, but that is as far as it goes.



As I said, in the reports I have seen vis a vis 20mph zones, the phenomenon of collision migration is examined, but it was concluded that it was not a significant factor in adjacent roads.

The level crossing example has no relevance to 20mph limits/zones.


----------



## very-near (19 Dec 2009)

Origamist said:


> As I said, in the reports I have seen vis a vis 20mph zones, the phenomenon of collision migration is examined, but it was concluded that it was not a significant factor in adjacent roads.
> 
> The level crossing example has no relevance to 20mph limits/zones.



From a NIMBY point of view, I'd be very happy to see a 20mph zone installed in that road for the safety of the people using it and living there as it is very narrow, car lined and only wide enough for a single car to go in one direction between them, but the reality is, that the knobs breaking the laws have already cut a blind corner into the face of oncoming traffic which is using it legally and correctly and gone through a no entry the wrong way to get into it and the 60mph they achieve along it is just 'by the way'. I suppose the sound of the valves bouncing in their engines is a warning to others that they are coming through and to get off the road


----------



## jonesy (19 Dec 2009)

MacB said:


> I'm all for that, personally I'm quite critical of the various traffic calming measures, but others on here support them. My experience of chicanes, humps, rumble strips, etc, locally, has been that they create more problems than they solve. I also have concerns around driver attention being reduced in their peripheral vision, ie children on/off pavements, and being focused on negotiating the traffic calming measures. The other view is that these measures force the driver to focus on their driving but I'm dubious. I would much rather see lower speed limits used, either in the existing format or via enforced limiting technology(I won't get into the whole limiting debate again though).


Physical measures like bumps and chicanes are often installed to slow down traffic on roads where high speeds have been encouraged by the road layout: wide, straight roads, large turning radii at junctions etc. It is particularly frustrating to see traffic calming having to be installed on new housing estates to fix speeding problems that were wholly forseable from the design and could easily have been avoided if residential roads weren't so often built to trunk road standards. That's what Manual for Streets is intended to change, with the recognition that if you design roads for low speeds then drivers will respond, and hopefully that approach will be extended to shopping streets and other places where roads have a broader purpose than merely conveying motorised traffic on its way through.



> ...
> 
> Unlike others I don't believe that improved driver training will solve these problems and certainly not in an acceptable timescale. ...



The arguments about driver training should be exactly the same as for any other road safety intervention- what's the evidence for its effectiveness? We've got plenty of robust evidence that reducing speed reduces both accident frequency and severity, but while there is evidence that driver training is beneficial, there is none to support the claim that it could be more effective than reduced speeds. The forum dullards claim otherwise, but despite repeated requests have never offered any evidence to support this...


----------



## very-near (20 Dec 2009)

> The evidence posted shows that 20mph limits reduce KSIs. You needn't worry linf, because no-one is suggesting on here or in the offices of those who are doing the work that a blanket 20mph national speed limit is on its way.
> 
> You either accept the stats, and also that there's more work needed about how, where etc, or you try to rubbish the facts for some hidden agenda. You've spent several days doing the latter, and now are trying to hide that behind a claim that you're doing the former.
> 
> Maybe you're trolling, maybe you're arguing because you don't like the inevitable outcome of this, maybe you don't understand the issues, or maybe you're a couple of steps behind most in the thinking on this (the most likely assumption given your view that people don't have the sense to know how to act around horses). Regardless, if you'd like to sort yourself out and take a position that's not going to stabilise your posting before you jump back in, that would be very helpful.



What is the best possible outcome you can hope to achieve if the 20mph limit were to be implemented across all the roads in urban areas in the UK, and why aren't you pushing to have it introduced nationwide across all roads in the network if it would save so many lives ?


----------



## marinyork (20 Dec 2009)

very-near said:


> What is the best possible outcome you can hope to achieve if the 20mph limit were to be implemented across all the roads in urban areas in the UK, and why aren't you pushing to have it introduced nationwide across all roads in the network if it would save so many lives ?



They aren't going to be implemented across all the urban roads in the uk. 

Tell you what, since you seem to be having trouble with this why don't we have a chat on here about what 20 campaigners like round here and in other areas might ask for at some point. 

We'll talk about Cheltenham or Gloucester or somewhere you know. I've never visited cheltenham in detail so this has the chance of getting utterly absurd but I'll have a gloss at a map and tell you the sorts of roads that would definitely be made 20, roads that might be, and roads that could be but might be turned down and which ones definitely wouldn't be. Sound good?


----------



## very-near (20 Dec 2009)

marinyork said:


> They aren't going to be implemented across all the urban roads in the uk.
> 
> Tell you what, since you seem to be having trouble with this why don't we have a chat on here about what 20 campaigners like round here and in other areas might ask for at some point.
> 
> We'll talk about Cheltenham or Gloucester or somewhere you know. I've never visited cheltenham in detail so this has the chance of getting utterly absurd but I'll have a gloss at a map and tell you the sorts of roads that would definitely be made 20, roads that might be, and roads that could be but might be turned down and which ones definitely wouldn't be. Sound good?



I have already stated that I don't have a problem with the limits being introduced in certain roads, but it makes little sense to apply them in an arbitrary manner given the demands of the traffic.


----------



## very-near (20 Dec 2009)

> The best possible outcome if it was introduced on the appropriate roads would be a reduction in KSIs. I thought that was obvious. Seeing as we know that it will improve road safety, only a fool would argue against it.
> 
> As to your second question, it's all about acceptable risk. Which we've done many times.



Why are we arguing about this. We are essentially agreeing on the issue


----------



## snorri (20 Dec 2009)

very-near said:


> Why are we arguing about this.




Ah! the end is nigh, praise be to the Lord.


----------



## very-near (20 Dec 2009)

> ```
> 
> ```
> 
> ...



What do you consider to be an acceptable figure IE - what would you accept as a target which you consider to be realistic given the 30 million cars on the roads in the UK ?


----------



## marinyork (20 Dec 2009)

very-near said:


> What do you consider to be an acceptable figure IE - what would you accept as a target which you consider to be realistic given the 30 million cars on the roads in the UK ?



I'd say two to two and a half thousand. I checked the ONS and I don't know where you got your figures from but road deaths are pretty much the three thousand mark thesedays, not five hundred fewer.


----------



## Origamist (20 Dec 2009)

@Marinyork

According to the DfT: 



> The number of people killed in road accidents fell by 14 per cent from 2,946 in 2007 to 2,538 in 2008. In accidents reported to the police 28,572 people were killed or seriously injured in 2008, 7 per cent fewer than in 2007. There were just under 231,000 road casualties in Great Britain in 2008, 7 per cent less than in 2007.



The 2004- 2008 average baseline figures are: 3016 killed

http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/statistic...ns/accidents/casualtiesmr/rcgbmainresults2008


----------



## marinyork (20 Dec 2009)

Origamist said:


> @Marinyork
> 
> According to the DfT:
> 
> ...



It was the 2007 figures I looked at. What I said was broadly true though, it has been around 3000 for a number of years and I knew that even before I looked at the numbers. 

One would hope that the 2009 numbers end up being so good as that is a massive drop.


----------



## Origamist (20 Dec 2009)

marinyork said:


> It was the 2007 figures I looked at. What I said was broadly true though, it has been around 3000 for a number of years and I knew that even before I looked at the numbers.
> 
> One would hope that the 2009 numbers end up being so good as that is a massive drop.



Yep, the 2008 figures were a welcome surprise. The estimates after the 2nd quarter this year suggest that they will be lower again, but it will be interesting to see how cyclists faired when we finally know to what extent cyclist numbers have increased. 

I also understand there has been a 2% drop in all traffic in 2009. 

As for 20mph limits, Clarkson has spoken today:




> As we know, there is a general trend in the echelons of power to push for lower urban speed limits. And as a result, woolly-headed researchers are delivering all sorts of evidence — or tricks — to suggest that such a move would save 30,000 children’s lives, end the war in Afghanistan and cure the common cold.
> 
> It is all nonsense. I have tried driving through urban areas at the suggested new limit of 20mph and it is impossible. Gradients, gear ratios and the need to look up from the speedo from time to time mean that often you look back down again to see you’ve crept up to a jailable 26.
> 
> ...



http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/driving/jeremy_clarkson/article6961706.ece


----------



## very-near (20 Dec 2009)

> An acceptable figure would be zero, and we should always be striving to minimise it by taking advantage of developing technology and knowledge, while accepting that we can never reach zero. It's not about picking a figure and being happy when we get there, but aiming towards the goal.
> 
> 
> For example, when it's proven that 20mph limits save lives then this mechanism should be used to its appropriate fulness to bring the figures down.
> ...



Who is suggesting raising them  ?

Great advances in safety has been achieved not by lowering speed limits, but by improving vehicle design.

I could think of many additional things which would make an immediate difference to the stats to satisfy your desire to see a zero number in thee KSI's

*Anyway, how about these ways of reducing the numbers:-*

*Tiredness costs 300 lives a year on the roads in the UK*



> If you fall asleep at the wheel you risk killing yourself, your passengers and other innocent victims.
> 
> Tiredness reduces reaction time, alertness, concentration, decision making and all crucial driving skills.
> 
> ...



*Or Drink Driving which costs 570 lives each year in the UK*



> The risks
> Drink-driving puts both drivers and other road users at risk. Of the 20,060 people killed or injured in drink-drive crashes in 2002 there were:
> ? 740 pedestrians, including 120 children;
> ? 140 cyclists, including 40 children;
> ...




*Drug Driving is a contributing factor in 18% of fatal accidents on the road or approx 450 of those who are killed or cause the death of others on the roads*



> Around 18% of people killed in road crashes have traces of illegal drugs in their blood, with cannabis being the most common. [1]
> 
> Although the risks of drug driving aren’t as well known as the risks of drink driving they are just as dangerous ? drugs can affect people dramatically and therefore make them lethal when behind the wheel of a car.
> 
> http://www.brake.org.uk/facts/drug-driving



Without looking closely at the cycling stats, and without including any deliberate acts of speeding (or even looking at speed as a factor), we are up to 1400 deaths a year (or 54% of the 2570 deaths last year) which are caused by impaired judgment through drink, drugs and tiredness.

You never mention any of these in your road safety crusades, but they are plainly the primary causes of road deaths in the UK.

Perhaps you need to re-evaluate your position as it will never bring the result you are pursuing whichever way you want to be 'aiming towards the goal'.


----------



## marinyork (20 Dec 2009)

very-near said:


> Who is suggesting raising them  ?



Roads are often asked to have the speed limit raised through various measures. A bit of ring road round here there's a campaign to raise a 40 road to 60 or 70. When I lived in another city a past time of much of the population was whining endlessly about dualling a bit of the ring road and raising the speed limit.



very-near said:


> You never mention any of these in your road safety crusades, but they are plainly the primary causes of road deaths in the UK.



