20 mph Speed Limit Rejected - A Rare Win
Discussion
Blakewater said:
singlecoil said:
Blakewater said:
It's funny how people will quote statistics as the Holy Grail when they support their opinions but dismiss them as spurious and irrelevant when they don't.
What else could they do? If they hold a particular belief, and they find information that supports that belief, then naturally they will believe that the information is correct. If the find anything that undermines that belief, then it is obvious to them that that info is incorrect.I think we would find the same thing on PH if someone posted statistics that supported the use of speed cameras.
singlecoil said:
Blakewater said:
singlecoil said:
Blakewater said:
It's funny how people will quote statistics as the Holy Grail when they support their opinions but dismiss them as spurious and irrelevant when they don't.
What else could they do? If they hold a particular belief, and they find information that supports that belief, then naturally they will believe that the information is correct. If the find anything that undermines that belief, then it is obvious to them that that info is incorrect.I think we would find the same thing on PH if someone posted statistics that supported the use of speed cameras.
I don't deny that running over a child at 20mph will do less harm than running one over at 30mph. For any given level of attention you have more chance of spotting something and reacting to it the slower you go. I've considered the points that have been raised in favour of them and I see some degree of logic in them. I'm not a child killer who wants to loon around residential areas and school zones at high speed.
The problems are a lot of these limits are being placed on roads where traffic speeds aren't that high. People generally object to them on the cost versus benefit basis, even self admitted leftie, greenie cyclists. They also don't really deal with overall issues of driver inattention and poor attitude which are what really create danger on the road. They're more of a recommended crashing speed.
Blakewater said:
The principle that information and statistics that support your belief is correct and any that doesn't is irrelevant or must be wrong. In many scenarios people get hooked on an idea and pursue it to the point of obsession, dismissing any alternative point of view and even being aggressive and malicious to those who put those points of view forward.
I don't deny that running over a child at 20mph will do less harm than running one over at 30mph. For any given level of attention you have more chance of spotting something and reacting to it the slower you go. I've considered the points that have been raised in favour of them and I see some degree of logic in them. I'm not a child killer who wants to loon around residential areas and school zones at high speed.
The problems are a lot of these limits are being placed on roads where traffic speeds aren't that high. People generally object to them on the cost versus benefit basis, even self admitted leftie, greenie cyclists. They also don't really deal with overall issues of driver inattention and poor attitude which are what really create danger on the road. They're more of a recommended crashing speed.
That's not a principle, it just the entirely understandable way in which people think when it's something that can't be disproved in the way in which (for instance) the flat Earth theory can be.I don't deny that running over a child at 20mph will do less harm than running one over at 30mph. For any given level of attention you have more chance of spotting something and reacting to it the slower you go. I've considered the points that have been raised in favour of them and I see some degree of logic in them. I'm not a child killer who wants to loon around residential areas and school zones at high speed.
The problems are a lot of these limits are being placed on roads where traffic speeds aren't that high. People generally object to them on the cost versus benefit basis, even self admitted leftie, greenie cyclists. They also don't really deal with overall issues of driver inattention and poor attitude which are what really create danger on the road. They're more of a recommended crashing speed.
So we should spend millions on something because we can't disprove that it works? We all want safer roads and we all need to discuss the best way of achieving it rather than people shouting about one particular thing and accusing anyone who says it might not be the best thing of wanting to kill everyone.
Dr Jekyll said:
singlecoil said:
What else could they do? If they hold a particular belief, and they find information that supports that belief, then naturally they will believe that the information is correct. If the find anything that undermines that belief, then it is obvious to them that that info is incorrect.
I think we would find the same thing on PH if someone posted statistics that supported the use of speed cameras.
Some of us checked the statistics first then formed an opinion second. Not something that politicians would understand of course.I think we would find the same thing on PH if someone posted statistics that supported the use of speed cameras.
There's a reasonably well accepted school of thought that people don't really do this even though they may be convinced that they do.
Devil2575 said:
Dr Jekyll said:
singlecoil said:
What else could they do? If they hold a particular belief, and they find information that supports that belief, then naturally they will believe that the information is correct. If the find anything that undermines that belief, then it is obvious to them that that info is incorrect.
I think we would find the same thing on PH if someone posted statistics that supported the use of speed cameras.
Some of us checked the statistics first then formed an opinion second. Not something that politicians would understand of course.I think we would find the same thing on PH if someone posted statistics that supported the use of speed cameras.
Bristol politicos have had a rush of blood to their collective arse - they are to erect no less than 13,000 20mph signs at a cost of £2.3m, presumably these Brizzle folks are among the small group referred to who can't be bothered with stats and data and evidence and use their pc wisdom drawn down from the ether.
I know it's The Times but there it is anyway.
20mph zones on the rise . . . and so are accidents
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/uk/article43366...
"There's a reasonably well accepted school of thought that
turbobloke said:
Devil2575 said:
Dr Jekyll said:
singlecoil said:
What else could they do? If they hold a particular belief, and they find information that supports that belief, then naturally they will believe that the information is correct. If the find anything that undermines that belief, then it is obvious to them that that info is incorrect.
I think we would find the same thing on PH if someone posted statistics that supported the use of speed cameras.
Some of us checked the statistics first then formed an opinion second. Not something that politicians would understand of course.I think we would find the same thing on PH if someone posted statistics that supported the use of speed cameras.
Bristol politicos have had a rush of blood to their collective arse - they are to erect no less than 13,000 20mph signs at a cost of £2.3m, presumably these Brizzle folks are among the small group referred to who can't be bothered with stats and data and evidence and use their pc wisdom drawn down from the ether.
I know it's The Times but there it is anyway.
20mph zones on the rise . . . and so are accidents
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/uk/article43366...
"There's a reasonably well accepted school of thought that
Are you sure?
The people handing out Nobel prizes don't seem to agree...
You've linked to a story that's behind a paywall and doesn't appear to have been covered by any other news paper. Perhaps you can post a link to the source of the data the paper used.
Devil2575 said:
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-262586...
Are you sure?
The people handing out Nobel prizes don't seem to agree...
You've linked to a story that's behind a paywall and doesn't appear to have been covered by any other news paper. Perhaps you can post a link to the source of the data the paper used.
The IAM have conducted research into this.Are you sure?
The people handing out Nobel prizes don't seem to agree...
You've linked to a story that's behind a paywall and doesn't appear to have been covered by any other news paper. Perhaps you can post a link to the source of the data the paper used.
http://www.iam.org.uk/media-and-research/media-cen...
It's been well covered by the press.
https://www.google.co.uk/webhp?sourceid=chrome-ins...
Blakewater said:
Devil2575 said:
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-262586...
Are you sure?
The people handing out Nobel prizes don't seem to agree...
You've linked to a story that's behind a paywall and doesn't appear to have been covered by any other news paper. Perhaps you can post a link to the source of the data the paper used.
The IAM have conducted research into this.Are you sure?
The people handing out Nobel prizes don't seem to agree...
You've linked to a story that's behind a paywall and doesn't appear to have been covered by any other news paper. Perhaps you can post a link to the source of the data the paper used.
http://www.iam.org.uk/media-and-research/media-cen...
It's been well covered by the press.
https://www.google.co.uk/webhp?sourceid=chrome-ins...
I've checked put the IAM stuff. My only question would be does it take into account the fact that the number of roads with a 20 limit is increasing so there is likely to be an increase in the absolute number of accidents on them?
Devil2575 said:
Blakewater said:
Devil2575 said:
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-262586...
Are you sure?
The people handing out Nobel prizes don't seem to agree...
You've linked to a story that's behind a paywall and doesn't appear to have been covered by any other news paper. Perhaps you can post a link to the source of the data the paper used.
The IAM have conducted research into this.Are you sure?
The people handing out Nobel prizes don't seem to agree...
You've linked to a story that's behind a paywall and doesn't appear to have been covered by any other news paper. Perhaps you can post a link to the source of the data the paper used.
http://www.iam.org.uk/media-and-research/media-cen...
It's been well covered by the press.
https://www.google.co.uk/webhp?sourceid=chrome-ins...
I've checked put the IAM stuff. My only question would be does it take into account the fact that the number of roads with a 20 limit is increasing so there is likely to be an increase in the absolute number of accidents on them?
Casualties in 20mph zones UP by 24%
14/8/12 MSN
The number of people killed or injured on Britain’s 20mph speed-limited roads has risen by nearly a quarter, according to the Department for Transport’s 2011 figures.
Last year, 2,262 casualties in 20mph zones were recorded – albeit 1,966 of them classed as minor injuries – marking a 24% increase on 2010’s toll.
The latest figures have sparked a debate as to whether 20mph zones – often implemented in urban and recreational areas – actually help to improve road safety.
Campaigners have suggested lower speed limits make crashes less likely to occur, and reduce the ramifications when they do, but the latest results cast doubt on this theory.
Local councils were given the power to designate 20mph zones back in 2009, with a view to improving road safety.
According to local transport minister Norman Baker, “it’s vital that speed limits are suitable for local conditions and councils are best placed to determine what these are, based on local knowledge and the views of the community.”
Questioning the argument, Director of Policy at the Institute of Advanced Motorists, Neil Greig, highlighted that the latest evidence on 20mph areas “now seems very mixed and contradictory.”
DfT data shows there were seven deaths in 20mph zones last year, while 289 serious injuries occurred over 2011, a 17% and 39% rise over 2010 statistics respectively.
The latest figures come after it was announced last month that UK road deaths rose for the first time since 2003, with the serious injury toll growing in 2011, the first time since 1994.
The Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents highlighted the increase in 20mph casualties was worrying, however, they only represented a small number compared with accidents on 30mph roads.
Proportionally however, the UK has much less of its road network designated as 20mph zones when compared to 30mph limit areas.
14/8/12 MSN
The number of people killed or injured on Britain’s 20mph speed-limited roads has risen by nearly a quarter, according to the Department for Transport’s 2011 figures.
Last year, 2,262 casualties in 20mph zones were recorded – albeit 1,966 of them classed as minor injuries – marking a 24% increase on 2010’s toll.
The latest figures have sparked a debate as to whether 20mph zones – often implemented in urban and recreational areas – actually help to improve road safety.
Campaigners have suggested lower speed limits make crashes less likely to occur, and reduce the ramifications when they do, but the latest results cast doubt on this theory.
Local councils were given the power to designate 20mph zones back in 2009, with a view to improving road safety.
According to local transport minister Norman Baker, “it’s vital that speed limits are suitable for local conditions and councils are best placed to determine what these are, based on local knowledge and the views of the community.”
Questioning the argument, Director of Policy at the Institute of Advanced Motorists, Neil Greig, highlighted that the latest evidence on 20mph areas “now seems very mixed and contradictory.”
DfT data shows there were seven deaths in 20mph zones last year, while 289 serious injuries occurred over 2011, a 17% and 39% rise over 2010 statistics respectively.
The latest figures come after it was announced last month that UK road deaths rose for the first time since 2003, with the serious injury toll growing in 2011, the first time since 1994.
The Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents highlighted the increase in 20mph casualties was worrying, however, they only represented a small number compared with accidents on 30mph roads.
Proportionally however, the UK has much less of its road network designated as 20mph zones when compared to 30mph limit areas.
singlecoil said:
Looking forward to hearing some explanations as to why 20mph zones are apparently not as safe as one might think.
Try asking the AA and IAM.Article said:
Both the AA and the Institute of Advanced Motorists said that plans to introduce 20mph zones could be counterproductive
James Glossop
Lucy Holden
The Times
Blanket speed limits of 20mph imposed across Edinburgh would confuse drivers and be potentially dangerous, motorists’ groups have warned.
Both the AA and the Institute of Advanced Motorists (IAM) said that plans by Edinburgh council to introduce 20mph zones on 85 per cent of the city’s roads — including the city centre — on safety grounds could be counterproductive.
James Glossop
Lucy Holden
The Times
Blanket speed limits of 20mph imposed across Edinburgh would confuse drivers and be potentially dangerous, motorists’ groups have warned.
Both the AA and the Institute of Advanced Motorists (IAM) said that plans by Edinburgh council to introduce 20mph zones on 85 per cent of the city’s roads — including the city centre — on safety grounds could be counterproductive.
singlecoil said:
My guess is that some of the more excitable posters here are going to suggest drivers going to sleep and/or getting bored and letting their attention wander.
Who could confuse motorway type driving with city centre type driving to fail to score a point. Somebody did.
Do tell what the AA and IAM say in their replies.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff