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

[very-near]

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 ?

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

 

[very-near]

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

Can you put a figure on it ?

 

[just jim]

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 ?

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

What went wrong with this post?

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

 

[very-near]

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.

It staggers me that you need the very simplest of things to be explained to you.

As to banging on about a national 40mph limit, please explain why you're arguing against me saying this when I haven't. D'oh!


20mph limits won't make the numbers climb sharply. That's proven by the evidence given on this thread.

Yup, drivers get tired. There are very simple measures that will ensure that this is not an issue.

If you're not able to gauge when you're getting tired, and you don't know what to do about it, then (a) get off the road because you're dangerous and ( let me know and I'll happilly educate you.

Blaming speed limits for driver fatigue is pathetic.

I thought you did all your commute on the pavement

 

[very-near]

What went wrong with this post?

1. Linf looks around the interweb, err... grabs something off the BBC again
2. posts it up
3. 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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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 ?

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

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).

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]

Makes the ABD look a bit silly, really.

 

[very-near]

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 ?.

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).

The reason why I made the comparison was to demonstrate that a sober and sane person would not have made that judgment call. Why should the rest of us have to be penalised in our traffic journey times because of one random nutter who was clearly not fit to be behind the wheel ? there is nothing to say that all of the millions of drivers who do drive that stretch of road safely each year at 30mph do not do so safely so to compare a 60mph sprint to a regular journey and then demand a 20mph limit is just a kneejerk reaction fit for the Daily Mail pages.

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 have got 2 (one still in school in 6th form), and now a grandchild which we lok after occasionally (but still a baby in arms). I really do think they do need special consideration, but I think that it is the parents responsibility to make sure that the kids are fully versed in safe practice before being allowed near the roads. That is why my kids never got run over as kids. I'd never let them kick a ball about in the road. If they want to do that, they use the drive, or the garden, or the local park. There are too many parents who just want their kids out of the house and sod the consequences, and then look to blame everyone else because they cannot bother be be proper parents to them.

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.

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 ?