People talk about drunk driving quite often. There's not much I can do about it. If someone drink drives has a crash and the police attend they'll get taken to court. If someone doesn't have a crash it's extremely unlikely they'll get caught. Police just don't do enough breathaliser tests. It's mindnumbingly boring work with little reward but it needs upping. In some bits of the year they run fairly good campaigns in targeted areas. I saw the police out on Thursday night testing for drink.

I got hit by someone that I think may have been drug driving. It wasn't a pleasant experience.


----------



## Cab (21 Dec 2009)

Origamist said:


> As for 20mph limits, Clarkson has spoken today:



So, if that smeg head were to spout that drivel here, I'd say 'but 20mph zones have been proven to reduce the number of deaths and injuries on the road, so whats your point?'.


----------



## Cab (21 Dec 2009)

User3094 said:


> Do Clarksons brakes not work at all at 20mph then?!



Its more like his brain doesn't. Seems that he can't drive at that speed without constantly looking at his speedometer. If he can't keep his car under (legal) control, he has no business being out on the roads.

Of course his previous comment urging motorists that to mow down cyclists and suggesting that bus drivers are jumped up little Hitlers who should be shot in the face also gave some hints to the fact that he is unsuitable driving matter.


----------



## theclaud (21 Dec 2009)

Cab said:


> the fact that he is unsuitable driving matter.



Unsuitable breathing matter, in fact.


----------



## very-near (21 Dec 2009)

> It's an oft-used petrolhead excuse. You've alluded to it a fair few times on here when excusing speeding, suggesting that high speed is ok because these days cars are safer.
> 
> Yup, that's what I just said.
> 
> ...



Sorry, but you are wrong . 

The trend of drug and drink driving is rising. The government spent a pitiful £2.3 million on a campaign to help stop this. They are attributing 1 in 5 deaths to this cause alone or not even what is spent on the cost of a road 3 deaths in the UK (£1million each). 

The cost of implementing and policing a 20mph limit nationwide will cost billions. 

We have to balance risk against value and money could be better spent on reducing the drink driving and drug driving.

Perhaps they could even offer free coffee stops in motorway service stations and in rest areas on trunk roads as a networks of these would undoubtedly save millions if they help to reduce this problem given the £1million cost of each life lost on the roads. I'd say that they should return excellent value for money in the quest for safer roads. 

You need to think outside of the box as your idea will simply not give a decent return for the cost of policing it.


----------



## summerdays (21 Dec 2009)

The 20 mph zones are not just about saving lives, they will also reduce other less severe injuries and to make it more pleasant for the people who live and work there.


----------



## very-near (21 Dec 2009)

User3094 said:


> I'd prefer to be hit by a drunk driver at 20mph than I would at 30mph



Think very carefully about what you are asking for smeggers


----------



## theclaud (21 Dec 2009)

very-near said:


> Think very carefully about what you are asking for smeggers



Eh? So you'd rather be hit by the faster drunk-driver?


----------



## Cab (21 Dec 2009)

very-near said:


> The cost of implementing and policing a 20mph limit nationwide will cost billions.



Why? How? I mean, it isn't like there is no road maintenance/sign maintenance anyway, and it isn't like every road will be at 20mph.


----------



## very-near (21 Dec 2009)

theclaud said:


> Eh? So you'd rather be hit by the faster drunk-driver?



What is the chance they will observe any limit or indeed actually use the brakes when under the influence TC  - think carefuly about what you are advocating here as you are trying to prop up the weak side of the argument please. You are condoning drivers (or cyclists come to think of it) taking to the roads whilst in an unfit state to do so. They are a danger to all others irrespective of whatever speed they travel at. You are showing a very distinct lack of either self awareness or that of the risks these irresponsible users take at the moment


----------



## very-near (21 Dec 2009)

Cab said:


> Why? How? I mean, it isn't like there is no road maintenance/sign maintenance anyway, and it isn't like every road will be at 20mph.



We have had these zones in Gloucester for at least 10 years now with specs cameras. People still speed where not monitored. It is impossible to do this on every road. It is just a pipe dream.


----------



## theclaud (21 Dec 2009)

very-near said:


> What is the chance they will observe any limit or indeed actually use the brakes when under the influence TC  - think carefuly about what you are advocating here as you are trying to prop up the weak side of the argument please. You are condoning drivers (or cyclists come to think of it) taking to the roads whilst in an unfit state to do so. They are a danger to all others irrespective of whatever speed they travel at. You are showing a very distinct lack of either self awareness or that of the risks these irresponsible users take at the moment



Linf - you've stolen Spire's Missing The Point Award just as he thought he had it in the bag. Two drivers, *equally drunk*. Same cars and conditions. One is travelling at 20mph, the other at 30. If you have to be hit by one of them, which do you choose? I'll give you a minute to think about it.


----------



## very-near (21 Dec 2009)

theclaud said:


> Linf - you've stolen Spire's Missing The Point Award just as he thought he had it in the bag. Two drivers, *equally drunk*. Same cars and conditions. One is travelling at 20mph, the other at 30. If you have to be hit by one of them, which do you choose? I'll give you a minute to think about it.



There is no safe speed for a drunk to be behind the wheel TC!


----------



## Cab (21 Dec 2009)

very-near said:


> We have had these zones in Gloucester for at least 10 years now with specs cameras. People still speed where not monitored. It is impossible to do this on every road. It is just a pipe dream.



It isn't the goal to do this on every road, as pointed out in the post your above reply was a response to.

You're now replying to points made with a repetition of the content of those points. Whats going on?


----------



## Cab (21 Dec 2009)

very-near said:


> There is no safe speed for a drunk to be behind the wheel TC!



I contend that in a straight choice between a drunk driver travelling at 20mph, and a drunk driver travelling at 30mph, both the likelyhood and severity of a collision is greater at 30mph. Do you agree, yes or no?


----------



## theclaud (21 Dec 2009)

very-near said:


> There is no safe speed for a drunk to be behind the wheel TC!



I quite agree! Now would you answer the question please? Two drivers, both unsafe behind the wheel, one going 10mph faster than the other. One of them is going to hit you, and you have the luxury of choice. Make it.


----------



## very-near (21 Dec 2009)

User3094 said:


> I've got to go to the East Midlands in a minute, so cant debate the minutaie of your ridiculous assertion. However, suffice to say...
> 
> Are you on drugs today Linford?



I'm on drugs every day Smeggers. Anyway, have a safe journey and keep the speed down. 

140 mile round trip at 20mph, you should get back just in time for tea


----------



## summerdays (21 Dec 2009)

But nowhere is anyone suggesting that all roads should become 20 mph - or did I miss that bit?


----------



## theclaud (21 Dec 2009)

summerdays said:


> But nowhere is anyone suggesting that all roads should become 20 mph - or did I miss that bit?



I pretty much am, actually, except for motorways. Or perhaps 15mph. But I've let it go for the purposes of this discussion...


----------



## very-near (21 Dec 2009)

Cab said:


> I contend that in a straight choice between a drunk driver travelling at 20mph, and a drunk driver travelling at 30mph, both the likelyhood and severity of a collision is greater at 30mph. Do you agree, yes or no?




Mr Clarkson quite rightly stated that cars have the luxury of 'Brakes' 

An inebriated driver is very unlikely to bother to use them before impact
so your question is really irrelevant. 

Are you suggesting that you would be happy to share the roads with drink drivers as long as they are doing 20mph ?


----------



## very-near (21 Dec 2009)

summerdays said:


> But nowhere is anyone suggesting that all roads should become 20 mph - or did I miss that bit?



IIRC, that was Cab


----------



## theclaud (21 Dec 2009)

Either answer the question or stop banging on, Linfy...


----------



## very-near (21 Dec 2009)

theclaud said:


> Either answer the question or stop banging on, Linfy...



Let me put it another way.

A) You're standing in the road and a car is coming towards you at 20mph. The driver has impared judgement through drink or drugs and you cannot get out of his way. He then he proceeds to run you over (ouch)

 You're standing in the road and a car is coming towards you at 30mph. The driver is sober and alert and as a result steps on the brakes in good time. You cannot get out of his way but he stops in good time (result)

Can you see the problem with your argument


----------



## summerdays (21 Dec 2009)

theclaud said:


> I pretty much am, actually, except for motorways. Or perhaps 15mph. But I've let it go for the purposes of this discussion...



Well it sounds nice but I can't imagine managing to sneak that one into law! But did I ever think smoking would be banned in public places etc...


----------



## theclaud (21 Dec 2009)

very-near said:


> Let me put it another way.
> 
> A) You're standing in the road and a car is coming towards you at 20mph. The driver has impared judgement through drink or drugs and you cannot get out of his way. He then he proceeds to run you over (ouch)
> 
> ...



Linf, I can only assume you do it deliberately. *Both drunk*, one at 20, one at 30. So the one at 30 is drunk is well. They are both drunk. Both equally drunk. Both of them have been drinking, to the same extent. They are equally pissed. Langered, the pair of them. Did I remember to add that they are both drunk? The only difference between them is the speed. We're going to glue your feet to the road and let one of them hit you - take your pick.


----------



## MacB (21 Dec 2009)

theclaud said:


> Linf, We're going to glue your feet to the road and let one of them hit you - take your pick.



Wouldn't work the mothership would 'beam' him out of harms way, his mission is too important.


----------



## very-near (21 Dec 2009)

theclaud said:


> Linf, I can only assume you do it deliberately. *Both drunk*, one at 20, one at 30. So the one at 30 is drunk is well. They are both drunk. Both equally drunk. Both of them have been drinking, to the same extent. They are equally pissed. Langered, the pair of them. Did I remember to add that they are both drunk? The only difference between them is the speed. We're going to glue your feet to the road and let one of them hit you - take your pick.




I'm sorry TC, but I cannot proscribe to your 'both drunk argument as there will never be mitigation for this scenario. You need to look at this one again when you have understood how many lives are lost through drink and drugs on the roads in the UK.


----------



## very-near (21 Dec 2009)

MacB said:


> Wouldn't work the mothership would 'beam' him out of harms way, his mission is too important.




MacB I'm making an conscious effort to not bait or needle you. Can you make an effort to do the same ?


----------



## MacB (21 Dec 2009)

very-near said:


> MacB I'm making an conscious effort to not bait or needle you. Can you make an effort to do the same ?



I am, believe me, I am


----------



## theclaud (21 Dec 2009)

very-near said:


> I'm sorry TC, but I cannot proscribe to your 'both drunk argument as there will never be mitigation for this scenario. You need to look at this one again when you have understood how many lives are lost through drink and drugs on the roads in the UK.



