20 mph Speed Limit Rejected - A Rare Win
Discussion
Is maintaining traffic flow really a big issue on the kinds of roads where 20mph limits are applied? We're talking about residential sideroads and roads full of junctions and traffic lights. Traffic is either shunting from one light to another and the programming of the traffic light sequences has the greatest effect on traffic flow or it's the odd car on a residential street. The housing estate where I live is a 20mph zone. Traffic congestion is only caused by people being allowed to park on it to go to the football ground and the bad weather like today and yesterday. I wouldn't say that maintaining everyday traffic flow is an issue. There are still speed humps, including one right outside my house. Noise isn't curbed because every time the bin lorry hits it my whole house shakes.
People are looking at the theory behind smart motorways, which is chemical flow theory and doesn't really translate into sentient human beings driving cars, and they're trying to apply it to completely different sorts of roads that work in entirely different ways to justify something they want anyway.
People are looking at the theory behind smart motorways, which is chemical flow theory and doesn't really translate into sentient human beings driving cars, and they're trying to apply it to completely different sorts of roads that work in entirely different ways to justify something they want anyway.
I think the answer to that is that they are not meant to be, but often are - what springs to mind from my daily commute are Burbage and Stradella roads - both of which are a 20 limit, both of which have significant speed bumps, both of which are also quiet residential streets used by traffic commuting into and out of London.
You tend to get people putting the foot down hard, getting up to 40, then braking heavily for the sleeping policemen.
Motorised traffics average speed (dependent on suspension) is around 20mph even with the FAST/SLOW approach taken by the majority.
If they'd stick to the posted limit then the result would be the same, less the noise and engine wear.
You tend to get people putting the foot down hard, getting up to 40, then braking heavily for the sleeping policemen.
Motorised traffics average speed (dependent on suspension) is around 20mph even with the FAST/SLOW approach taken by the majority.
If they'd stick to the posted limit then the result would be the same, less the noise and engine wear.
Mass introduction of 20mph zones is like the mass introduction of ABS and other electric safety aids.
It makes the clueless more dangerous, except instead of pushing a vehicle harder and flying off a road and being protected by loads of airbags and walking away with a scratch, they are walking into vehicles which have a ton+ of weight on them.
Have you driven modern cars, with the massive a pillars? you can hide 2 cars in there, they are a nightmare when driving. It's a shame they spend there time trying to protect bad drivers, instead of protecting the good drivers by making the bad drivers better.
It makes the clueless more dangerous, except instead of pushing a vehicle harder and flying off a road and being protected by loads of airbags and walking away with a scratch, they are walking into vehicles which have a ton+ of weight on them.
Have you driven modern cars, with the massive a pillars? you can hide 2 cars in there, they are a nightmare when driving. It's a shame they spend there time trying to protect bad drivers, instead of protecting the good drivers by making the bad drivers better.
BlueMR2 said:
Mass introduction of 20mph zones is like the mass introduction of ABS and other electric safety aids.
It makes the clueless more dangerous, except instead of pushing a vehicle harder and flying off a road and being protected by loads of airbags and walking away with a scratch, they are walking into vehicles which have a ton+ of weight on them.
Have you driven modern cars, with the massive a pillars? you can hide 2 cars in there, they are a nightmare when driving. It's a shame they spend there time trying to protect bad drivers, instead of protecting the good drivers by making the bad drivers better.
Don't be so silly.It makes the clueless more dangerous, except instead of pushing a vehicle harder and flying off a road and being protected by loads of airbags and walking away with a scratch, they are walking into vehicles which have a ton+ of weight on them.
Have you driven modern cars, with the massive a pillars? you can hide 2 cars in there, they are a nightmare when driving. It's a shame they spend there time trying to protect bad drivers, instead of protecting the good drivers by making the bad drivers better.
Devil2575 said:
BlueMR2 said:
Mass introduction of 20mph zones is like the mass introduction of ABS and other electric safety aids.
It makes the clueless more dangerous, except instead of pushing a vehicle harder and flying off a road and being protected by loads of airbags and walking away with a scratch, they are walking into vehicles which have a ton+ of weight on them.
Have you driven modern cars, with the massive a pillars? you can hide 2 cars in there, they are a nightmare when driving. It's a shame they spend there time trying to protect bad drivers, instead of protecting the good drivers by making the bad drivers better.
