Blanket 20mph limit across Wales from 2023
Discussion
Evanivitch said:
turbobloke said:
This report (pdf) uses data on the impact of 20 limits.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5bf...
Interestingly the conclusions are firm on safety outcomes, in spite of the content above. Conclusions also acknowledge that the study "has not sought to collect primary data on wider impacts relating to the local economy..." which is a shame but not surprising. Cost benefit analysis needs costs as well.
Anyway... while the wheels are falling off 20mph in Wales, It remains to be seen how long (time) and how far the resulting policy skid will go.
That report uses data from a study with only limited implementation of 20 mph and in areas where speeds were already below 30 mph due to the nature of the hazard. Actual speed reductions were minor (<1.5mph) as a result.https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5bf...
Report said:
How have collision and casualty rates changed? What has been the change in residential areas?
The comparator analysis indicates that there is insufficient evidence to conclude that there has been a significant change in collisions and casualties following the introduction of 20mph limits in residential areas, in the short term (based on the post-implementation data available to date). Although the absolute number of collisions and casualties (per km, per year) has reduced in the residential areas, there has also been a reduction in the corresponding 30mph comparator areas.
Only one area was noted where the change in collisions and casualties, relative to the 30mph comparator area, was significant. There were 12 case study schemes. The comparator analysis indicates that there is insufficient evidence to conclude that there has been a significant change in collisions and casualties following the introduction of 20mph limits in residential areas, in the short term (based on the post-implementation data available to date). Although the absolute number of collisions and casualties (per km, per year) has reduced in the residential areas, there has also been a reduction in the corresponding 30mph comparator areas.
Interestingly the conclusions are firm on safety outcomes, in spite of the content above. Conclusions also acknowledge that the study "has not sought to collect primary data on wider impacts relating to the local economy..." which is a shame but not surprising. Cost benefit analysis needs costs as well.
Anyway... while the wheels are falling off 20mph in Wales, It remains to be seen how long (time) and how far the resulting policy skid will go.
It's an entirely different approach in Wales. And enforcement has yet to really take effect. Majority of drivers are still offered roadside education.
Byker28i said:
Basically what everyone was saying right at the start. No problem with 20mph areas in places such as around schools at appropriate times, like they do in England, but reducing almost 35% of wales roads to 20mph was ludicrous
Exactly this. I drove into Wales a few weeks after the scheme started. Coming off the (slow) motorway, I though I'd got caught up in a funeral cortege at first.Then I drove down into Cardiff and the road outside of a high school was still a 30mph limit. It didn't make sense.
Jeremy Vine will be 'discussing' it today.
In his short pre show chat with Vernon Kay he briefly chatted about it.
Kay said he had been in north Wales recently and 'the 20 mile speed limit, nobody likes it'
Vine asked 'Did you enjoy it'.
Kay replied 'No I didn't enjoy the 20 mile an hour speed limit'
'But what about the kids whose lives were saved' asked Vine
'I didn't see any kids' replied Vernon quickly. 'There were none, there were none there Jeremy, so it's alright, they were alright because they weren't on the pavement' he continued.
Made me smile.
In his short pre show chat with Vernon Kay he briefly chatted about it.
Kay said he had been in north Wales recently and 'the 20 mile speed limit, nobody likes it'
Vine asked 'Did you enjoy it'.
Kay replied 'No I didn't enjoy the 20 mile an hour speed limit'
'But what about the kids whose lives were saved' asked Vine
'I didn't see any kids' replied Vernon quickly. 'There were none, there were none there Jeremy, so it's alright, they were alright because they weren't on the pavement' he continued.
Made me smile.
the tribester said:
Jeremy Vine will be 'discussing' it today.
In his short pre show chat with Vernon Kay he briefly chatted about it.
Kay said he had been in north Wales recently and 'the 20 mile speed limit, nobody likes it'
Vine asked 'Did you enjoy it'.
Kay replied 'No I didn't enjoy the 20 mile an hour speed limit'
'But what about the kids whose lives were saved' asked Vine
'I didn't see any kids' replied Vernon quickly. 'There were none, there were none there Jeremy, so it's alright, they were alright because they weren't on the pavement' he continued.
Made me smile.