Barmy! It's a hypothetical scenario, that needs no mitigation. We would never _really_ glue you to the road and have you run over. Just as well as it wouldn't work anyway - you currently don't have a leg to stand on...


----------



## very-near (21 Dec 2009)

> And you're going to explain where...
> 
> You're wrong. "Campaigns" are extra to normal police work. It doesn't mean that they don't do anything to tackle the problem the rest of the time.
> 
> ...



All of the issues raied are ones which cause substantial loss of life. It is a shame that you cannot see how important they are and quite frankly how bad your own judgment is that you have focussed on a single issue which clearly is not primary cause of the vast majority of deaths on the road in the UK.

We have existing laws to cover drink and drug driving and if they were better policed would garner far greater results than what you propose.


----------



## very-near (21 Dec 2009)

> You're addressing a different question, by comparing a drink driver with a sober one.
> 
> The question put to you compares two equally drunk drivers at the same speed. They'd have the same reaction ability.
> 
> ...



Neither is acceptable if under the influence as it skews the reults so your question is irrelevant to the debate.

Next question!


----------



## theclaud (21 Dec 2009)

very-near said:


> Neither is acceptable if under the influence as it skews the reults so your question is irrelevant to the debate.
> 
> Next question!



The question has nothing to do with acceptability. It is to do with you choosing one of two options. Get on with it.


----------



## very-near (21 Dec 2009)

MacB said:


> I am, believe me, I am



You won't have a problem refraining from further digs then ?


----------



## very-near (21 Dec 2009)

theclaud said:


> The question has nothing to do with acceptability. It is to do with you choosing one of two options. Get on with it.



As I don't accept either as an acceptable scenario as you have no idea of how a drunk would react when seeing a person on the road in front of them, the question has no merit.

Anyway seeing as you seem to think that drink driving is not a real crime, you will no doubt agree with halving this idiots sentence.



> *Drunk driver who killed cyclist has sentence halved on appeal*
> *3.03.09 by Buffalo Bill*
> 
> From last week’s Yorkshire Evening Post:
> ...


----------



## theclaud (21 Dec 2009)

very-near said:


> the question has no merit.



Oh yes it does. It shows everyone what you're up to, as if they didn't know already.


----------



## Cab (21 Dec 2009)

very-near said:


> Mr Clarkson quite rightly stated that cars have the luxury of 'Brakes'
> 
> An inebriated driver is very unlikely to bother to use them before impact
> so your question is really irrelevant.
> ...



Nope. I'm saying that the evidence has been gathered, studied, and it is _clear_ that 20mph limits save lives. If everyone is doing that speed then the chance of being hit by someone faster than that in a stream of traffic (or more likely deviating from that stream) is remote; the question is therefore entirely relevant.

A drunk at 30mph is more likely to have an accident and more likely to cause serious harm than one at 20mph; true or false?


----------



## Cab (21 Dec 2009)

very-near said:


> IIRC, that was Cab



You recall incorrectly. No one has suggested that all roads should be 20mph.


----------



## very-near (21 Dec 2009)

> I dismissed this accusation yesterday. Do you think that by repeating it it makes it real?
> If you look at the OP you'll see that it's about one issue -20mph limits.
> 
> If you want to discuss one of the other issues then either start a new thread or go and find one of the old ones.
> ...




You didn't dismiss it, you merely refuted it. I've asked you why this is 20mph limit so important to you, and you reply with the answer that you are passionate about road safety.

I'd say you are evangelical about speed limits whilst ignoring the elephant in the living room. It makes you narrow minded and unable to deal with the reality which I have presented - Lower limits in places have merit but don't really toucch on the main causes of the KSIs in the UK.


----------



## very-near (21 Dec 2009)

User3143 said:


> What an awesome thread! 'Tis a shame I have to go back to work because my lunch is over - but rest assured I'll comment on this later on tonight...



I'd like to say it's been fun but some don't seem to take road safety seriously Lee


----------



## theclaud (21 Dec 2009)

very-near said:


> I'd like to say it's been fun but some don't seem to take road safety seriously Lee



Priceless! You're on form today, Linf.


----------



## very-near (21 Dec 2009)

theclaud said:


> Priceless! You're on form today, Linf.



Any attempt to undermine this effort to distract from the primary causes must be repelled. 

I fear you are taking sides because you don't want to be seen to be agreeing with me - more is the pity as I thought you to be of sterner stuff


----------



## theclaud (21 Dec 2009)

very-near said:


> Any attempt to undermine this effort to distract from the primary causes must be repelled.
> 
> I fear you are taking sides because you don't want to be seen to be agreeing with me - more is the pity as I thought you to be of sterner stuff



Agree with you? Steady on - all we've agreed on is that drink-driving is dangerous to other people. Actually all driving is dangerous, but the faster you go and/or the more drunk you are, the more dangerous it gets. But you are determined not agree with that. I'd like a default 20mph. Urban for starters, but fast traffic on country roads remains a pet peev. A lower limit in towns is a no-brainer. There are no credible arguments against it. You argue against it, but you have no credibility on the subject, so it scarcely matters.


----------



## just jim (21 Dec 2009)

Mr. P - would you rather try to nail jelly to a wall with a pin hammer, or sledgehammer. Pin, or sledge? Simple question.


----------



## theclaud (21 Dec 2009)

just jim said:


> Mr. P - would you rather try to nail jelly to a wall with a pin hammer, or sledgehammer. Pin, or sledge? Simple question.



Sledgehammer for me. Just as ineffective, but more fun. As long as it's someone else's wall.


----------



## very-near (21 Dec 2009)

> OK then. How's about you stop trying to distract yet again from the proof that reducing speed saves lives, and discuss the other issues on the threads where we've already mentioned them, or start up a separate one?
> 
> 20mph limits are proven to be effective.
> 
> ...



I've already stated that I have no objections to 20 limits around schools or where busy roads pass through town centres and where there is a high footfall, but I would not be satisfied if the limits were applied across an entire town or city which could be 6 or 8 miles across, as this would make for some substantial increases in travel times and that will have a knock on effect with the issue of tiredness and the associated risks which go with it.

You cannot ignore the knock on effect which a lower limit would have as the vast majority of drivers are not on a tacho. Tiredness kills and this ideal would exacerbate the problem


----------



## very-near (21 Dec 2009)

theclaud said:


> Sledgehammer for me. Just as ineffective, but more fun. As long as it's someone else's wall.



You could end up breaking the jelly, the pin, and the wall with your choices though


----------



## marinyork (21 Dec 2009)

very-near said:


> I've already stated that I have no objections to 20 limits around schools or where busy roads pass through town centres and where there is a high footfall, but I would not be satisfied if the limits were applied across an entire town or city which could be 6 or 8 miles across, as this would make for some substantial increases in travel times and that will have a knock on effect with the issue of tiredness and the associated risks which go with it.
> 
> You cannot ignore the knock on effect which a lower limit would have as the vast majority of drivers are not on a tacho. Tiredness kills and this ideal would exacerbate the problem



This doesn't get us anywhere really because it's not terribly clear what you mean. We need to get back to discussing cheltenham.


----------



## theclaud (21 Dec 2009)

marinyork said:


> We need to get back to discussing cheltenham.



Not a sentence one should have to hear very often...


----------



## very-near (21 Dec 2009)

marinyork said:


> This doesn't get us anywhere really because it's not terribly clear what you mean. We need to get back to discussing cheltenham.



Is that a sign of your acceptance that the focus is too narrow and driven by lack of understanding of the wider implications which this ill thought out demand will bring ?


----------



## marinyork (21 Dec 2009)

very-near said:


> Is that a sign of your acceptance that the focus is too narrow and driven by lack of understanding of the wider implications which this ill thought out demand will bring ?



At the moment, in many places in the country 20 zones hardly exist at all in the sense that they have their 200 yards of 20 by a school and that's it. Some places within some cities have 20 suburbs but they are a small minority picked arbitrarily. At the other end of the scale you have people that keep on insisting that people want 20 zones on every inch of tarmac even all A roads and all B roads. This is a nonsense. Reality and where things are heading is somewhere in between. 

For some people building a single extra 20 zone is an affront to their motoring rights and they were probably moaning when the national speed limit on single carriageway roads was dropped in the 70s to 60mph and still moaning today as these same roads with high fatality rates are targeted for 50s. These people are going to be really disappointed as although 20 zones will not be on every inch of tarmac there will be a large expansion of them eventually.

Cheltenham isn't covered by streetview so it is hard to assess, but from a gloss over it appeared to be very poor in its provision of 20 zones even for schools.


----------



## very-near (21 Dec 2009)

> No-one is ignoring anything. Well except you, who are ignoring direct questions.
> 
> And I'm not, for the hundredth time, arguing for a blanket limit. It's a sure sign of a poor argument when you have to resort to arguing against what isn't being said.
> 
> And purlease don't go down the "make me drive slow and you'll make me fall asleep and kill someone" road. IIt's utterly pathetic.



I'm sorry, but you really do come across as disingenuous with this post. 

The problem is that you have no idea what a 50% increase in average journey times will do to the stats if you knock 10mph off the limits across large areas, and you have no idea what would happen to the stats if you were to force a 40mph nationwide (or 33%). We already lose 300 people on the roads PA to tiredness. Would you be able to live with your conscience if the numbers climbed sharply, because many people don't drink and drive, many people don't drive under the influence of drugs, and many people don't exceed the speed limits, but *'everyone'* without exception gets tired and this will affect the ability and reactions of the best, the worst, and all those in between - even yourself!


----------



## marinyork (21 Dec 2009)

It doesn't mean a 50% increase in average journey time.


----------



## very-near (21 Dec 2009)

marinyork said:


> At the moment, in many places in the country 20 zones hardly exist at all in the sense that they have their 200 yards of 20 by a school and that's it. Some places within some cities have 20 suburbs but they are a small minority picked arbitrarily. At the other end of the scale you have people that keep on insisting that people want 20 zones on every inch of tarmac even all A roads and all B roads. This is a nonsense. Reality and where things are heading is somewhere in between.
> 
> For some people building a single extra 20 zone is an affront to their motoring rights and they were probably moaning when the national speed limit on single carriageway roads was dropped in the 70s to 60mph and still moaning today as these same roads with high fatality rates are targeted for 50s. These people are going to be really disappointed as although 20 zones will not be on every inch of tarmac there will be a large expansion of them eventually.
> 
> Cheltenham isn't covered by streetview so it is hard to assess, but from a gloss over it appeared to be very poor in its provision of 20 zones even for schools.



