Glasgow 20mph petition

[glenn forger]

UK cities should have more 20mph speed zones, as they have cut road injuries by over 40% in London, a study claims.

In particular the number of children killed or seriously injured has been halved over the past 15 years, the British Medical Journal reported.

The London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine study estimates 20mph zones have the potential to prevent up to 700 casualties in London alone.

At 20mph, it is estimated only one in 40 pedestrians is killed in a crash.

This compares with a one in five chance for someone hit at 30mph.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/8406569.stm

 

[cardiac case]

Sorry. Just a generalisation and only my opinion.

I work on the principle that if you travel at half the speed then you take twice as long to get to your destination.
If everyone spends twice as long to make their journey then at any one moment in time there's twice the traffic.

 

[glenn forger]

Average speed in London is 11mph. This means the higher speeds are simply drivers accelerating like idiots between junctions, queues, traffic lights. The BMJ and UCL both conducted research on this. The 20mph zones in Islington, Camden, City of London, Southwark and Hackney all saw a reduction in RTCs and injuries and NO rise in congestion or pollution.

 

[Tin Pot]

Speed is the single most common factor in fatal KSI. No other factor comes close. This is basic human body physics, we can survive a collision while running at full speed, above that speed the likelihood of death rises dramatically, that's why 20mph zones see reductions in KSI rates of up to 40%, that's why you will be unable to name any other road safety initiative that can achieve such a reduction.

So actual number of collisions is irrelevant?

The argument against speed is the same as any simplistic approach to complex problems - appealing to intuition and yet fundamentally flawed.

 

[Tin Pot]

[QUOTE 3589609, member: 45"]That's what the apologists try to argue, but it's not true.[/QUOTE]
Apologists? Hah!

Apologising for what and or whom?

 

[Tin Pot]

[QUOTE 3590013, member: 45"]Speed apologists suggest that it's more complicated than inappropriate speed and then divert the discussion on to other factors, hoping that people will forget the going too fast bit.[/QUOTE]

You're not being clear on what it is you think that I'm apologising for, but I'm guessing you don't want to - so I'll leave it at that.

 

[glenn forger]

So actual number of collisions is irrelevant?

.

How do you work that out? Collisions are what's hurting people. Lower speeds reduce the number of KSI RTCs and so reduce the number of injuries. Pretty straightforward.

To put the dangerousness of speed into perspective, how many drivers care about or would notice a 2mph reduction in their average speed? Yet, averaged across the entire road network, a mere 2mph reduction in average speeds would prevent more than 200 deaths and 3,500 serious casualties a year.

 

[Tin Pot]

How do you work that out? Collisions are what's hurting people. Lower speeds reduce the number of KSI RTCs and so reduce the number of injuries. Pretty straightforward.

To put the dangerousness of speed into perspective, how many drivers care about or would notice a 2mph reduction in their average speed? Yet, averaged across the entire road network, a mere 2mph reduction in average speeds would prevent more than 200 deaths and 3,500 serious casualties a year.

I think you misunderstood me. I was pointing out that reducing numbers of collisions could be more important than just the speed of vehicles as a counter to the argument for focussing only on speed limits.

And I think you're second paragraph alludes to the speed of collisions rather than average traffic speed?

 

[glenn forger]

I think you misunderstood me. I was pointing out that reducing numbers of collisions could be more important than just the speed of vehicles as a counter to the argument for focussing only on speed limits.

And I think you're second paragraph alludes to the speed of collisions rather than average traffic speed?

If you read my post carefully I think you'll begin to understand.

 

[Tin Pot]

Where is all this apologising you keep inferring?

 

[Bad Company]

The good people of Worthing got it right:-

http://20spointless.org.uk/worthing-herald-poll/

No apologising there.

 

[glenn forger]

That looks like an impartial website

 

[Bad Company]

That looks like an impartial website

Impartial enough to win the vote.

 

[Markymark]

Impartial enough to win the vote.

Sometimes idiots vote for the wrong thing....look at UKIP

 

[glenn forger]

Impartial enough to win the vote.

If you have so much time on your hands that you hang around cycling websites promoting an idealogy that will see people get hurt it's not beyond the realms of possibility that others with your mindset will spam the survey. Your idealogical comrade Keith Peat has just received an admonishment from the Leicester newspaper who reported a cyclist hurt on the roads. Peat, who like you opposes road safety measures, posted to discourage anyone from helping the police. When hatred of cyclists gets that extreme you can see how surveys can be rigged.