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

[al78]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

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

 

[MartinC]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

...and number two...

You're going to have to provide evidence of this as well...

Straw number three. Evidence please....

Great, you've asked your grandaughter what she thinks now.


You, on the other hand, may just have changed the direction of this discussion. You've come up with several interesting ideas. You may well have dredged them from the barrel you're occupying while desparately trying to avoid the shots, but you've got some new ideas.

The fun bit for you now is that you've got to put some meat on the bones, and provide the evidence that led you to these theories, otherwise they'll be shown to be nothing more than I suspect what they really are, the desperate ramblings of someone who is in a corner and no longer has any idea what he is talking about.... (this should be fun)

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)