I'd be happy to see it on the ring road in the town (which is about 3 miles IIRC). It would stop all the boy racers piling up from Bristol and Birmingham to tear along at stupid speeds on sunday evenings as there are loads of pissed up peds on the roads at the weekends.

Did you see this case today ?

She obviously lost control because she tried to take a sharp corner at 60mph
but this is obviously only the the tip of the iceberg and doesn't explain what caused her to behave in such a reckless manner

What went wrong ?


Her judgment was impaired by the Cannabis in her system
Her Judgment was impaired by the sleep deprivation (24 hours)
Her Judgment was impaired by the fact she had serious psychological problem


----------



## very-near (21 Dec 2009)

marinyork said:


> It doesn't mean a 50% increase in average journey time.



Can you put a figure on it ?


----------



## just jim (21 Dec 2009)

very-near said:


> I'd be happy to see it on the ring road in the town (which is about 3 miles IIRC). It would stop all the boy racers piling up from Bristol and Birmingham to tear along at stupid speeds on sunday evenings as there are loads of pissed up peds on the roads at the weekends.
> 
> Did you see this case today ?
> 
> ...



What went wrong with this post?

Linf looks around the interweb, err... grabs something off the BBC again
posts it up 
gives no explanation as to why it has anything to do with the O.P


----------



## very-near (21 Dec 2009)

> I certainly do. What you don't seem to understand is that a 20mph limit on appropriate roads will not result in a 50% longer journey. Have a look at the average speeds in relation to speed limits and you'll see that even if all speed limits were reduced, the journey times would not increase by the same amount. And as we're not talking about all roads, any increase in journey times would not get anywhere near this.
> 
> Take my commute to work. Being generous, there's less than half a mile where a 20mph limit would apply. So that's less than 50% longer journey time for a very small proportion of the commute, and the rest on faster roads. So the reality is that the journey would take a couple of minutes longer at most.
> 
> ...



I thought you did all your commute on the pavement


----------



## very-near (21 Dec 2009)

just jim said:


> What went wrong with this post?
> 
> Linf looks around the interweb, err... grabs something off the BBC again
> posts it up
> gives no explanation as to why it has anything to do with the O.P



If you'd been following the thread, you wouldn't have to ask


----------



## marinyork (21 Dec 2009)

very-near said:


> Can you put a figure on it ?



No. If done properly it's a non-trivial calculation needing vast amounts of data.

In reality someone doing it without the resources of a powerful computer would try and take real life examples.

If someone was mad like a number of neighbours and drove into the CBD for their commute it would mean 0.58 of a mile + a bit at the end that's slow anyway and hard to quantify going from 30 limit to 20 limit out of a 4 or 5 mile journey. Out of the 0.58 mile there are three junctions where one has to queue anyway in rush hour. That's at the more extreme end of things, one of the roads is a tertiary road and under some 20 zones those sorts of roads are excluded from the scheme. At non-congested times you would lose a bit of time but a lot of the losers would be people accelerating to 35-40mph and then breaking heavily at the top or bottom. For people like me that drive up about 25-28mph it would make little difference.


----------



## Origamist (21 Dec 2009)

marinyork said:


> No. If done properly it's a non-trivial calculation needing vast amounts of data.
> 
> In reality someone doing it without the resources of a powerful computer would try and take real life examples.
> 
> If someone was mad like a number of neighbours and drove into the CBD for their commute it would mean 0.58 of a mile + a bit at the end that's slow anyway and hard to quantify going from 30 limit to 20 limit out of a 4 or 5 mile journey. Out of the 0.58 mile there are three junctions where one has to queue anyway in rush hour. That's at the more extreme end of things, one of the roads is a tertiary road and under some 20 zones those sorts of roads are excluded from the scheme. At non-congested times you would lose a bit of time but a lot of the losers would be people accelerating to 35-40mph and then breaking heavily at the top or bottom. For people like me that drive up about 25-28mph it would make little difference.



Indeed. Whilst there are a number of factors, it's the waiting and slowing down for junctions that significantly affects journey time (trips would be nothing like 50% longer if 20 mph limits were employed). If 20mph limits were rolled out, wait time at junctions would likely decrease, making the journey times broadly comparable with 30mph limits.


----------



## marinyork (21 Dec 2009)

Origamist said:


> Indeed. Whilst there are a number of factors, it's the waiting and slowing down for junctions that significantly affects journey time (trips would be nothing like 50% longer if 20 mph limits were employed). If 20mph limits were rolled out, wait time at junctions would likely decrease, making the journey times broadly comparable with 30mph limits.



Although people don't necessarily stick to the limits, when whole suburbs are done it can be quite a relaxing experience. Instead of the must pull out of side roads/must overtake it is easier to let people out or if they aren't let out they aren't fussed and wait anyway. You don't seem to get so many of the super aggressive lurches and aggro that builds up as streams of traffic races by on tertiary roads.


----------



## dellzeqq (21 Dec 2009)

MartinC said:


> You're all missing the point. 20mph limits have only been proven to work in practice. No-one's proved that they work in theory.


that is very, very funny!


----------



## very-near (21 Dec 2009)

> Linf has been asked whether he would rather the car that hits him is travelling at 20mph or 30mph. He's avoiding answering.



Fatalities can occur at speeds well below what you consider to be acceptable.

This one happened at 12mph


I've hit a car doing 20mph whilst I was travelling at 60mph as a passenger - it hurt and I got nice break for it

I've binned a bike on the track and hit the tarmac at 50-60mph - it hurt, but I got away with bruising.

I've come off at 25mph on Diesel on the road (40mph road) - it hurt - My o/h fractured her radius as she landed badly so I know that speed is only one factor which determines the severity of an accident.

All accidents hurt and I'd rather not have any at either 20 or 30 and a lot of the injury depends on what you land on or connect with - which is either down to bad luck or bad road design.

Knowing that I share the roads with other drivers who are under the influence or tired to the point they are not in control is far more scary than that of my own actions.

Get rid of these drivers and the roads will be a much safer place.

What really worries me is that introducing 20mph limits everywhere will mean that pedestrians relax their guard and start to treat the roads as extensions of the pavements where they already walk and change direction without really considering any other faster moving vehicles (apart from cyclists on them).
This sets a dangerous precedent and teaches youngsters that they don't need any form or road sense to help them navigate busy roads without risk of a collision which we all know is a fallacy.

People need to take responsibility for their own actions when they mix with the traffic. Demanding that blame all falls to the drivers irrespective of personal conduct is typical of the compensation culture which pervades society today.


----------



## dellzeqq (21 Dec 2009)

theclaud said:


> Linf - you've stolen Spire's Missing The Point Award just as he thought he had it in the bag. Two drivers, *equally drunk*. Same cars and conditions. One is travelling at 20mph, the other at 30. If you have to be hit by one of them, which do you choose? I'll give you a minute to think about it.


we've done this one. The Fourth Law of Relativity proves beyond doubt that the 30mph car will avoid the pedestrian because it is being driven by A Trained Driver.


----------



## marinyork (21 Dec 2009)

Someone reversing at 12mph (if it was indeed that), they are a moron. I see this sort of extremely aggressive driving sometimes and they should have done time for that. I don't agree with the judge at all about it just being careless.

By amazing coincidence today had an article published with almost identical motivations to linford http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/green-living-blog/2009/dec/21/cyclists-pedestrians-restricting


----------



## summerdays (22 Dec 2009)

very-near said:


> The problem is that you have no idea what a 50% increase in average journey times will do to the stats if you knock 10mph off the limits across large areas,



Cycle across Bristol at rush hour and then drive across, OK I could probably do it about 5 mins faster in a car - but then I'm a slow cyclist and I'm doing an average of 10 mph. Honestly, work colleagues occasionally give me lifts and we leave the same amount of time as we would by bike. So the average speed is already very low.



very-near said:


> Did you see this case today ?
> 
> She obviously lost control because she tried to take a sharp corner at 60mph
> but this is obviously only the the tip of the iceberg and doesn't explain what caused her to behave in such a reckless manner
> ...



I know that road and given what conditions she was driving under it was an accident waiting to happen - now if she had been going at 20 mph she may not have mounted the kerb. I would not want to be doing 60 on that road - immediately after that point it is a steep down, up, down, on a bend and getting narrower - so she could have lost control along any part of it. She also probably drove past the police station half a mile back up the road, it is almost impossible to prevent people getting behind the wheel when they shouldn't (apart from locking them up).



very-near said:


> What really worries me is that introducing 20mph limits everywhere will mean that pedestrians relax their guard and start to treat the roads as extensions of the pavements where they already walk and change direction without really considering any other faster moving vehicles (apart from cyclists on them).
> This sets a dangerous precedent and teaches youngsters that they don't need any form or road sense to help them navigate busy roads without risk of a collision which we all know is a fallacy.
> 
> People need to take responsibility for their own actions when they mix with the traffic. Demanding that blame all falls to the drivers irrespective of personal conduct is typical of the compensation culture which pervades society today.



You say you have kids and yet you don't seem to think that they need special consideration. Children have to learn about roads - it takes a very very long while, first you teach them that they aren't safe and they must hold your hand to cross them, then you move onto the letting them cross supervised and finally release them onto the roads on their own. They aren't safe then ... they learn by making mistakes, we all do - however you would like them to live to understand their mistakes. I know through out my life I have made mistakes when crossing the road luckily none have resulted in an accident though some may have involved a car needing to use their brakes. 

I'm all for the living streets concept, rather than this current situation were the car is both king and killer, and all others must get out of the way.


----------



## Cab (22 Dec 2009)

Makes the ABD look a bit silly, really.


----------



## very-near (22 Dec 2009)

summerdays said:


> Cycle across Bristol at rush hour and then drive across, OK I could probably do it about 5 mins faster in a car - but then I'm a slow cyclist and I'm doing an average of 10 mph. Honestly, work colleagues occasionally give me lifts and we leave the same amount of time as we would by bike. So the average speed is already very low.
> 
> *This is all well and done but how long does the rush hour last ? Not everyone moving around Bristol does so at these times so this comparison is not IMO an accurate one. Why shoud everyone be penalised on the basis of a comparison of traffic journey's made at peak flow times ?.*
> 
> ...



*this living streets is a pipe dream. We live with the car, most houses have at least one and whilst this continues to be the case there IMO is a duty of care by the parents to either ensure that their kids are supervised or taught safe practice. Where your ideal falls over is when these clueless kids venture near a busy road and are unable to deal with it. who's fault is it then ?*


----------



## theclaud (22 Dec 2009)

very-near said:


> *this living streets is a pipe dream. We live with the car, most houses have at least one and whilst this continues to be the case there IMO is a duty of care by the parents to either ensure that their kids are supervised or taught safe practice. Where your ideal falls over is when these clueless kids venture near a busy road and are unable to deal with it. who's fault is it then ?*



What's all this shouting? Living streets is an entirely sensible and very simple idea. Oh, and it's the fault of the drivers who run the people over.


