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

[Cab]

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 the road management there is bad. Big deal. So the average speed when those roads are busy is 10mph. So what? A 20mph limit will save lives (it isn't the 'average' speed that kills). None of what you have said there is relevant.

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.

Its what it looks like. Falling in to the Mr.P's scratched records, a 20mph limit saves lives, thats proven beyond reasonable doubt. I don't accept that the current rate of losing lives is good enough, why should I? Why do you?

 

[StuartG]

20mph max may be good, but it is a pity no one is proposing a minimum. Like anything greater than 0mph. Here in my part of London it is the parked cars on both sides of already narrow residential streets that make roads extra hazardous for cyclists. Keeping clear of the door zone puts you more or less on the centre line and any passing vehicle in either direction is a squeeze. Plus spotting pedestrians suddenly appearing between vehicles is difficult and vice versa.

I do remember the days when you had to have lights on a parked car at night which ensured most people arranged off road parking at home. Hence roads were also fairly clear in the day. Though one did have to navigate kids playing footie. Kids playing in the street ... am I that old?

Why should cyclists have to pay for motorists' on-road garaging?

 

[very-near]

So the road management there is bad. Big deal. So the average speed when those roads are busy is 10mph. So what? A 20mph limit will save lives (it isn't the 'average' speed that kills). None of what you have said there is relevant.



Its what it looks like. Falling in to the Mr.P's scratched records, a 20mph limit saves lives, thats proven beyond reasonable doubt. I don't accept that the current rate of losing lives is good enough, why should I? Why do you?

Firstly, the average speed of the traffic on my town when quiet is also 10mph as the spacing and sequence of the lights dictate this. They cause congestion even when there isn't any real number of vehicles in the system. It is a manufactured situation which encourages frustration, RLJing and road users to nail it when they see a gap which is IMO counter to careful and considerate use.

Secondly, it is nice to have a goal, but the reality is that you will never reduce the number of KSI's to zero - especially in the case of cyclists. Case in point is the HGV turning left at traffic lights and running over a hapless rider in the process. HGVs negotiate these junctions at fast walking pace yet still people die so your logic that it will achieve this goal is really flawed. A cyclist i my town lost his life under the wheels of a bus a couple of years ago. He was high on drugs and rode off the pavement without looking into its path. The bus was doing no more than 20 mph when this happened but having any vehicle which weighs 8 tonnes sat on your chest isn't going to help even if it rolls over you at walking pace.

Traffic speeds are set according to risk management assessment. You will never take away risk on the roads from operator use and to think differently demonstrates a total detachment from reality!

 

[very-near]

Clarkson says all kinds of stuff. If you take everything that he says as legitimate and correct then you need to get off the road now.

Now you're banging on about what you think the causes of congestion are in Cheltenham, as an argument against the fact that 20mph limits reduce congestions????



And we have an opportunity here to reduce the risk. And you're arguing against it.


....but you continue to bring spurious arguments (pollution will linger longer????) to argue against introducing a measure which we know will certainly reduce KSIs on the road.

Risk is always going to be present - even in pedestrianised zones where buses and cyclists have access.

 

[dellzeqq]

Why should cyclists have to pay for motorists' on-road garaging?

that is a very good thought, brilliantly expressed. It remains only for me to point to the pathetic performance of the English team at successive world cups, and the predominance of overseas players in the Premiership. On street parking has destroyed our footballing base. To the crusher with them all!

 

[Cab]

Risk is always going to be present - even in pedestrianised zones where buses and cyclists have access.

*sigh*

And the risk is lower if the speed limit is 20mph. Why do you resist that proven fact?

 

[Cab]

Firstly, the average speed of the traffic on my town when quiet is also 10mph as the spacing and sequence of the lights dictate this.

It is not the average speed that is the problem; a 20mph zone reduces hard acceleration between lights, leading to a situation where some may be safely removed.

They cause congestion even when there isn't any real number of vehicles in the system. It is a manufactured situation which encourages frustration, RLJing and road users to nail it when they see a gap which is IMO counter to careful and considerate use.

Which isn't anything to do with a 20mph limit...

Secondly, it is nice to have a goal, but the reality is that you will never reduce the number of KSI's to zero - especially in the case of cyclists.

Yet you are resisting a measure that is proven to save lives, taking us closer to that goal. Why?

 

[very-near]

It is not the average speed that is the problem; a 20mph zone reduces hard acceleration between lights, leading to a situation where some may be safely removed.



Which isn't anything to do with a 20mph limit...



Yet you are resisting a measure that is proven to save lives, taking us closer to that goal. Why?

Can you answer my points on HGVs turning left on cyclists and people not looking bofore crossingthe path of large vehicles in your zero KSI approach ?

 

[StuartG]

What would be good is if 20mph zones were actually enforced rather than calmed. Without that a serious downside would be the proliferation of these hazards that compromise the best line to take through traffic and target us with no suspension (and small cars).

When I have to drive through these zones I choose our largest car which has axles wide enough to straddle the humps. Hence they encourage the use of urban/eco unfriendly vehicles and the purchase of more Chelsea Tractors.

An unthought out expansion of calmed 20mph zones could re-make the 4x4 market.

 

[Cab]

Can you answer my points on HGVs turning left on cyclists and people not looking bofore crossingthe path of large vehicles in your zero KSI approach ?

Your points are irrelevant. 20mph speed limits save lives (damned record needle), regardless of other factors such as HGV management. You're confusing different safety issues, arguing that because one is not addressed by this the whole thing isn't worthwhile. Turns out that we've got hard numerical evidence that shows you're wrong.

 

[very-near]

Your points are irrelevant. 20mph speed limits save lives (damned record needle), regardless of other factors such as HGV management. You're confusing different safety issues, arguing that because one is not addressed by this the whole thing isn't worthwhile. Turns out that we've got hard numerical evidence that shows you're wrong.

It appears that more cyclists in London are lost to HGVs carrying out slow speed manouvers on junctrions than anything else so why should the rest of the traffic have to be needlessly held up on high volume main roads to fit this ideal of yours. Perhpas your efforts should go on driver and cyclist training to raise standards to keep the vehicles apart ?

You will be demanding the bloke with a the red flag in front of all cars again in the name of 'safety'.

You might consider that you attitude to the restrictin of movement on others is a bit selfish as I do.

 

[very-near]

So the stats are wrong? Your 'freedom of movement' and right to drive 30mph (as opposed to 20mph) is a higher priority than even the potential of saving just a few lives?

Remind me again, who's the selfish one here?

[sorry Cab - but had to]

Given your track record for admitting you have done 100mph marathon drives from one end of the country to the other, and accumulation of 9 points on your license for speeding, I think it best you stay out of this one old chap. Your record of acknowledging them is poor to non existent whatever is posted up

 

[Cab]

It appears that more cyclists in London are lost to HGVs carrying out slow speed manouvers on junctrions...

Which is no justification for your adamant refusal to deal with the proven fact that 20mph speed limits save lives. So there are other ways to save lives too, ways that should be looked at. What of it?

 

[dellzeqq]

lorries turning left kill cyclist and speeding cars on suburban streets kill children and the elderly. They're different things.

The BBC's map is instructive. 203 deaths in London (140 male, 63 female). 39 deaths in Gloucestershire. Given the huge disparity between the populations (eight million as opposed to half a million), this makes Gloucestershire the place to avoid. The question is why is the death toll in Gloucestershire so high? Are the residents just a little bit blase about deaths on the road?

It's rural A-roads, by the way. The very roads that some of us suggest shoud be limited to 50.

 

[very-near]

I dont claim to have a right to drive 100mph. You see the difference?

Funny enough, nor do I, but what I am arguing is that the speed limits in place already does balance the requirement for traffic to move at a reasonable pace against unacceptable risk for the greater majority of users. Unless users breaking the limits canproven to be the direct cause of accidents on a given stretch of road, or indeed that the existing limit is allowing the majority of users to drive beyind their limits or that of the road conditions/geography surface/hazards etc and actually creating a history of accidents, then arbitrary application will be seen to be punitive and unneccessary.