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

[very-near]

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]

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]

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.

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

 

[StuartG]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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