----------



## very-near (22 Dec 2009)

User3094 said:


> *...a 20mph limit is just a kneejerk reaction fit for the Daily Mail pages.*
> 
> 
> No its not, its a proven fact?




This collision didn't happen at 20 or 30 though did it. 

Would a 20 limit have saved his life ?


----------



## very-near (22 Dec 2009)

theclaud said:


> What's all this shouting? Living streets is an entirely sensible and very simple idea. Oh, and it's the fault of the drivers who run the people over.




THIS IS SHOUTING!!!!!. *This is responding within a quote*


----------



## summerdays (22 Dec 2009)

Sorry I should of said ... I don't travel at rush hour... I drop my youngest at school and then set off and similarly pick him up from school so my commuting is done at 8.45 and 2.45 ish so hardy prime rush hour (though school run time). I often pass cars that I don't see until a mile or two along the road - as I said my average speed is 10 mph (look on cyclogs if you don't believe me) so those cars are literally crawling along. Traffic in cities doesn't move fast most of the time. 

With regards to Hannah Saff. On that stretch of road I doubt cars do 30 mph ... its downhill so I can go faster and I keep up with the traffic (I'm usually in primary due to what the road is like just beyond that point) so I think 20 mph is the normal max on that road where Sam was killed. 

As for letting my kids play on the road - I live by some quiet roads so yes I have let mine play on the roads but only with specific rules and not until I was sure that they understood the dangers. Many kids grow up not being allowed to walk to school, play near roads, go out by themselves - all too dangerous apparently - they are the clueless kids who have grown up without experiencing the road and learning from it. Parents can't supervise their children all the time unless they become those helicopter parents at some point they have to let go - at that point do you want to be the parent of a child who has been wrapped up in cotton wool. Home zones change the balance so that it becomes more normal to go out and play with your friends, explore your neighbourhood etc.

I don't know why I'm replying to this as I doubt you are prepared to alter your view on this at all.


----------



## very-near (22 Dec 2009)

User3094 said:


> A 'duty of care' is a very comendable preventative measure. A 20mph speed limit would also be a comendable measure.
> 
> How can you support one but not the other?




A duty of care is to drive at a speed which you are able to stop within the distance you see to be safe. Are you asserting that this is only achievable at 20mph ?

Oh, don't try and attribute anything I say to the ABD, or safespeed or vice-versa. I am not a member of either.


----------



## very-near (22 Dec 2009)

User3094 said:


> Im sorry, what collision? In any event, you can not deduce an entire transport policy from a single RTA.



The colission in Bristol which took Sam Riddalls life. Would a 20mph limit have saved him ?


----------



## theclaud (22 Dec 2009)

very-near said:


> THIS IS SHOUTING!!!!!. *This is responding within a quote*



Whatever it is, I disapprove.


----------



## summerdays (22 Dec 2009)

very-near said:


> The colission in Bristol which took Sam Riddalls life. Would a 20mph limit have saved him ?



No it wouldn't but because she was ignoring the speed limit anyway.... if you want to take it too its full limit ... then taking away her keys and everyone elses would have saved his life - is that what you are suggesting instead? But there are other children whose lives would be saved by a 20 mph limit.


----------



## very-near (22 Dec 2009)

summerdays said:


> Sorry I should of said ... I don't travel at rush hour... I drop my youngest at school and then set off and similarly pick him up from school so my commuting is done at 8.45 and 2.45 ish so hardy prime rush hour (though school run time). I often pass cars that I don't see until a mile or two along the road - as I said my average speed is 10 mph (look on cyclogs if you don't believe me) so those cars are literally crawling along. Traffic in cities doesn't move fast most of the time.
> 
> With regards to Hannah Saff. On that stretch of road I doubt cars do 30 mph ... its downhill so I can go faster and I keep up with the traffic (I'm usually in primary due to what the road is like just beyond that point) so I think 20 mph is the normal max on that road where Sam was killed.
> 
> ...



You are reply to this because it is something you feel strongly about SD (and so do I)

Your rules seem to be very similar to mine in regard to playing on or near the road so what are you asking for ?

You wouldn't allow your kids to kick a ball on a trunk road even if the traffic was limited to 20mph bu you would allow then onto an empty cul-de-sac provided they got off the road if a car turned in (even if it was set at 30mph) - and so would I.


----------



## very-near (22 Dec 2009)

theclaud said:


> Whatever it is, I disapprove.



*Sorry if it offends you *


----------



## theclaud (22 Dec 2009)

very-near said:


> *Sorry if it offends you *



It doesn't. I'm just trying to maintain some standards around here. Have you answered the question yet?


----------



## summerdays (22 Dec 2009)

They are currently playing ice hockey on the road.... as you say its a quiet road and nothing is doing 30 mph today. I would still expect the car to slow down on seeing children in the road and allow then the time to get off and not beep them for being there.


----------



## Cab (22 Dec 2009)

summerdays said:


> They are currently playing ice hockey on the road.... as you say its a quiet road and nothing is doing 30 mph today. I would still expect the car to slow down on seeing children in the road and allow then the time to get off and not beep them for being there.



The assumption seems to be that roads are for cars; they are, but they're not _solely_ for cars. If a speed limit is such that other valid users of that road are excluded then it would be appropriate to lower it or install other measures to give other users fair and reasonable access. That changes on dual carriageways, fast out of town roads etc., but not to the point where other valid users are excluded.

The kids out playing ice hockey (or football in better weather, or whatever else!) are valid users of that space. For motorists to treat roads as their own _private_ domain and deprive other users is unacceptable; for so many people to cave in to that demand is a sign that as a society we're seriously missing the point of what public spaces are for.

A 20mph limit helps reinforce the attitude that public spaces are for more than just the motorists. My _only_ criticism of more widespread 20mph zones is that we may end up forgetting that lesson if such a speed limit becomes standard.


----------



## Cab (22 Dec 2009)

Article in the Guardian:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/green-living-blog/2009/dec/21/cyclists-pedestrians-restricting

Turns out that unsupportable notions about 20mph limits being a bad thing are quite common.


----------



## Origamist (22 Dec 2009)

Cab said:


> My _only_ criticism of more widespread 20mph zones is that we may end up forgetting that lesson if such a speed limit becomes standard.



I'd be keen to see some residential roads limited to walking pace.


----------



## very-near (22 Dec 2009)

summerdays said:


> They are currently playing ice hockey on the road.... as you say its a quiet road and nothing is doing 30 mph today. I would still expect the car to slow down on seeing children in the road and allow then the time to get off and not beep them for being there.



I'd be bloody furious if I or my kids were beeped by an impatient knob who didn't give me time to clear the way, but I wouldn't be so arrogant that I would deliberately hold them up as the roads are thoroughfare's and you are not allowed to deliberately obstruct free passage on them.


----------



## very-near (22 Dec 2009)

Origamist said:


> I'd be keen to see some residential roads limited to walking pace.




There are instances where this is an entirely appropriate speed for them.


----------



## Cab (22 Dec 2009)

very-near said:


> I'd be bloody furious if I or my kids were beeped by an impatient knob who didn't give me time to clear the way, but I wouldn't be so arrogant that I would deliberately hold them up as the roads are thoroughfare's and you are not allowed to deliberately obstruct free passage on them.



So if the roads are valid space for people other than motorists to use, and 20mph limits are proven to reduce risk for those other users, remind me, what was the basis for rejecting their more widespread use?


----------



## very-near (22 Dec 2009)

User3094 said:


> Please respond.



Because it overides the basic premise. 


> *126*
> 
> *Stopping Distances. Drive at a speed that will allow you to stop well within the distance you can see to be clear.*





I personally think it is important that drivers think for themselves and be alert at all times irrespective of whatever speed they travel at and observe the Highway code guidelines above. I see these 20s as an attempt to dumb down on this requirement and will be counter productive if not used selectively.


----------



## Cab (22 Dec 2009)

very-near said:


> I personally think it is important that drivers think for themselves and be alert at all times irrespective of whatever speed they travel at and observe the Highway code guidelines above. I see these 20s as an attempt to dumb down on this requirement and will be counter productive if not used selectively.



Selectively such as?


----------



## very-near (22 Dec 2009)

Cab said:


> So if the roads are valid space for people other than motorists to use, and 20mph limits are proven to reduce risk for those other users, remind me, what was the basis for rejecting their more widespread use?



Are you saying that it would be a sensible thing to have a football game on the Cambridge ring road as this is a valid space for all road users ?


----------



## StuartG (22 Dec 2009)

Returning to the Sam Riddall/Bristol case. A 20mph zone MAY have saved his life. The point that the driver was ignoring the speed limit is not that relevant. 20mph zones as they are enforced in London do not rely on driver's compliance with a speed limit sign. They rely on passive calming methods - humps mostly. The study shows they work. Average speed is reduce 9mph to 17mph.

I presume 'twice the speed limit' means 60mph in a 30mph area. I doubt whether the lady however mad would have attempted anything like that in such a zone. So we go from certain death @60mph to at least a chance if those calming measures kept to around 30 or less.

It would be nice if people voluntarily agreed to honour speed limit signs. It is sad for those that do that they have to suffer the discomfort, wear & tear on vehicles and ironically unneccessary deaths because emergency vehicles cannot get to a life saving situation (like a car crash) fast enough. But the study gives very strong evidence that it saves even more lives.

I don't see what arguements there can be against the expansion of 20mph zoning. It will be limited by the cost of calming and we probably need more studies to highlight which areas would benefit most and which calming methods work best. Lets try and push for commitment to get those measures written into the election manifestos of the two major parties.

Maybe just for the pleasure as they squirm knowing that it is electorally difficult to alienate motorists. But the evidence is clear ... and all this global warming stuff is predicated on statistics that politicians say is convincing when this is even more convincing!


----------



## very-near (22 Dec 2009)

Cab said:


> Selectively such as?



Roads which link pedestrianised areas together, schools, areas of high footfall on ring roads.


----------



## Cab (22 Dec 2009)

very-near said:


> Roads which link pedestrianised areas together, schools, areas of high footfall on ring roads.



So, thats pretty much all urban roads (other than major trunk roads and dual carriageways) and a large number of rural/village roads?


----------



## Cab (22 Dec 2009)

very-near said:


> Are you saying that it would be a sensible thing to have a football game on the Cambridge ring road as this is a valid space for all road users ?



On a major trunk road? No. On the myriad of other roads around towns, cities and vllages? While it isn't sensible with the current mindset of British motorists, the rational position is that making such use a reality should be the goal.


----------



## summerdays (22 Dec 2009)

Actually a once a year football match or other thing isn't so bad .. .the Portway gets closed for both the half marathon and the biggest Bike Ride event every year showing it is possible.


----------



## very-near (22 Dec 2009)

StuartG said:


> Returning to the Sam Riddall/Bristol case. A 20mph zone MAY have saved his life. The point that the driver was ignoring the speed limit is not that relevant. 20mph zones as they are enforced in London do not rely on driver's compliance with a speed limit sign. They rely on passive calming methods - humps mostly. The study shows they work. Average speed is reduce 9mph to 17mph.
> 
> I presume 'twice the speed limit' means 60mph in a 30mph area. I doubt whether the lady however mad would have attempted anything like that in such a zone. So we go from certain death @60mph to at least a chance if those calming measures kept to around 30 or less.
> 
> ...



30 million cars on the roads being shafted for high vehicle duty and VED to pay for the fcuk up the government has made of the economy - I'd like to see any of them go for it and see the backlash. Car drivers are the electorate as the vast majority are of voting age. Political parties would ignore this fact at their peril.


----------



## StuartG (22 Dec 2009)

User3094 said:


> Please respond.


Stop it! I don't think I could take the shock of an honest, straightforward, relevant answer from our friend. I know taunting can be fun ...


----------



## very-near (22 Dec 2009)

User3094 said:


> Please respond.




The biggest problem with this thread is that you are so interested in what you are typing, you don't really see the rest.

I've already stated I don't have a problem with 20 zones if used where the risk warrants it (schools, high footfal zones etc). Read the thread and stop being so obtuse with this cut and paste posting style smeggers!


----------



## very-near (22 Dec 2009)

StuartG said:


> Stop it! I don't think I could take the shock of an honest, straightforward, relevant answer from our friend. I know taunting can be fun ...



I sincerely suspect that your interest is more of a self serving one to keep the cars behind you on your cycle commute by forcing their speed down and making it almost impossible for them to overtake you Stuart. Feel free to prove me wrong, but the reality is that ALL car drivers and cyclists are pedestrians as well so out of, or off the mode, all face the same problems with cars. but you seem to conveniently ignore this as well. I'd go so far as to say most of this thread has been driven by this unspoken agenda.


----------



## Cab (22 Dec 2009)

very-near said:


> I've already stated I don't have a problem with 20 zones if used where the risk warrants it (schools, high footfal zones etc).



So thats pretty much right across the current 30mph zones in towns and cities, plus roads through villages, etc?


----------



## very-near (22 Dec 2009)

User3094 said:


> But the implication by yourself so far in this thread is that you know better where these areas are than a *proven* scientfic report. Would that be a fair assumption?



Smeggers .As long as there are cavalier and habitual convicted speeders like yourself, all posted limits are irrelevant.


----------



## Cab (22 Dec 2009)

[moderators hat on]
Gentlemen, please, we're all friends here; no need to be personal and nasty with each other; its not been a bad discussion, don't lets ruin it now, eh?[moderators hat off]

(obviously with regards to this thread, I'm not modding it, because I'm _in_ it, but posts like we've seen just now are not going to go un-noticed)


----------



## very-near (22 Dec 2009)

Cab said:


> So thats pretty much right across the current 30mph zones in towns and cities, plus roads through villages, etc?



If speeding is the issue it is purported to be, then better enforcment of existing zones would bear just as much fruit.

If I can draw a comparison with this and the hunting laws...


----------



## just jim (22 Dec 2009)

very-near said:


> If speeding is the issue it is purported to be, then better enforcment of existing zones would bear just as much fruit.
> 
> If I can draw a comparison with this and the hunting laws...



I'm sure you could crowbar something in, from what I've read so far.


----------



## very-near (22 Dec 2009)

User3094 said:


> Cop out.
> 
> I admit, I dont like it anymore than you do. My (by self admission) desire to speed is very great indeed.
> 
> ...



You are making this circular. For the last time, I've already stated I have no problem with them if applied with a bit of common sense. The blanket wide application would be counter productive and it would provoke mass disobedience. They break one law all the time, it won't be long before they move onto bigger things. This is an attempt to criminalise the very vast number of drivers on the roads.


----------



## very-near (22 Dec 2009)

User3094 said:


> Now thats actually quite a good point (and no not because Cabs just told us to play nice)....
> 
> I suppose a simple reduction to 20mph is a lot more effective in terms of Pound per KSI saved, than putting enforcement over the entire 30mph road network?



So logically moving on from this, if we were to agree that targetted 20's are the way forward as there is a proven advantage to be had balanced against the congestion they would bring, then you would accept that there are other areas which would not actually benifit from their application - in the name of balance ?


----------



## StuartG (22 Dec 2009)

very-near said:


> I sincerely suspect that your interest is more of a self serving one to keep the cars behind you on your cycle commute by forcing their speed down and making it almost impossible for them to overtake you Stuart. Feel free to prove me wrong ..


No point. You said it would not be difficult to check my very modest posting record. I know you did just that. It makes my position crystal clear on the above points. These are:

1) Do I commute?
2) Do I like keeping cars behind me?

The answers are out there and you (should) know them. So why the smear?


----------



## Origamist (22 Dec 2009)

very-near said:


> So logically moving on from this, if we were to agree that targetted 20's are the way forward as there is a proven advantage to be had *balanced against the congestion they would bring*, then you would accept that there are other areas which would not actually benifit from their application - in the name of balance ?



What congestion?!


----------



## summerdays (22 Dec 2009)

very-near said:


> So logically moving on from this, if we were to agree that targetted 20's are the way forward as there is a proven advantage to be had balanced against the congestion they would bring, then you would accept that there are other areas which would not actually benifit from their application - in the name of balance ?



Yes - I think motorways wouldn't benefit from a 20 mph area. 

The congestion is already there, 20 mph zones may help because of the smoothing of the traffic speed. But to really address the congestion problem we need to surgically remove drivers from their cars. I've had some cards delivered by car to my house... OK they are my friends but they could have walked or cycled it - its just an example, or all those school runs by car. Many journeys that are made by car are completely unnecessary and by removing those journeys from the road would be the best way of reducing congestion.


----------



## very-near (22 Dec 2009)

StuartG said:


> No point. You said it would not be difficult to check my very modest posting record. I know you did just that. It makes my position crystal clear on the above points. These are:
> 
> 1) Do I commute?
> 2) Do I like keeping cars behind me?
> ...



I'd not call it a smear, more of an honest apprasial. No one likes being overtaken (and then cut up) I don't !


----------



## very-near (22 Dec 2009)

summerdays said:


> Yes - I think motorways wouldn't benefit from a 20 mph area.
> 
> The congestion is already there, 20 mph zones may help because of the smoothing of the traffic speed. But to really address the congestion problem we need to surgically remove drivers from their cars. I've had some cards delivered by car to my house... OK they are my friends but they could have walked or cycled it - its just an example, or all those school runs by car. Many journeys that are made by car are completely unnecessary and by removing those journeys from the road would be the best way of reducing congestion.



How far is your school commute in total each day ?


----------



## summerdays (22 Dec 2009)

My youngest is at primary school in the city so how far do you think its going to be ... 1.3 miles round trip to drop him off - takes about 8 mins one way, 4 if we are running late. The older two I admit go further - that's why they catch a bus, after walking to the bus stop.


----------



## Cab (22 Dec 2009)

very-near said:


> If speeding is the issue it is purported to be, then better enforcment of existing zones would bear just as much fruit.
> 
> If I can draw a comparison with this and the hunting laws...



But 20mph has been _proven_ to work. As it has been _proven_ to work, why not have that _and_ enforcement?


----------



## StuartG (22 Dec 2009)

very-near said:


> I'd not call it a smear, more of an honest apprasial.


Please provide any evidence that I have commuted by bicycle in the last 20 years. Difficult, because I have not. Hence remind me why your description of what I do and why I do it on my commute is not pure fabrication and a smear.

In other words a blantantly dishonest statement.


----------



## very-near (22 Dec 2009)

summerdays said:


> My youngest is at primary school in the city so how far do you think its going to be ... 1.3 miles round trip to drop him off - takes about 8 mins one way, 4 if we are running late. The older two I admit go further - that's why they catch a bus, after walking to the bus stop.



We always used to walk our school commute which was about the same distance as yours with the kids (even with my 4x4 ), but now my kid has changed school,she begs a lift off her mates dad as he can drop them there on his way to work (he has cerebal palsy and struggles to walk any distance at all so it would be fairly uncharitable to ask why doesn't he walk himself), and they usually walk home the 3 miles home in the evening or beg a lift off her grandmother who lives round the corner if the weather is bad.


----------



## very-near (22 Dec 2009)

StuartG said:


> Please provide any evidence that I have commuted by bicycle in the last 20 years. Difficult, because I have not. Hence remind me why your description of what I do and why I do it on my commute is not pure fabrication and a smear.
> 
> In other words a blantantly dishonest statement.



I think we are at cross purposes. ! was refering to being overtaken and then cut up. Whether this happens on a commute is irrelevant. Did you miss this in your attempt to label me as dishonest ? 

I was commuting 70 miles a week a couple of years ago and then about another 30 or 40 at the weekends. I don't like being passed at 60mph on narrow NSL roads so I decided not to cycle commute. 

However it isn't a sin so you should give it a try sometime. You might have a easier commute if you ride in 30 zones


----------



## very-near (22 Dec 2009)

User3094 said:


> Just a little reminder of the unanswered questions please Linf....



Spare me the bleeding heart smeggers. Your lack sincerity is shouting at me.


----------



## very-near (22 Dec 2009)

User3094 said:


> I am being sincere. Im trying to get to the bottom of your assertions. Please do me the honour of answering the questions?
> 
> Play the ball.



These are clearly not something you believe in yourself, so why are you expecting me to agree or disagree to any of them ?


----------



## StuartG (22 Dec 2009)

very-near said:


> I think we are at cross purposes. ! was refering to being overtaken and then cut up.


No. You were saying I commute. I do not commute. I have asked you for any evidence to the contrary. You have declined to give any.

Yet you have not withdrawn you statement of about my commute and the smear about self-serving attitudes and actions on motorists. 

Don't wriggle. Was your statement about commuting and what I might or might not do on it pure fabrication on your side? Please answer yes or no.


----------



## very-near (22 Dec 2009)

StuartG said:


> No. You were saying I commute. I do not commute. I have asked you for any evidence to the contrary. You have declined to give any.
> 
> Yet you have not withdrawn you statement of about my commute and the smear about self-serving attitudes and actions on motorists.
> 
> Don't wriggle. Was your statement about commuting and what I might or might not do on it pure fabrication on your side? Please answer yes or no.