Either JV was being devil's advocate or not, probably not. More likely, Vine has read headlines from modelling guesstimates, but not actual data from actual research which e.g. compares the accident rate at 20 sites with continuing 30 sites nearby. The 20 sites are predicted using modelling to do this and that, coincidentally showing safety improvements, but it didn't work out that way in the report using actual data from actual 20 sites compared to nearby 30 sites which I linked to yesterday. Modelling can always be carried out to reach a desired outcome, and whether that's the case or not, people will read about it as 'research' and believe the predictions as though they were facts in actual data. Vine looks like a case in point. There's a lot of it about.In his short pre show chat with Vernon Kay he briefly chatted about it.
Kay said he had been in north Wales recently and 'the 20 mile speed limit, nobody likes it'
Vine asked 'Did you enjoy it'.
Kay replied 'No I didn't enjoy the 20 mile an hour speed limit'
'But what about the kids whose lives were saved' asked Vine
'I didn't see any kids' replied Vernon quickly. 'There were none, there were none there Jeremy, so it's alright, they were alright because they weren't on the pavement' he continued.
Made me smile.
Byker28i said:
Basically what everyone was saying right at the start. No problem with 20mph areas in places such as around schools at appropriate times, like they do in England, but reducing almost 35% of wales roads to 20mph was ludicrous
It’s 20 past schools all the time here (England) I have no issue with that it’s sensible not just at 3:30. BoRED S2upid said:
Byker28i said:
Basically what everyone was saying right at the start. No problem with 20mph areas in places such as around schools at appropriate times, like they do in England, but reducing almost 35% of wales roads to 20mph was ludicrous
It’s 20 past schools all the time here (England) I have no issue with that it’s sensible not just at 3:30. the tribester said:
Jeremy Vine will be 'discussing' it today.
In his short pre show chat with Vernon Kay he briefly chatted about it.
Kay said he had been in north Wales recently and 'the 20 mile speed limit, nobody likes it'
Vine asked 'Did you enjoy it'.
Kay replied 'No I didn't enjoy the 20 mile an hour speed limit'
'But what about the kids whose lives were saved' asked Vine
'I didn't see any kids' replied Vernon quickly. 'There were none, there were none there Jeremy, so it's alright, they were alright because they weren't on the pavement' he continued.
Made me smile.
Vine is insufferable to be honest. A shining beacon of the wokey BS that we have to put up with these days. In his short pre show chat with Vernon Kay he briefly chatted about it.
Kay said he had been in north Wales recently and 'the 20 mile speed limit, nobody likes it'
Vine asked 'Did you enjoy it'.
Kay replied 'No I didn't enjoy the 20 mile an hour speed limit'
'But what about the kids whose lives were saved' asked Vine
'I didn't see any kids' replied Vernon quickly. 'There were none, there were none there Jeremy, so it's alright, they were alright because they weren't on the pavement' he continued.
Made me smile.
turbobloke said:
KTMsm said:
Evanivitch said:
It's a great research paper...
"evidence suggests that the health benefits of 20mph are far, far greater than
casualty savings alone. They include increased physical activity, and therefore less obesity,
less stress and less anxiety..."
How exactly does reducing my free time, by forcing me to spend more time in my car, get me fitter ?"evidence suggests that the health benefits of 20mph are far, far greater than
casualty savings alone. They include increased physical activity, and therefore less obesity,
less stress and less anxiety..."
I had far more stress and anxiety being forced to drive behind some moron at 15 mph (in my last trip to Wales). Than I did at 35ish on previous trips
I clicked on the link offered for Technical-Paper-101.The-value-of-prevention.AD_.pdf and got 'Not Found The requested URL was not found on this server'.
The date appears to be 2022 and as such it inevitably provides a historical view as at 2024 of public support levels. If I got to info on the same report being quoted above, by searching on the quote itself, then there's also this "New research showing a reduction in deaths and injuries as traffic slows down is being published today alongside new survey results showing continued public support for the national roll out of the lower 20mph speed limit next year".
The phrasing "as traffic slows down" suggests modelling of future outcomes rather than data gathered already in the real world. Any sampling was prior to the roll-out "next year (at the time) and hence must be limited. The phrases "could save"and "estimated cost saving" as opposed to "has saved" or "savings achieved" also suggest modelling rather than data alone has been used for assessing projected benefits as opposed to actual benefits. If only the file was on the server.
,
There's not much to be seen on the real costs of a go-slow, as opposed to benefits. Any cost-benefit analysis requires both costs and benefits. For example there's more than one way of slowing down vehicular travel, alongside compliance with lower speed limits there's congestion. The costs of slower travel are high. Where and what are they in the report that wasn't on the server?
https://blogs.napier.ac.uk/tri/wp-content/uploads/...
RSTurboPaul said:
turbobloke said:
KTMsm said:
Evanivitch said:
It's a great research paper...
"evidence suggests that the health benefits of 20mph are far, far greater than
casualty savings alone. They include increased physical activity, and therefore less obesity,
less stress and less anxiety..."
How exactly does reducing my free time, by forcing me to spend more time in my car, get me fitter ?"evidence suggests that the health benefits of 20mph are far, far greater than
casualty savings alone. They include increased physical activity, and therefore less obesity,
less stress and less anxiety..."
I had far more stress and anxiety being forced to drive behind some moron at 15 mph (in my last trip to Wales). Than I did at 35ish on previous trips
I clicked on the link offered for Technical-Paper-101.The-value-of-prevention.AD_.pdf and got 'Not Found The requested URL was not found on this server'.
The date appears to be 2022 and as such it inevitably provides a historical view as at 2024 of public support levels. If I got to info on the same report being quoted above, by searching on the quote itself, then there's also this "New research showing a reduction in deaths and injuries as traffic slows down is being published today alongside new survey results showing continued public support for the national roll out of the lower 20mph speed limit next year".
The phrasing "as traffic slows down" suggests modelling of future outcomes rather than data gathered already in the real world. Any sampling was prior to the roll-out "next year (at the time) and hence must be limited. The phrases "could save"and "estimated cost saving" as opposed to "has saved" or "savings achieved" also suggest modelling rather than data alone has been used for assessing projected benefits as opposed to actual benefits. If only the file was on the server.
,
There's not much to be seen on the real costs of a go-slow, as opposed to benefits. Any cost-benefit analysis requires both costs and benefits. For example there's more than one way of slowing down vehicular travel, alongside compliance with lower speed limits there's congestion. The costs of slower travel are high. Where and what are they in the report that wasn't on the server?
I believe this link will pull up that paper:
https://blogs.napier.ac.uk/tri/wp-content/uploads/...
Edited by turbobloke on Thursday 25th April 13:26
The report updates Jones and Brunt (2017) to 2019 and looks at costs of casualties using the usual methodology (a thread on its own). It hasn't considered that time is money such that delays in transit can have an impact on local and national GDP, nor has it looked at the psychological and physical health costs of driving for periods of time at a speed too low for the conditions but in keeping with an arbitrary limit. Concentration can decrease when driving too slowly for the conditions, causing accidents, learners can still fail a test for driving too slowly (slow isn't always better overall). The so-called cost-benefit analysis has omitted several costs and the benefits are sophisticated guesse - the limits came into force around a year after the report, so health impacts were modelled and are not evidence in the way actual data is.
Given that the report I posted recently, with actual data from actual 20 limits, found parallel reductions in accidents and therefore safety benefits in both actual 20 limits and in nearby 30 limits which weren't lowered, the causal link between lower limits and claimed benefits has not been unambiguously established. No amount of modelling can do that anyway.
ETA
Given that the report I posted recently, with actual data from actual 20 limits, found parallel reductions in accidents and therefore safety benefits in both actual 20 limits and in nearby 30 limits which weren't lowered, the causal link between lower limits and claimed benefits has not been unambiguously established. No amount of modelling can do that anyway.
ETA
arnoldanditkin dot com on road safety said:
Traffic officials consider driving too slowly a traffic hazard that can frustrate and confuse other drivers.
Mandating it is rather odd to say the least. What it does is put everyone in the same leaky boat.Edited by turbobloke on Thursday 25th April 15:45
Edited by turbobloke on Thursday 25th April 15:45
DodgyGeezer said:
turbobloke said:
should've just left earlier
oakdale said:
The people who signed the petition aren't the sort of folk that go on demonstrations, they're just ordinary people who want to get on with their lives without being impeded by WG stupidity.
Sounds about right.Unlike other sorts who slavishly swallow any old government information pollution, typically wearing wireless earbuds so they can stay alive by listening to 'government says breathe in government says breathe out government says breathe in'...'.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff