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

[very-near]

I dismissed this accusation yesterday. Do you think that by repeating it it makes it real?
If you look at the OP you'll see that it's about one issue -20mph limits.

If you want to discuss one of the other issues then either start a new thread or go and find one of the old ones.



More policing everywhere would bring more results everywhere. You're claiming that police only address drink driving when there's a 'campaign'. You're wrong.

You didn't dismiss it, you merely refuted it. I've asked you why this is 20mph limit so important to you, and you reply with the answer that you are passionate about road safety.

I'd say you are evangelical about speed limits whilst ignoring the elephant in the living room. It makes you narrow minded and unable to deal with the reality which I have presented - Lower limits in places have merit but don't really toucch on the main causes of the KSIs in the UK.

 

[very-near]

What an awesome thread! 'Tis a shame I have to go back to work because my lunch is over - but rest assured I'll comment on this later on tonight...

I'd like to say it's been fun but some don't seem to take road safety seriously Lee

 

[theclaud]

I'd like to say it's been fun but some don't seem to take road safety seriously Lee

Priceless! You're on form today, Linf.

 

[very-near]

Priceless! You're on form today, Linf.

Any attempt to undermine this effort to distract from the primary causes must be repelled.

I fear you are taking sides because you don't want to be seen to be agreeing with me - more is the pity as I thought you to be of sterner stuff

 

[theclaud]

Any attempt to undermine this effort to distract from the primary causes must be repelled.

I fear you are taking sides because you don't want to be seen to be agreeing with me - more is the pity as I thought you to be of sterner stuff

Agree with you? Steady on - all we've agreed on is that drink-driving is dangerous to other people. Actually all driving is dangerous, but the faster you go and/or the more drunk you are, the more dangerous it gets. But you are determined not agree with that. I'd like a default 20mph. Urban for starters, but fast traffic on country roads remains a pet peev. A lower limit in towns is a no-brainer. There are no credible arguments against it. You argue against it, but you have no credibility on the subject, so it scarcely matters.

 

[just jim]

Mr. P - would you rather try to nail jelly to a wall with a pin hammer, or sledgehammer. Pin, or sledge? Simple question.

 

[theclaud]

Mr. P - would you rather try to nail jelly to a wall with a pin hammer, or sledgehammer. Pin, or sledge? Simple question.

Sledgehammer for me. Just as ineffective, but more fun. As long as it's someone else's wall.

 

[very-near]

OK then. How's about you stop trying to distract yet again from the proof that reducing speed saves lives, and discuss the other issues on the threads where we've already mentioned them, or start up a separate one?

20mph limits are proven to be effective.

I note that you're also avoiding my question-

Would you rather be hit by a car at 30mph or 20mph?

And you're not allowed to say that you'd rather not be hit by a car. It's a specific, simple question which is very easy to answer with a 2-digit number.

20 or 30?

I've already stated that I have no objections to 20 limits around schools or where busy roads pass through town centres and where there is a high footfall, but I would not be satisfied if the limits were applied across an entire town or city which could be 6 or 8 miles across, as this would make for some substantial increases in travel times and that will have a knock on effect with the issue of tiredness and the associated risks which go with it.

You cannot ignore the knock on effect which a lower limit would have as the vast majority of drivers are not on a tacho. Tiredness kills and this ideal would exacerbate the problem

 

[very-near]

Sledgehammer for me. Just as ineffective, but more fun. As long as it's someone else's wall.

You could end up breaking the jelly, the pin, and the wall with your choices though

 

[marinyork]

I've already stated that I have no objections to 20 limits around schools or where busy roads pass through town centres and where there is a high footfall, but I would not be satisfied if the limits were applied across an entire town or city which could be 6 or 8 miles across, as this would make for some substantial increases in travel times and that will have a knock on effect with the issue of tiredness and the associated risks which go with it.

You cannot ignore the knock on effect which a lower limit would have as the vast majority of drivers are not on a tacho. Tiredness kills and this ideal would exacerbate the problem

This doesn't get us anywhere really because it's not terribly clear what you mean. We need to get back to discussing cheltenham.

 

[theclaud]

We need to get back to discussing cheltenham.

Not a sentence one should have to hear very often...

 

[very-near]

This doesn't get us anywhere really because it's not terribly clear what you mean. We need to get back to discussing cheltenham.

Is that a sign of your acceptance that the focus is too narrow and driven by lack of understanding of the wider implications which this ill thought out demand will bring ?

 

[marinyork]

Is that a sign of your acceptance that the focus is too narrow and driven by lack of understanding of the wider implications which this ill thought out demand will bring ?

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.

 

[very-near]

No-one is ignoring anything. Well except you, who are ignoring direct questions.

And I'm not, for the hundredth time, arguing for a blanket limit. It's a sure sign of a poor argument when you have to resort to arguing against what isn't being said.

And purlease don't go down the "make me drive slow and you'll make me fall asleep and kill someone" road. IIt's utterly pathetic.

I'm sorry, but you really do come across as disingenuous with this post.

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, and you have no idea what would happen to the stats if you were to force a 40mph nationwide (or 33%). We already lose 300 people on the roads PA to tiredness. Would you be able to live with your conscience if the numbers climbed sharply, because many people don't drink and drive, many people don't drive under the influence of drugs, and many people don't exceed the speed limits, but 'everyone' without exception gets tired and this will affect the ability and reactions of the best, the worst, and all those in between - even yourself!

 

[marinyork]

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