I'm sorry, I wrongly attributed your cycle activity to cycle commuting as you come across as fairly hardcore. 

However, If you cycle on public roads, the point made about being overtaken still stands!


----------



## theclaud (22 Dec 2009)

Why on earth is Linford berating imaginary cycle commuters? Has this thread run its course?


----------



## MacB (22 Dec 2009)

Stupendous stuff, Linf is finishing 2009 on a high


----------



## very-near (22 Dec 2009)

MacB said:


> Stupendous stuff, Linf is finishing 2009 on a high



You have no idea of the pains I go to 

You might ask yourself how far I'd go to keep myself entertained


----------



## Bad Company (22 Dec 2009)

Time to bring back the man with the red flag?

At least that would keep Mr Paul happy.


----------



## theclaud (22 Dec 2009)

Bad Company said:


> Time to bring back the man with the red flag?



Now you're talkin', Badders!


----------



## MacB (22 Dec 2009)

Bad Company said:


> Time to bring back the man with the red flag?
> 
> At least that would keep Mr Paul happy.



What, a man with a red flag to precede each of Linfords post?....I like it


----------



## marinyork (22 Dec 2009)

MacB said:


> What, a man with a red flag to precede each of Linfords post?....I like it


----------



## very-near (22 Dec 2009)

Bad Company said:


> Time to bring back the man with the red flag?
> 
> At least that would keep Mr Paul happy.



I've been holding the rabid half of the foamers forum off for days now (I swear that they are on day release ).

About time someone else jumped in with a bit of balance


----------



## very-near (22 Dec 2009)

User3094 said:


> Only if he can run at 20mph




Who, MrP ? That could be fun


----------



## very-near (22 Dec 2009)

User3094 said:


> You mean you make yourself look that stupid delibrately?!



It would only be fair to be give that tag to someone who claims that they believe that slower driving is the way forward, but then totally ignores it and picks up multiple convictions for speeding smeggers


----------



## very-near (22 Dec 2009)

User3094 said:


> I dont *believe*, Linford, I *know*. On account of reading the *evidence*. Have you?




answer truthfully, does 'knowing' actually make a difference ?


----------



## Cab (22 Dec 2009)

very-near said:


> answer truthfully, does 'knowing' actually make a difference ?



I know on account of the evidence. I've read it. Have you?


----------



## StuartG (22 Dec 2009)

very-near said:


> I'm sorry, I wrongly attributed your cycle activity to cycle commuting as you come across as fairly hardcore.


Thank you.



very-near said:


> However, If you cycle on public roads, the point made about being overtaken still stands!


Not sure what you are on about here. Some motorists overtake safely. Others do not. If you ride correctly it should not unduly effect the good driver. It may protect you from the bad (if they keep their cool). It is not something to get emotional about.

Same with speed. How do we cope with the inconsiderate driver? 20mph calming is one way in some residential areas. The upside in KSI is compelling. Compelling enough surely to be a minor inconvenience to the considerate. So is anybody arguing against the principle of an expansion of zones?

How far is a separate and more complicated question.


----------



## marinyork (22 Dec 2009)

How far?

If someone wants to have a look at the south sheffield cycle map I can show you how many 20 and traffic calmed zones there are in the city. The answer is very few.

It's 750kb in pdf so it won't be posted on the forum http://www.sheffield.gov.uk/roads-a...-walking-and-prow/cycling/sheffield-cycle-map

it is the pink areas. A lot of the pink areas aren't even 20s, they are mildly traffic calmed 30s.


----------



## StuartG (22 Dec 2009)

How far?

I assume the usual rule of diminishing returns. There is no point in putting them in places which will not produce a significant result. It costs money, it alienates people and in the end it jeopardises the places we really need them.

Sounds like it is not an immediate issue Sheffield-wise. So how will the LEA and other stakeholders determine if when there will an extension. May be something to have on the table for the upcoming local elections in May?


----------



## very-near (22 Dec 2009)

StuartG said:


> How far?
> 
> I assume the usual rule of diminishing returns. There is no point in putting them in places which will not produce a significant result. It costs money, it alienates people and in the end it jeopardises the places we really need them.
> 
> Sounds like it is not an immediate issue Sheffield-wise. So how will the LEA and other stakeholders determine if when there will an extension. May be something to have on the table for the upcoming local elections in May?



We are in agreement!


----------



## marinyork (22 Dec 2009)

StuartG said:


> How far?
> 
> Sounds like it is not an immediate issue Sheffield-wise. So how will the LEA and other stakeholders determine if when there will an extension. May be something to have on the table for the upcoming local elections in May?



It's not an election issue in the sense that the Liberal Democrat administration has passed it on to community assemblies to sort out. The community assembles are made up of people that make Bad Company and Linford seem restrained and pro-bicycle yoghurt knitters. The only ones that aren't are the lot around the city centre so there's a chance we'll get a 20mph zone in the city centre. 

The where it is needed argument is not one people entertain. The biggest rewards would be on 900 yards of A road that has a very bad ped and cyclist record.


----------



## just jim (22 Dec 2009)

very-near said:


> answer truthfully, does 'knowing' actually make a difference ?



Does having you come on to C+PP actually make a difference?

Same old same old. Why not finish up like you usually do with a winking smilie, and we can get it over with.


----------



## StuartG (22 Dec 2009)

marinyork said:


> The community assembles are made up of people that make Bad Company and Linford seem restrained and pro-bicycle yoghurt knitters


Why is Sheffield like that? Our local CA would probably go head over heels for traffic calming. After every crash there is a knee-jerk call for humps, traffic cameras et al. But it is not delegated decision.


----------



## very-near (22 Dec 2009)

> The only unspoken agenda is yours. 20mph limits save lives. They're supported in here because of this.
> 
> You're anti them because of, well you've not said yet, and your agenda will remain unspoken until you start being honest with yourself and with us.
> 
> ...



I'm sorry if you don't like what I'm posting, but the reality is that your crusade doesn't really do more than scratch the surface. To say that 300 deaths due to tiredness is pathetic is a bit beyond the mark. 

The way you trivialise this is not doing your argument any favours.


----------



## very-near (22 Dec 2009)

> Why do you think our local primary school tries to dissuade the pupils from cycling in? Go on, have a guess. I'm sure you've got some idea.
> 
> And while you're at it, have a think about the average distance between a child's house and their school. It's more than the 200yds either side of the entrance that you'd want to restrict the 20mph limit to.
> 
> ...



The clue is in the 'standard'. Whether the limit is 20 or 30, if they are not paying attention, a life could be lost, and as we know already by my previous example of the 12mph death that even 20mph is too fast if the victim lands badly.

You focus on impact speed like all drivers point their cars like some sort of blind dodgem game, I've had a few offs over the years and consider that collision avoidance is always going to be better option.

Simple question:-

What is more dangerous ?


a 20mph collision
a near miss as the alert driver managed to avoid the 'potential' victim


----------



## very-near (22 Dec 2009)

> How ironic that someone who has spent 48 pages rubbishing a proven method of improving road safety is accusing supporters of reducing the number of deaths on the road of trivialising the issue.
> 
> I see you've not responded to my very easily found list of links which completely debunks _all_ of your arguments against the further implementation of 20mph limits.
> 
> I also see that you've continued to avoid the question speed at which you'd prefer to be hit by a car (20 or 30), and it's blatantly clear why.



I'm sorry, you answered a question with another one

What is more dangerous ?

a 20mph collision
a near miss as the alert driver managed to avoid the 'potential' victim


----------



## Cab (23 Dec 2009)

Very-near, you're not answering questions put to you. Fair questions. Its unsirprising that this is frustrating people. You want a good, fair, un-heated discussion? Answer the questions put to you before asking more. Your attitude here is, sooner or later, going to frustrate someone to the point of crossing the line, and then the record (in what will, likely as not, be a locked thread) reflect badly on you.


----------



## very-near (23 Dec 2009)

> They are concerned that their intelligent and road aware children will be run over by the idiot drivers who blast around the local roads.
> 
> The safe minimum requirement should not have to take into account these idiots. And why should it?
> 
> ...




What age will you be happy for your kids to go to school on their own ?


----------



## StuartG (23 Dec 2009)

very-near said:


> What age will you be happy for your kids to go to school on their own ?


Your are Eliza AICMFP. 

You have to admire his fortitude in taking control and redirecting the thread. The thread has served its puropose. Perhaps it is time it was put to bed?


----------



## very-near (23 Dec 2009)

User3094 said:


> Would a reduction in speed limits make you happier to send your kids younger than you might otherwise?



No it wouldn't. Bear in mind that I've been where you are going as my kids are grown up now so I do have the experience of hindsight..


----------



## very-near (23 Dec 2009)

User3094 said:


> Where have you been and where are you going and what has hinsight taught you?



That parents of young children (or no children) can make all sorts of claims of how they are going to raise their offspring and would be quick to berrate anyone who dares to differ from their 'plan', but the reality is often very different. 

How old did you say your kids were ?


----------



## very-near (23 Dec 2009)

> They are concerned that their intelligent and road aware children will be run over by the idiot drivers who blast around the local roads.
> 
> The safe minimum requirement should not have to take into account these idiots. And why should it?
> 
> ...



Speed limits are for idiots who don't know when to slow down as the hazards present. The irony is that many of the posted limits are also ignored, so I would always say that education to read the road and travel at whatever is the 'safe speed' is the safest course of action. 

You cannot determine this by a 20 or a 30 or a 40 because we all know that deaths happen at all these speeds - and only and idiot would argue against this


----------



## summerdays (23 Dec 2009)

> Originally Posted by very-near
> What age will you be happy for your kids to go to school on their own ?





> Originally Posted by User
> It depends on a number of factors, but mainly two. The traffic, and risk from other people.



You forgot to take into account the child. Mine have varying levels of road awareness - the middle one I'm still nervous about and she is 12, and she never walked to primary school on her own unlike her elder sibling.


----------



## very-near (23 Dec 2009)

> Yeah, I'd taken that as a given. Those two aside, I'd trust my seven year old now. There's also the consideration of the mates they're with and how responsible they are in a bunch.
> 
> I'm interested to hear what linf has to say about it.



Let me get this straight. You send your kids across busy inner city roads to school on his own ?


----------



## summerdays (23 Dec 2009)

Who said he had to cross busy inner city roads, one of my son's friends aged 8 walkes home alone - and doesn't have to cross one road 

Each child/situation has to be looked at individually - I wouldn't let my son as he has to ride on a road shared by Dumper trucks, lorries and JCB's. Whilst he has learnt a lot from the experience - I would be stupid to allow him to cycle on his own with those vehicles.


----------



## dellzeqq (23 Dec 2009)

so cars have a place on our streets and kids don't? Nice.


----------



## MacB (23 Dec 2009)

dellzeqq said:


> so cars have a place on our streets and kids don't? Nice.



and the more we buy into the idea that walking/cycling for kids is unsafe the worse it will become


----------



## jonesy (23 Dec 2009)

dellzeqq said:


> so cars have a place on our streets and kids don't? Nice.



A kind of related point- there was an item on Radio 4 this lunchtime about road gritting. A Living Streets representive pointed out that most councils are ignoring the pavements, even when they've gritted the roads. The interviewer responded by saying something like "But surely they have to prioritise cars?". Sadly LS wasn't given time to challenge that, but I think the question illustrates how ingrained it has become into our society that roads are for cars, and the person making a journey by car has become more important than the person making a journey on foot. And the person using the street for purposes other than making a journey doesn't even figure...


----------



## dellzeqq (23 Dec 2009)

..which is why we're so crap at football


----------



## very-near (23 Dec 2009)

> No.
> 
> 
> Whatever gave you that idea?
> ...




You either trust him or you don't. I'm sorry but you are sending out mixed messages here.

You say that you'd trust him on his own on a journey (to cross a road) provided that journey were on roads which were designated as 20mph zones ?

What happens when you get a driver who ignores the posted limits and is on drink, drugs or not fit to be behind a wheel (like Hannah Saff). Your 20 limits mean nothing to those who don't acknowledge them. How many million motorists get done (detected) for speeding in the UK each year 1 million, 2 million ?. 

I'm not convinced that 20's across vast tracts would be ultimately productive, and that view is not just mine here.

The answer to your 20 or 30 is 'neither' and as I've had accidents at both speeds, It is an honest answer, and one garnered from real experience (not some dodgy CGI'd speed awareness film you sucked up), so change the record. That is the best you are getting from me!


----------



## very-near (24 Dec 2009)

User3094 said:


> Linf, an honest answer to an honest question for which we must thank you.
> 
> Just a couple of points...
> 
> ...



The point I am trying to make to MrP is it is better to have a near miss than any accident at any speed. I am all for raising driving standards. but I seriously believe that arbitrary limits across vast tracts which are applied 'because it saves lives innit' is not going to help. They will create frustration when it is clear that many instances of their application has not been thought through. 

I can quote a local instance where ill thought out traffic planning caused massive problems and took 2 years before being resolved. It inconvenienced thousands of people every week, gridlocked the town, and many complained about being trapped in a multi story car park for hours on end because of it. The argument that they were put in to save lives is a disingenuous one which is designed purely to play on the heart strings. 

Times this by 100 and you have your town wide 20 limits and then mass disobedience.

To treat all motorised road users like total idiots and not trust them to use either their experience or skills to keep themselves and others safe is just and idiotic way to carry on.

As for those who think the view is 'not just mine' StuartG has also called for a bit of intelligent application HERE


----------



## marinyork (24 Dec 2009)

I'm sorry I don't see what the traffic light has to do with 20 zones. Traffic lights do sometimes get redesigned.


----------



## very-near (24 Dec 2009)

marinyork said:


> I'm sorry I don't see what the traffic light has to do with 20 zones. Traffic lights do sometimes get redesigned.



MY, you aren't an idiot so when I use it as an example to draw a parallel where ill thought out judgment causes problems on the transport network, please don't act it.

These lights were a problem from the moment they were originally switched on and took a hard fought battle over 2 years to get the highways agency to admit they screwed up. I don't want to see a town wide limit set up, and then have to fight to get a bit of common sense back into the issue.

The light system was an over engineered solution to a problem which could have been sorted with a lot less hassle, and the parallel is that to put in town wide 20 's would be total overkill.


----------



## marinyork (24 Dec 2009)

very-near said:


> MY, you aren't an idiot so when I use it as an example to draw a parallel where ill thought out judgment causes problems on the transport network, please don't act it.
> 
> The light system was an over engineered solution to a problem which could have been sorted with a lot less hassle, and the parallel is that to put in town wide 20 's would be total overkill



Planners do get stuff wrong from time to time in the sense that people don't behave quite like they think or that one group gets disproportionally annoyed with changes. I can cite much larger schemes in this city where planners have supposedly got it wrong and there's a "u turn. But it's been rectified in this case and what was the purpose of the light in the first place?

I'm interested as to what sort of problems you think a 20 zone might cause other than emboldening pedestrians to reclaim their streets or people putting their foot down as soon as they get out of the zone or tiredness.

I don't take the idea of people stepping out in front of vehicles because they think they'll stop too seriously as a negative because people step out in front of vehicles in a not too dissimilar fashion on 40 and 60 roads out of desperation and poor pedestrian facilities. People die doing this.

I don't think tiredness is a serious issue because journeys won't be 50% longer.


----------



## summerdays (24 Dec 2009)

very-near said:


> What happens when you get a driver who ignores the posted limits and is on drink, drugs or not fit to be behind a wheel (like Hannah Saff). Your 20 limits mean nothing to those who don't acknowledge them. How many million motorists get done (detected) for speeding in the UK each year 1 million, 2 million ?.



You haven't said what would prevent cases such as Hannah Saff? The only one I could see was removing all cars from the road - so I would like to hear what your suggestion would be. 

20 mph zones will not solve every problem - such as the drunk driver, although if they are stuck behind a car doing 20 then it will force them to slow down.



marinyork said:


> I don't think tiredness is a serious issue because journeys won't be 50% longer.



Most journey's in towns are under an hour and quite a few are more like 15-20 mins - so even if they doubled in length, are you (very-near) saying you would be significantly more tired doing a 40 minute journey?


----------



## very-near (24 Dec 2009)

marinyork said:


> Planners do get stuff wrong from time to time in the sense that people don't behave quite like they think or that one group gets disproportionally annoyed with changes. I can cite much larger schemes in this city where planners have supposedly got it wrong and there's a "u turn. But it's been rectified in this case and what was the purpose of the light in the first place?
> 
> *Map view here
> 
> ...


.

*You don't know that for certain and given that many drivers do so for their work and are not on the tacho means that they could have to extend their time dramatically on the roads to cover the same ground. You have no idea how many miles they might have to cover in urban zones so I don't think you can offer a qualified opinion on the subject.*


----------



## very-near (24 Dec 2009)

summerdays said:


> You haven't said what would prevent cases such as Hannah Saff? The only one I could see was removing all cars from the road - so I would like to hear what your suggestion would be.
> 
> 20 mph zones will not solve every problem - such as the drunk driver, although if they are stuck behind a car doing 20 then it will force them to slow down.
> 
> ...



I am not talking about you popping to Tesco's after dropping the kids off at school. I am talking about people who drive for a living like Multi drop drivers or reps who are under pressure to get the job done.

I have no objection to 20 zones, but they need to be used with a bit of thought.


----------



## very-near (24 Dec 2009)

User3094 said:


> Such as putting them where there are currently 30mph zones?
> 
> It might not 'work' everywhere but at least it would be a fair system, removing the vaguaries between any LEA subjectivity.
> 
> Happy Christmas Linf!



And yourself. Are you getting out on the cycle over the break ?


----------



## summerdays (24 Dec 2009)

very-near said:


> I am not talking about you popping to Tesco's after dropping the kids off at school. I am talking about people who drive for a living like Multi drop drivers or reps who are under pressure to get the job done.
> 
> I have no objection to 20 zones, but they need to be used with a bit of thought.



So what you are saying is that you can't see a way that Hannah Saff could have been prevented from killing Sam - in which case discussing it with regards to whether 20 mph zones work is irrelevant. It wouldn't have mattered if it was a 60 zone either.

What percentage of drivers on any of the non main roads are professional drivers ? If they are there it is more often because they are taking a short cut, to avoid traffic/lights etc. I see it all the time - people using back streets as rat runs and doing speeds are not in relation to the type of street they are on. You argue that people can make decisions about what speed is safe but the vast majority don't.


----------



## very-near (24 Dec 2009)

summerdays said:


> So what you are saying is that you can't see a way that Hannah Saff could have been prevented from killing Sam - in which case discussing it with regards to whether 20 mph zones work is irrelevant. It wouldn't have mattered if it was a 60 zone either.
> 
> What percentage of drivers on any of the non main roads are professional drivers ? If they are there it is more often because they are taking a short cut, to avoid traffic/lights etc. I see it all the time - people using back streets as rat runs and doing speeds are not in relation to the type of street they are on. You argue that people can make decisions about what speed is safe but the vast majority don't.



Hannah Saff was an accident waiting to happen. That is why they took her license off her in the first place. lower limits only work if drivers are happy to obey them. Apply them arbitrarily everywhere as you want to, and drivers will ignore them.

Rat runs happen because of over zealous restriction of main roads with traffic lights. You can stop them by blocking up the side roads with no entries/cycle plugs, but these need to be designed properly.


----------



## summerdays (24 Dec 2009)

very-near said:


> Hannah Saff was an accident waiting to happen. That is why they took her license off her in the first place. lower limits only work if drivers are happy to obey them. Apply them arbitrarily everywhere as you want to, and drivers will ignore them.
> 
> Rat runs happen because of over zealous restriction of main roads with traffic lights. You can stop them by blocking up the side roads with no entries/cycle plugs, but these need to be designed properly.



Hopefully any drivers caught ignoring them will gain points on their licence to help them to remember in future.

You cannot block every rat run by putting in barriers in the road - if every road became a cul-de-sac apart from the main arteries you would soon see the motorists complaining. Yes it is nice where they have blocked the roads like that - there are plenty of examples that I use on a regular basis. But it would annoy as many if not more drivers than a 20 mph zone.


----------



## very-near (24 Dec 2009)

User3094 said:


> Hopefully. Im a bit of a fair weather roadie but might get the old Marin out for a bit... Family duty calls for the next couple of days though. You?



I'd like to think so (maybe rope a mate into heading out to a country pub if the ice goes). Much the same really with the family. 
M/cycle is not going to be ridden for a couple of months at this rate either, so it is either shank's pony or in the tin box.


----------



## dellzeqq (24 Dec 2009)

summerdays said:


> So what you are saying is that you can't see a way that Hannah Saff could have been prevented from killing Sam - in which case discussing it with regards to whether 20 mph zones work is irrelevant. It wouldn't have mattered if it was a 60 zone either.
> 
> What percentage of drivers on any of the non main roads are professional drivers ? If they are there it is more often because they are taking a short cut, to avoid traffic/lights etc. I see it all the time - people using back streets as rat runs and doing speeds are not in relation to the type of street they are on. You argue that people can make decisions about what speed is safe but the vast majority don't.


I think that's a very good point. 20mph zones are part of the solution to speeding in residential areas. Limiting access to suburban streets to create 'home zones' is another such part.


----------