Don't be so silly.It makes the clueless more dangerous, except instead of pushing a vehicle harder and flying off a road and being protected by loads of airbags and walking away with a scratch, they are walking into vehicles which have a ton+ of weight on them.
Have you driven modern cars, with the massive a pillars? you can hide 2 cars in there, they are a nightmare when driving. It's a shame they spend there time trying to protect bad drivers, instead of protecting the good drivers by making the bad drivers better.
BlueMR2 said:
Mass introduction of 20mph zones is like the mass introduction of ABS and other electric safety aids.
It makes the clueless more dangerous, except instead of pushing a vehicle harder and flying off a road and being protected by loads of airbags and walking away with a scratch, they are walking into vehicles which have a ton+ of weight on them.
Have you driven modern cars, with the massive a pillars? you can hide 2 cars in there, they are a nightmare when driving. It's a shame they spend there time trying to protect bad drivers, instead of protecting the good drivers by making the bad drivers better.
Am I imagining it or are wing mirrors also getting bigger, probably for similar reasons.It makes the clueless more dangerous, except instead of pushing a vehicle harder and flying off a road and being protected by loads of airbags and walking away with a scratch, they are walking into vehicles which have a ton+ of weight on them.
Have you driven modern cars, with the massive a pillars? you can hide 2 cars in there, they are a nightmare when driving. It's a shame they spend there time trying to protect bad drivers, instead of protecting the good drivers by making the bad drivers better.
BlueMR2 said:
Devil2575 said:
BlueMR2 said:
Mass introduction of 20mph zones is like the mass introduction of ABS and other electric safety aids.
It makes the clueless more dangerous, except instead of pushing a vehicle harder and flying off a road and being protected by loads of airbags and walking away with a scratch, they are walking into vehicles which have a ton+ of weight on them.
Have you driven modern cars, with the massive a pillars? you can hide 2 cars in there, they are a nightmare when driving. It's a shame they spend there time trying to protect bad drivers, instead of protecting the good drivers by making the bad drivers better.
Don't be so silly.It makes the clueless more dangerous, except instead of pushing a vehicle harder and flying off a road and being protected by loads of airbags and walking away with a scratch, they are walking into vehicles which have a ton+ of weight on them.
Have you driven modern cars, with the massive a pillars? you can hide 2 cars in there, they are a nightmare when driving. It's a shame they spend there time trying to protect bad drivers, instead of protecting the good drivers by making the bad drivers better.
If you think a wide A pillar that can "hide 2 cars" is so dangerous then perhaps you need to question your own driving skills.
Devil2575 said:
How do 20 mph limits make bad drivers more dangerous?
Because they pay less attention and the proliferation of 20mph lowers people respect and patience for them so they get ignored.Devil2575 said:
If you think a wide A pillar that can "hide 2 cars" is so dangerous then perhaps you need to question your own driving skills.
You should probably question those who like causing accidents pulling out in front of people they didn't see at roundabouts and junctions about their driving skills.I prefer to drive older cars with good visibility, direct controls and the less electronic interference the better.
It seems the late '90's to the early '00's is when cars started to receive new technology that started to impede smooth driving. Saying that if you have to suffer a dull as .. diesel repmobile you may as well have it do as much of the driving for you as possible.
BlueMR2 said:
Devil2575 said:
How do 20 mph limits make bad drivers more dangerous?
Because they pay less attention and the proliferation of 20mph lowers people respect and patience for them so they get ignored.Devil2575 said:
If you think a wide A pillar that can "hide 2 cars" is so dangerous then perhaps you need to question your own driving skills.
You should probably question those who like causing accidents pulling out in front of people they didn't see at roundabouts and junctions about their driving skills.I prefer to drive older cars with good visibility, direct controls and the less electronic interference the better.
It seems the late '90's to the early '00's is when cars started to receive new technology that started to impede smooth driving. Saying that if you have to suffer a dull as .. diesel repmobile you may as well have it do as much of the driving for you as possible.
It all sounds dangerously like stuff you thought up to justify your opinion.
Devil2575 said:
BlueMR2 said:
Devil2575 said:
How do 20 mph limits make bad drivers more dangerous?
Because they pay less attention and the proliferation of 20mph lowers people respect and patience for them so they get ignored.Devil2575 said:
If you think a wide A pillar that can "hide 2 cars" is so dangerous then perhaps you need to question your own driving skills.
