20mph zone crashes up by 26%
Discussion
http://news.sky.com/story/1294728/20mph-zone-road-...
Maybe we need 10mph zones to combat this problem.
Apologies if repost, but story is only an hour old
Maybe we need 10mph zones to combat this problem.
Apologies if repost, but story is only an hour old
20mph is not an unnatural speed, and I've never had a car that cruises along at the bottom of 3rd at 30mph - a range of cars spreading from pretty slow to pretty quick. I had a diesel that needed to cruise in 4th at 30mph but all my other cars do it happily in 5th bar the Cerb which also likes 4th unless I'm deliberately trying to make lots of noise.
This increase in accidents is most likely the same accidents in the same locations they always would have been except now those locations have been reclassified as 20mph zones. Presumably 30mph zones have seen a similar sized reduction in accidents.
This increase in accidents is most likely the same accidents in the same locations they always would have been except now those locations have been reclassified as 20mph zones. Presumably 30mph zones have seen a similar sized reduction in accidents.
Poopipe said:
20mph is an unnatural speed for vehicles that have been designed to do 30 at the bottom of third - ie most cars
As a result you're arguing with the engine and eyeballing the speedo instead of paying attention to whats going on outside - I am unsurprised by this statistic
trueAs a result you're arguing with the engine and eyeballing the speedo instead of paying attention to whats going on outside - I am unsurprised by this statistic
jamieduff1981 said:
20mph is not an unnatural speed, and I've never had a car that cruises along at the bottom of 3rd at 30mph - a range of cars spreading from pretty slow to pretty quick. I had a diesel that needed to cruise in 4th at 30mph but all my other cars do it happily in 5th bar the Cerb which also likes 4th unless I'm deliberately trying to make lots of noise.
This increase in accidents is most likely the same accidents in the same locations they always would have been except now those locations have been reclassified as 20mph zones. Presumably 30mph zones have seen a similar sized reduction in accidents.
Seems the most likely explanation.This increase in accidents is most likely the same accidents in the same locations they always would have been except now those locations have been reclassified as 20mph zones. Presumably 30mph zones have seen a similar sized reduction in accidents.
I hate them because they make cycling more dangerous, but it's more that drivers refuse to acknowledge that you are actually doing 20mph or more and insist on overtaking you anyway just because you are on a bike. Then there's the traffic calming which usually ignores the safety of bicycles.
How can you even begin to have any form of article without reference to the amount of 20mph zones?
Without know the change, almost certainly an increase, in the number of miles of 20mph zone roading then no statistic has any relevance at all.
And on top of that, the rate of change is pretty meaningless without some base numbers.
Without know the change, almost certainly an increase, in the number of miles of 20mph zone roading then no statistic has any relevance at all.
And on top of that, the rate of change is pretty meaningless without some base numbers.
'The number of serious accidents on 20mph roads has increased by 26 per cent last year, according to analysis of government data by road safety charity, Institute of Advanced Motorists.
Slight accidents on 20mph roads increased by 17 per cent.
In the same year, there was a decrease in the number of serious and slight accidents on 30mph roads and 40 mph roads.
Serious accidents went down 9 per cent on 30mph roads and 7 per cent on 40 mph roads.
There was a five per cent reduction in slight accidents on 30 mph roads and a three per cent decrease on 40 mph roads.
Even though the decrease in 30 zone accidents is partially because some have been displaced by 20 zones, the imposition of 20 zones has still led to a significant increase in accidents. '
So, the larger network shows a smaller decrease and the smaller network shows a larger increase.
You genuinely couldn't make this up.
Slight accidents on 20mph roads increased by 17 per cent.
In the same year, there was a decrease in the number of serious and slight accidents on 30mph roads and 40 mph roads.
Serious accidents went down 9 per cent on 30mph roads and 7 per cent on 40 mph roads.
There was a five per cent reduction in slight accidents on 30 mph roads and a three per cent decrease on 40 mph roads.
Even though the decrease in 30 zone accidents is partially because some have been displaced by 20 zones, the imposition of 20 zones has still led to a significant increase in accidents. '
So, the larger network shows a smaller decrease and the smaller network shows a larger increase.
You genuinely couldn't make this up.
It was also up 24% back in 2011 but this article includes some raw data.
http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19226144
It seems to suggest that the total number of deaths in 2011 was 7 for 20mph zones.
I suspect the network of 20mph zones has more than doubled since then and regardless of that, the numbers are so small that percentage changes are almost meaningless. The increase could be down to the considerable increase in the number of cyclists or the number of pedestrians using smartphones or even the number of tourists looking the wrong way.
You'd need to drill down on the raw data to have any chance of making a guess at the reason.
This one is better: http://www.roadsafetygb.org.uk/news/3161.html
http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19226144
It seems to suggest that the total number of deaths in 2011 was 7 for 20mph zones.
I suspect the network of 20mph zones has more than doubled since then and regardless of that, the numbers are so small that percentage changes are almost meaningless. The increase could be down to the considerable increase in the number of cyclists or the number of pedestrians using smartphones or even the number of tourists looking the wrong way.
You'd need to drill down on the raw data to have any chance of making a guess at the reason.
This one is better: http://www.roadsafetygb.org.uk/news/3161.html
Edited by DonkeyApple on Friday 4th July 08:36
DonkeyApple said:
How can you even begin to have any form of article without reference to the amount of 20mph zones?
Without know the change, almost certainly an increase, in the number of miles of 20mph zone roading then no statistic has any relevance at all.
And on top of that, the rate of change is pretty meaningless without some base numbers.
Agreed, the 'journalist' is either stupid, incompetent, or has an obvious agenda.Without know the change, almost certainly an increase, in the number of miles of 20mph zone roading then no statistic has any relevance at all.
And on top of that, the rate of change is pretty meaningless without some base numbers.
Whichever the answer she shouldn't be allowed anywhere near a news group. That s
t infuriates me.What i suspect this shows is, that, regardless of the "Speed limit" and the arbitary number on a small round metal sign, as humans, we just automatically drive to a percieved level of "risk". In a 20mph, that means we just get distracted by other things, like phones, radio, sat nav, our children in the back seats, wondering what to have for dinner etc. A modern car at 20mph requires zero driver input to control it, and so our brain finds something else to do. Then, something unexpected happens (unexpected because we were ready for it) and we crash. Of course, at that point, the single "advantage" of 20mph zones IS in our favour, the fact we aren't going that fast.
For most drivers (probably 99.999% on any given day) driving in a 20mph zone is counter intuitive, because there are no actual physical feedback from the conditions that 20mph is a sensible speed. We drive without incident down often empty wide roads with signs shouting "slow down!!" at us, but our eyes and other senses are not backing up those signs. As a result, over time, we start to ignore the "Slow down" signs, because the last 10,000 times we passed one, nothing bad happened. Unfortunately, for an exremely low number of drivers, they do experience an incident, but this is so rare that regression to the normal is a much, much stronger forcing factor in the average drivers choice of speed.
Unfortunately, with increasing reliance on signage, arbitarily low limits, and often pointless ones, we are not teaching new drivers to be able to regulate their own speed and adjust it as necessary. So, we get drivers who still crash and even in 20mph zones.......
For most drivers (probably 99.999% on any given day) driving in a 20mph zone is counter intuitive, because there are no actual physical feedback from the conditions that 20mph is a sensible speed. We drive without incident down often empty wide roads with signs shouting "slow down!!" at us, but our eyes and other senses are not backing up those signs. As a result, over time, we start to ignore the "Slow down" signs, because the last 10,000 times we passed one, nothing bad happened. Unfortunately, for an exremely low number of drivers, they do experience an incident, but this is so rare that regression to the normal is a much, much stronger forcing factor in the average drivers choice of speed.
Unfortunately, with increasing reliance on signage, arbitarily low limits, and often pointless ones, we are not teaching new drivers to be able to regulate their own speed and adjust it as necessary. So, we get drivers who still crash and even in 20mph zones.......
DonkeyApple said:
'The number of serious accidents on 20mph roads has increased by 26 per cent last year, according to analysis of government data by road safety charity, Institute of Advanced Motorists.
Slight accidents on 20mph roads increased by 17 per cent.
In the same year, there was a decrease in the number of serious and slight accidents on 30mph roads and 40 mph roads.
Serious accidents went down 9 per cent on 30mph roads and 7 per cent on 40 mph roads.
There was a five per cent reduction in slight accidents on 30 mph roads and a three per cent decrease on 40 mph roads.
Even though the decrease in 30 zone accidents is partially because some have been displaced by 20 zones, the imposition of 20 zones has still led to a significant increase in accidents. '
So, the larger network shows a smaller decrease and the smaller network shows a larger increase.
You genuinely couldn't make this up.
...and all this decrease in accidents whilst the "safety cameras" have mostly been turned off to save money!Slight accidents on 20mph roads increased by 17 per cent.
In the same year, there was a decrease in the number of serious and slight accidents on 30mph roads and 40 mph roads.
Serious accidents went down 9 per cent on 30mph roads and 7 per cent on 40 mph roads.
There was a five per cent reduction in slight accidents on 30 mph roads and a three per cent decrease on 40 mph roads.
Even though the decrease in 30 zone accidents is partially because some have been displaced by 20 zones, the imposition of 20 zones has still led to a significant increase in accidents. '
So, the larger network shows a smaller decrease and the smaller network shows a larger increase.
You genuinely couldn't make this up.
There was a similar report in my local free-sheet quoting a fall in accident stats in the borough. The council turned the cameras off here too.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff