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

[StuartG]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

5 people killed in cars on a road.

1 cyclist killed on the same road.

In the period studied (say, 5 days) 90,000 cars drove down the road, and 5 bikes.

Which are you more likely to be killed doing, car passenger or cyclist?

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]

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]

*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]

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]

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]

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


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

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.