You should probably question those who like causing accidents pulling out in front of people they didn't see at roundabouts and junctions about their driving skills.I prefer to drive older cars with good visibility, direct controls and the less electronic interference the better.
It seems the late '90's to the early '00's is when cars started to receive new technology that started to impede smooth driving. Saying that if you have to suffer a dull as .. diesel repmobile you may as well have it do as much of the driving for you as possible.
It all sounds dangerously like stuff you thought up to justify your opinion.
What evidence do you have to demonstrate I'm wrong?
It sounds dangerously like you are being argumentative for the sake of it.
BlueMR2 said:
Devil2575 said:
How do 20 mph limits make bad drivers more dangerous?
Because they pay less attention and the proliferation of 20mph lowers people respect and patience for them so they get ignored.But in any case, the slower one goes the less attention is actually needed, because everything is happening more slowly and the car can be brought to a stop much faster if need be.
BlueMR2 said:
t's based on experience, observation and discussion.
What evidence do you have to demonstrate I'm wrong?
It sounds dangerously like you are being argumentative for the sake of it.
Your argument is based on anecdotal evidence which for reasons I've posted numerous times on PH is not proper evidence.What evidence do you have to demonstrate I'm wrong?
It sounds dangerously like you are being argumentative for the sake of it.
What evidence do I have?
There is no evidence to support the fact that there are more accidents in 20 limits.
Btw if you make a claim it's up to you to provide evidence to support it. It's not up to me to disprove it.
Devil2575 said:
BlueMR2 said:
t's based on experience, observation and discussion.
What evidence do you have to demonstrate I'm wrong?
It sounds dangerously like you are being argumentative for the sake of it.
Your argument is based on anecdotal evidence which for reasons I've posted numerous times on PH is not proper evidence.What evidence do you have to demonstrate I'm wrong?
It sounds dangerously like you are being argumentative for the sake of it.
What evidence do I have?
There is no evidence to support the fact that there are more accidents in 20 limits.
Btw if you make a claim it's up to you to provide evidence to support it. It's not up to me to disprove it.
BlueMR2 said:
http://www.iam.org.uk/media-and-research/media-cen... not too great an example for how great they are.
You should critically examine that report and work out for yourself why it might not say what you think it does.I'll give you a hand. Given that the number of 20 mph limited roads has increased a lot over the last couple of years do you think that the number of casualties on those roads would increase in absolute terms?
Willy Nilly said:
There was one of them Police Camera Shouting programmes on with Rav Wilding yesterday am and some stupid middle aged woman Councillor complaining that everyone was ignoring her new 20 limits. Then some resident rocks up and tells her 20mph is too slow for the road and to do one with her new speed gun.
Oi do one.Love it ha
singlecoil said:
BlueMR2 said:
Devil2575 said:
How do 20 mph limits make bad drivers more dangerous?
Because they pay less attention and the proliferation of 20mph lowers people respect and patience for them so they get ignored.But in any case, the slower one goes the less attention is actually needed, because everything is happening more slowly and the car can be brought to a stop much faster if need be.
I'd also feel safer if people were driving 30mph with enough attention to avoid an accident or stop in time rather than requiring a lowering of the limit to the lowest common denominator, you don't have to drive at the number on a stick if its not safe to do so.
The 40mph monospeed brigade will end up becoming the new 20mph brigade.
Devil2575 said:
BlueMR2 said:
http://www.iam.org.uk/media-and-research/media-cen... not too great an example for how great they are.
You should critically examine that report and work out for yourself why it might not say what you think it does.I'll give you a hand. Given that the number of 20 mph limited roads has increased a lot over the last couple of years do you think that the number of casualties on those roads would increase in absolute terms?
Don't the statistics also show that only 5% of accidents occur over the speed limit? So surely the statistics show your less likely to be in an accident if your above the speed limit.
BlueMR2 said:
'd rather people were paying attention at a reasonable speed than texting, shaving or eating their cornflakes because they deem the effort required to drive at 20 is so little.
Quite honestly, there's nothing to choose between 20 and 30 in terms of whether or not people do those things, especially texting which is done at EVERY speed.BlueMR2 said:
I'd also feel safer if people were driving 30mph with enough attention to avoid an accident or stop in time rather than requiring a lowering of the limit to the lowest common denominator, you don't have to drive at the number on a stick if its not safe to do so.
Whatever attention is paid at 20 won't be any less than is paid at 30, I think you will find, due to most people feeling 30 is too low too.Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff