Just got fined! What’s the point apart from money making?
Discussion
ks don't you? braddo said:
Hints
1 Density of population and traffic are exponentially higher in greater London. The Welsh monitoring is at only 43 locations across the whole country
2 In the Welsh monitoring "All roads were largely free from physical restrictions that reduce traffic speeds at the time of monitoring." Whereas London is filled with traffic lights and speed bumps.
CO2 hasn't been measured in the Welsh reports because of the small monitoring area and short timescales.
https://tfw.wales/default-20mph-speed-limit-on-res...
This idea that 20mph causes more pollution than 30mph in cities is ridiculous. In the countryside? Maybe there's a really tiny increase. But anyway, the 20mph isn't all about emissions.
You seem awfully confident for somebody who is just guessing.1 Density of population and traffic are exponentially higher in greater London. The Welsh monitoring is at only 43 locations across the whole country
2 In the Welsh monitoring "All roads were largely free from physical restrictions that reduce traffic speeds at the time of monitoring." Whereas London is filled with traffic lights and speed bumps.
CO2 hasn't been measured in the Welsh reports because of the small monitoring area and short timescales.
https://tfw.wales/default-20mph-speed-limit-on-res...
This idea that 20mph causes more pollution than 30mph in cities is ridiculous. In the countryside? Maybe there's a really tiny increase. But anyway, the 20mph isn't all about emissions.
braddo said:
megaphone said:
So what's the point of a 20mph limit? They're just put in place as vanity projects to appease the residents, and on ideological grounds. The fact they cost millions to introduce and blight the street scene with expensive signage doesn't matter.
Less accelerating and braking compared to a 30mph limit, which helps lower emissions and noise. Safer for pedestrians and cyclists, and less severe car accidents.bigothunter said:
Assuming those statements are true, a 10mph speed limit would yield even more benefits.
Well of course. Lower speeds on the roads mean fewer accidents, less severe accidents, less severe injuries and fewer deaths. Banning cars completely would yield even better results. But the idea is to find a workable balance. TwigtheWonderkid said:
bigothunter said:
Assuming those statements are true, a 10mph speed limit would yield even more benefits.
Well of course. Lower speeds on the roads mean fewer accidents, less severe accidents, less severe injuries and fewer deaths. Banning cars completely would yield even better results. But the idea is to find a workable balance. TwigtheWonderkid said:
Lower speeds on the roads mean fewer accidents, less severe accidents, less severe injuries and fewer deaths.
Only true if all else equal ... but they're not.Lower limits may well be causing more deaths, but they refuse to run the trials that would prove it, one way or the other.
LunarOne said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
bigothunter said:
Assuming those statements are true, a 10mph speed limit would yield even more benefits.
Well of course. Lower speeds on the roads mean fewer accidents, less severe accidents, less severe injuries and fewer deaths. Banning cars completely would yield even better results. But the idea is to find a workable balance. Maybe try not driving everywhere, you might like it.
Dave Finney said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Lower speeds on the roads mean fewer accidents, less severe accidents, less severe injuries and fewer deaths.
Only true if all else equal ... but they're not.Lower limits may well be causing more deaths, but they refuse to run the trials that would prove it, one way or the other.
Curious though, how would lower limits cause more deaths? If you have something that appears to be a correlation, you still need a mechanism to confirm a relationship.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
bigothunter said:
Assuming those statements are true, a 10mph speed limit would yield even more benefits.
Well of course. Lower speeds on the roads mean fewer accidents, less severe accidents, less severe injuries and fewer deaths. Banning cars completely would yield even better results. But the idea is to find a workable balance. Dave Finney said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Lower speeds on the roads mean fewer accidents, less severe accidents, less severe injuries and fewer deaths.
Only true if all else equal ... but they're not.Lower limits may well be causing more deaths, but they refuse to run the trials that would prove it, one way or the other.
E63eeeeee... said:
Dave Finney said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Lower speeds on the roads mean fewer accidents, less severe accidents, less severe injuries and fewer deaths.
Only true if all else equal ... but they're not.Lower limits may well be causing more deaths, but they refuse to run the trials that would prove it, one way or the other.
Curious though, how would lower limits cause more deaths? If you have something that appears to be a correlation, you still need a mechanism to confirm a relationship.
Otherwise I quite agree, and great to see you added to the few of us that demand an evidence-led approach.
Yet the authorities point blank refuse to as we request.
E63eeeeee... said:
Curious though, how would lower limits cause more deaths? If you have something that appears to be a correlation, you still need a mechanism to confirm a relationship.
The slower you go, the less attention you pay to what is going on around you. 20mph is so slow that many drivers attention will wander to shop windows, or their phone, or to rummaging in their handbag for something, or grabbing a bit of that sandwich. They are much more likely to take their eyes off the road, because in many cars 20mph feels like barely moving at all. Meanwhile the slowness of traffic is likely to encourage more pedestrians to try to cross the road between gaps in cars. It only takes someone to trip, stumble or fall in front of a car where the driver's attention is on something other than the road in front of them and disaster is likely to ensue. Being run over at 20mph is probably just as bad for your health as it is at 30mph, and is more likely to happen.Edited by LunarOne on Tuesday 21st May 13:54
Dave Finney said:
Not in the overall data, you need to separate changes in speed limits from all other factors.
Otherwise I quite agree, and great to see you added to the few of us that demand an evidence-led approach.
Yet the authorities point blank refuse to as we request.
But you know why. And unfortunately you are fighting a lost cause Otherwise I quite agree, and great to see you added to the few of us that demand an evidence-led approach.
Yet the authorities point blank refuse to as we request.
LunarOne said:
The slower you go, the less attention you pay to what is going on around you. 20mph is so slow that many drivers attention will wander to shop windows, or their phone, or to rummaging in their handbag for something, or grabbing a bit of that sandwich. They are much more likely to take their eyes off the road, because in many cars 20mph feels like barely moving at all. Meanwhile the slowness of traffic is likely to encourage more pedestrians to try to cross the road between gaps in cars. It only takes someone to trip, stumble or fall in front of a car where the driver's attention is on something other than the road in front of them and disaster is likely to ensue. Being run over at 20mph is probably just as bad for your health as it is at 30mph, and is more likely to happen.
No excuse for lack of attention... 
bigothunter said:
No excuse for lack of attention...
I know you specialise in sarcastic responses Big OT and I know that behind your often facetious remarks you do have a serious point to make. Being serious, policy needs to be made based on human nature and not what ought to happen. The fact is that the less the brain is engaged in one activity, the more other activities consume the attention. This is a fact of human biology and is well understood in industries such as aviation, where pilot inattention can have devastating effects.We know drivers often lack sufficient attention. Optimising conditions so that lack of attention is assured is surely a recipe for disaster.
LunarOne said:
The slower you go, the less attention you pay to what is going on around you.
Being run over at 20mph is probably just as bad for your health as it is at 30mph, and is more likely to happen.
Being run over at 20mph is probably just as bad for your health as it is at 30mph, and is more likely to happen.
Sounds like you're a real expert.Links to to the Welsh government's monitoring of the pilot scheme and updates on when their next reports will be issued. It will include data on traffic collisions.
https://research.senedd.wales/research-articles/th...
20 mph zones are an effective way
to reduce the frequency and severity of
injury accidents mainly through reducing
traffic speeds. The number of killed and
seriously injured casualties was shown
to have reduced by around 57% and
the frequency of injury accidents by
around 42%.
Research from 20 years ago in London
https://content.tfl.gov.uk/research-summary-no2-20...
LunarOne said:
E63eeeeee... said:
Curious though, how would lower limits cause more deaths? If you have something that appears to be a correlation, you still need a mechanism to confirm a relationship.
The slower you go, the less attention you pay to what is going on around you. 20mph is so slow that many drivers attention will wander to shop windows, or their phone, or to rummaging in their handbag for something, or grabbing a bit of that sandwich. They are much more likely to take their eyes off the road, because in many cars 20mph feels like barely moving at all. Meanwhile the slowness of traffic is likely to encourage more pedestrians to try to cross the road between gaps in cars. It only takes someone to trip, stumble or fall in front of a car where the driver's attention is on something other than the road in front of them and disaster is likely to ensue. Being run over at 20mph is probably just as bad for your health as it is at 30mph, and is more likely to happen.Edited by LunarOne on Tuesday 21st May 13:54
Edited by Randy Winkman on Tuesday 21st May 14:46
Randy Winkman said:
So we shouldnt make it easier for pedestrians to cross the roads because they are more likely to get run over? I live in SE London and I'd love my road to be an enforced 20mph. It would be less intimidating for older people and people with children and ...... would make it easier for everyone to cross the road. Every so often a local residents effort is made to get a lower limit but it never happens. Big Tory majority means no "war on motorist" stuff here.
Roads are there for the benefit of traffic which is there for the benefit of people. If people want to cross roads, they should wait for a signal that it is safe, and then cross at the appropriate place.And it sounds like you want the war on motorists. Are you sure PH is the place for you?
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff