Discussion
oyster said:
Dave Hedgehog said:
oyster said:
Why is knife and gun crime of any relevance?
because the dick head mayor has spent billions on his war against the car whilst overseeing a massive increase in knife crime and death from knife crime and done f
k all about it Statement 1: He has spent billions on his war against the car? Can you provide any links to show this?
Statement 2: He has done f-all about knife crime. Again, can you provide links?
Frankly during the day, this probably doesn't make so much of a difference, but will probably stop some speeding up to 30 / 35 /40 in the event the road is slightly clearer, I suspect quite a few cyclists will be passing the cars more than before.
From what I've noticed, the prevalent Uber car, the Prius' tend to drive up to 22mph anyway as that's when the combustion engine cuts in, so they act as a natural brake on traffic speeds already.
It will be interesting around the likes of Sloane Square / Harrods etc where the Lambo's / Ferrari's etc will have to creep along at 20mph like everyone else.
I am curious though about dual carriageways, because it looks like they may well be 20mph too. I always thought the point of carriageway separation was to allow a speed differential.
It will however improve the range of electric cars and maybe thats a positive side effect of this the biggest benefit being for pedestrians.
From what I've noticed, the prevalent Uber car, the Prius' tend to drive up to 22mph anyway as that's when the combustion engine cuts in, so they act as a natural brake on traffic speeds already.
It will be interesting around the likes of Sloane Square / Harrods etc where the Lambo's / Ferrari's etc will have to creep along at 20mph like everyone else.
I am curious though about dual carriageways, because it looks like they may well be 20mph too. I always thought the point of carriageway separation was to allow a speed differential.
It will however improve the range of electric cars and maybe thats a positive side effect of this the biggest benefit being for pedestrians.
2gins said:
Pedestrian casualties per vehicle mile no different in london borough 20s to the rest.
RAS30043
That's a slight over-simplification of the facts, because it fails to take into account the extent of the injuries caused between the two areas.RAS30043
A simplified (made up) comparison here, but lets say.......
30mph borough: 100 casualties per year. 3 deaths, 10 life changing injuries, 87 incidents where casualty made full recovery.
20mph borough: 100 casualties per year. 0 deaths. 1 life changing injury, 99 incidents where casualty made full recovery.
In both cases, the basic statistics would show 100 casualties per year, so it would appear that the reduced speed limit made no difference (as you're suggesting).
In detail though, the casualties in the 20mph borough would be an improvement over those in the 30mph borough.
At the end of the day, a 1~2 ton object hitting you at 30mph, is highly likely to do more damage, than the same object hitting you at 20mph - That's just simple physics!
Lets be honest here though, whilst the "reduced casualty" argument for 20mph zones does have credence, the reality is, as with congestion charging, ULEZ charging, and plans to give cyclists and pedestrians priority over vehicles, it's just another tool being used to help make driving in London an expensive, complete misery for everyone, in order to try to force people to give up their vehicles.
4rephill said:
2gins said:
Pedestrian casualties per vehicle mile no different in london borough 20s to the rest.
RAS30043
That's a slight over-simplification of the facts, because it fails to take into account the extent of the injuries caused between the two areas.RAS30043
A simplified (made up) comparison here, but lets say.......
30mph borough: 100 casualties per year. 3 deaths, 10 life changing injuries, 87 incidents where casualty made full recovery.
20mph borough: 100 casualties per year. 0 deaths. 1 life changing injury, 99 incidents where casualty made full recovery.
In both cases, the basic statistics would show 100 casualties per year, so it would appear that the reduced speed limit made no difference (as you're suggesting).
In detail though, the casualties in the 20mph borough would be an improvement over those in the 30mph borough.
At the end of the day, a 1~2 ton object hitting you at 30mph, is highly likely to do more damage, than the same object hitting you at 20mph - That's just simple physics!
Lets be honest here though, whilst the "reduced casualty" argument for 20mph zones does have credence, the reality is, as with congestion charging, ULEZ charging, and plans to give cyclists and pedestrians priority over vehicles, it's just another tool being used to help make driving in London an expensive, complete misery for everyone, in order to try to force people to give up their vehicles.
4rephill said:
That's a slight over-simplification of the facts, because it fails to take into account the extent of the injuries caused between the two areas.
A simplified (made up) comparison here, but lets say.......
30mph borough: 100 casualties per year. 3 deaths, 10 life changing injuries, 87 incidents where casualty made full recovery.
20mph borough: 100 casualties per year. 0 deaths. 1 life changing injury, 99 incidents where casualty made full recovery.
In both cases, the basic statistics would show 100 casualties per year, so it would appear that the reduced speed limit made no difference (as you're suggesting).
In detail though, the casualties in the 20mph borough would be an improvement over those in the 30mph borough.
At the end of the day, a 1~2 ton object hitting you at 30mph, is highly likely to do more damage, than the same object hitting you at 20mph - That's just simple physics!
Lets be honest here though, whilst the "reduced casualty" argument for 20mph zones does have credence, the reality is, as with congestion charging, ULEZ charging, and plans to give cyclists and pedestrians priority over vehicles, it's just another tool being used to help make driving in London an expensive, complete misery for everyone, in order to try to force people to give up their vehicles.
I get your point and of course I'm aware of that but in fact, of the London boroughs that went 20 up to 2018, and taking only data up to 2016 because the reporting changed in 2017 which elevated casualty numbers, 8 out of 11 boroughs saw increased rates of Pedestrian killed and seriously injured (per million vehicle miles). The smallest increase was 13% (Camden), the largest 78% (Lewisham). The average increase was 40%, we're not fiddling around the edges of statistical significance here. These increases were offset by reductions in slight injuries, so in terms of total casualties both the 20 and non-20 areas increased by about 5% over the same period. Traffic levels were pretty constant.A simplified (made up) comparison here, but lets say.......
30mph borough: 100 casualties per year. 3 deaths, 10 life changing injuries, 87 incidents where casualty made full recovery.
20mph borough: 100 casualties per year. 0 deaths. 1 life changing injury, 99 incidents where casualty made full recovery.
In both cases, the basic statistics would show 100 casualties per year, so it would appear that the reduced speed limit made no difference (as you're suggesting).
In detail though, the casualties in the 20mph borough would be an improvement over those in the 30mph borough.
At the end of the day, a 1~2 ton object hitting you at 30mph, is highly likely to do more damage, than the same object hitting you at 20mph - That's just simple physics!
Lets be honest here though, whilst the "reduced casualty" argument for 20mph zones does have credence, the reality is, as with congestion charging, ULEZ charging, and plans to give cyclists and pedestrians priority over vehicles, it's just another tool being used to help make driving in London an expensive, complete misery for everyone, in order to try to force people to give up their vehicles.
Your last sentence is bang on the money. It's not about logic and reason. It's about private cars.
oyster said:
woof said:
The big question.
How are they going to implement this and catch people ?
I would expect we'll have active tracking (black box type) of all vehicles before long. The government will need this to introduce variable road pricing.How are they going to implement this and catch people ?
Seems the logical next step.
Sorry, I double posted on this topic in my earlier thread.
oyster said:
woof said:
The big question.
How are they going to implement this and catch people ?
I would expect we'll have active tracking (black box type) of all vehicles before long. The government will need this to introduce variable road pricing.How are they going to implement this and catch people ?
Seems the logical next step.
As for active tracking devices, before long, you won't have any choice in the maximum speed you can do: https://www.rac.co.uk/drive/news/motoring-news/man...
(BTW, don't get the wrong idea, I'm no fan of 20mph zones, traffic calming measures and speed cameras [I make an exception for ANPR cameras], and I'll only ever own a GPS speed limited car if there is absolutely no other choice!)
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff