RE: More 20mph Limits Introduced
Friday 12th October 2007
Hundreds of roads in Portsmouth have now got 20mph speed limits imposed on them from today.
Portsmouth City Council is the first in Britain to make almost all its residential roads 20mph - and this is the second wave of roads to get the new speed limit.
A council spokesman said: "We had excellent feedback after the first wave of roads went 20mph."
But the move has been slammed by Safe Speed which says the speed limit 'is a useless and misguided scheme that is likely to reduce safety'.
Paul Smith, the organisation's founder, added: "It's terribly important to road safety that we get vehicles travelling at appropriate speeds. But appropriate speeds are never determined by numbers on signs. Appropriate speeds are only determined by drivers adjusting their speed to suit the immediate conditions.
"We're shifting the balance from responsibility to regulation and it simply does not work. We need more responsibility, not more regulation.
"Latest national figures indicate that average accident severity is far higher in 20mph zones than in 30mph zones."
# In 20mph zones in 2006 17% of injury crashes were fatal or serious
More 20mph Limits Introduced
Portsmouth slows down from today
Portsmouth City Council is the first in Britain to make almost all its residential roads 20mph - and this is the second wave of roads to get the new speed limit.
A council spokesman said: "We had excellent feedback after the first wave of roads went 20mph."
But the move has been slammed by Safe Speed which says the speed limit 'is a useless and misguided scheme that is likely to reduce safety'.
Paul Smith, the organisation's founder, added: "It's terribly important to road safety that we get vehicles travelling at appropriate speeds. But appropriate speeds are never determined by numbers on signs. Appropriate speeds are only determined by drivers adjusting their speed to suit the immediate conditions.
"We're shifting the balance from responsibility to regulation and it simply does not work. We need more responsibility, not more regulation.
"Latest national figures indicate that average accident severity is far higher in 20mph zones than in 30mph zones."
# In 20mph zones in 2006 17% of injury crashes were fatal or serious
# In 30mph zones in 2006 13% of injury crashes were fatal or serious
Discussion
_James said:
Accident severity may be higher in 20mph zones, but thats a bit of a misleading statistic. 20mph zones are always going to be placed on more dangerous, residential roads. You need figures on the number of accidents per mile of each type of road to make any reasonable comparison.
I find it rather difficult to think of Tower Bridge as a "dangerous, residential road" ... or Upper Ground in London (albeit there are some residential roads off it)! - Streaky_James said:
Accident severity may be higher in 20mph zones, but thats a bit of a misleading statistic. 20mph zones are always going to be placed on more dangerous, residential roads. You need figures on the number of accidents per mile of each type of road to make any reasonable comparison.
It's a fair point regarding the statistics, however there is another more serious point about blanket reduction of speed limits being safer. If we follow this argument then we could easily say that 5mph limits should be put in place because at that speed virtually no one woudl be killed - imagine trying to maintain that slow speed in a car.... You would have to watch the speedo all the time. Likewise, but to a lesser extent, 20 mph speed limits will need you to watch your speedo more than you usually would, particularly as you can bet your bottom dollar that the authorities in Portsmouth will be policing this with every tool available, and issuing fines like they are going out of fashion.
Not many people here believe that speeding in a built up area is a good idea! However, the frustration of being held up can lead to more erratic driving behabviour, so these measures may be counter productive.
The main issue Paul Smith (and others) are trying to get across is that the blanket statement 'speed kills' is a load of old b
cks. The powers that be should be investing more time in training (drivers AND pedestrians), reducing road clutter, etc., rather than constantly believing speed is the primary issue.Out of interest James, who do you work for? Have you been employed to lobby on this site? You seem to be very sharp in defending (or being defensive about) the government's approach to motoring issues...
Going by statistics for evidence of making roads safer is a load of nonsense !
Stats only work when you have a controlled envireoment to measure them in.
because of the the flow of traffic / poeple / weather ect is different from year to year the stats will allways go up and down year to year. ie you could raise the speed limit to 40mph and see a drop in accidents.
Unless you have THE correct data of each accident and sort the data accordingly you will not have any real data.
Most of these stats of boocks
Stats only work when you have a controlled envireoment to measure them in.
because of the the flow of traffic / poeple / weather ect is different from year to year the stats will allways go up and down year to year. ie you could raise the speed limit to 40mph and see a drop in accidents.
Unless you have THE correct data of each accident and sort the data accordingly you will not have any real data.
Most of these stats of bo
ocksFartPants: Fair point, I would be the first to agree that "Speed Kills" is a pointlessly broad statement. However, I'd also argue that, at the end of the day, I'd rather you drove into me at 20mph than 30mph. Just personal preference. Of course, you could argue, that I'd prefer to be not driven into, by a driver who was concentrating on the road ahead as opposed to his speedometer.
As to my motives, I just love a good argument. I don't even believe most of what I'm saying, but I do think people on here can be very one-sided (naturally because its a motoring forum). Nothing like a bit of balance....
Tridave: "Lies, damned lies and statistics"
As to my motives, I just love a good argument. I don't even believe most of what I'm saying, but I do think people on here can be very one-sided (naturally because its a motoring forum). Nothing like a bit of balance....
Tridave: "Lies, damned lies and statistics"
Edited by _James on Friday 12th October 11:38
_James said:
Accident severity may be higher in 20mph zones, but thats a bit of a misleading statistic. 20mph zones are always going to be placed on more dangerous, residential roads. You need figures on the number of accidents per mile of each type of road to make any reasonable comparison.
That was said the last time, and ignored the last time.Despite the good work he does, I still believe Paul knows this is misleading, and he uses it deliberately so.
It would be worth so much more if he said "here is the rate on a stretch of road when it was 30mph, and here it is after it was reduced to 20mph, and the increase is....". But he never shows all the results for all the roads affected that way. I wonder why.
BFF
It does kind of undermine the argument when you know that someone is deliberately manipulating figures. As you say, why can't he give us the full picture? It also seems stupid to criticise something that is ambiguously useful, as opposed to reserving it for government intitiatives that can be proved to be useless from a safety point of view.
The point surely is that the people that take care on roads and drive safely and sensibly who actually read any of the road signs arent neccessarily the ones in general causing, or being involved in, the accidents.
The irresponsible, the partially brained, the inexpereinced, adn the inebriated drivers (not all the same person!) are unlikely to even notice the signs never mind slow down.
In defence of sensible speed in appropriate areas I have to say the only thing that always grabs my attention are strategically placed signs that flash a speed at me and tell me I am speeding - they work.
(Though not the one on a foreign M-Way which I discovered ran out of numbers over 250kmh and displayed question marks or asterix instead.)
The irresponsible, the partially brained, the inexpereinced, adn the inebriated drivers (not all the same person!) are unlikely to even notice the signs never mind slow down.
In defence of sensible speed in appropriate areas I have to say the only thing that always grabs my attention are strategically placed signs that flash a speed at me and tell me I am speeding - they work.
(Though not the one on a foreign M-Way which I discovered ran out of numbers over 250kmh and displayed question marks or asterix instead.)
Big Fat F'r said:
_James said:
Accident severity may be higher in 20mph zones, but thats a bit of a misleading statistic. 20mph zones are always going to be placed on more dangerous, residential roads. You need figures on the number of accidents per mile of each type of road to make any reasonable comparison.
That was said the last time, and ignored the last time.Despite the good work he does, I still believe Paul knows this is misleading, and he uses it deliberately so.
It would be worth so much more if he said "here is the rate on a stretch of road when it was 30mph, and here it is after it was reduced to 20mph, and the increase is....". But he never shows all the results for all the roads affected that way. I wonder why.
BFF
The government never bother to justify their bluster, propaganda, and claims...and never respond when they're caught-out. So why should Paul?
If your opponent is busy kicking you in the nuts, why stick to the MoQ rules?!? In the modern age virtually no-one respects (or cares about?) absolute honesty...
magic torch said:
It's idiotic, you'd struggle to go above 20 on most of the roads anyway.
Average speed for most drivers was 24mph before, I haven't noticed a difference in anyone's driving.
Local council are completely clueless...
[devils' advocate]Average speed for most drivers was 24mph before, I haven't noticed a difference in anyone's driving.
Local council are completely clueless...
I don't suppose they noticed the average speed of traffic and 'rounded down'. Thinking that as everyone was already travelling at near enough 20mph anyway...so a sign telling them to do that which they were already doing wouldn't make much difference?[/devils' advocate]
Big Fat F'r said:
..Paul knows this is misleading, and he uses it deliberately so.
BFF
He also quotes 'average accident severity' which is a bit irrelevant if the total number of accidents reduce.BFF
Safespeed said:
..Appropriate speeds are only determined by drivers...
Society as a whole set speed limits, not drivers.Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff