Blanket 20mph in towns !
Discussion
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7046200.stm
oh great...
Just what we didn't need.
When can we get rid of this lot, please?
oh great...
Just what we didn't need.
When can we get rid of this lot, please?
The agenda is clear; it's not directly about safety, even though "Safety" is what the sound bite screams.
If one reads the comments by the
who produced this report, the agenda is simply to make cycling and walking more attractive and driving less attractive. It is a philosophical step towards banning cars from towns, pure and simple.
If one reads the comments by the
who produced this report, the agenda is simply to make cycling and walking more attractive and driving less attractive. It is a philosophical step towards banning cars from towns, pure and simple.I have just complained about the reporting on News 24 about this issue, this is what I sent:
I have just watched the report on News 24 about the idea of a blanket 20 mph speed limit in urban areas. I can honestly say that this was the most shamefully biased piece of reporting I have ever had the misfortune to witness. The statistics mentioned were not valid, it is not possible to extend from the results achieved on one piece of road to surmise what may happen to road deaths across the nation. When mentioning the improvement in road deaths over recent history there was no mention at all of the vast safety improvements due to the engineering improvements in vehicles, implying that all of the improvement was caused by speed limit policy. This report was yet another example of bias towards the failed and discredited mantra "speed kills". Even the statistics regarding the accident rate on 20 mph limits vs 30 mph limts are not as clear cut as one might think, for more clarification on this you must speak to the Safespeed organistaion. In fact in the interests of journalistic integrity you should always contact this organisation when discussing any road safety issue where speed alone is being blamed for any problems.
I hope you will have the decency to reply to this, however given the lack of integrity shown in the report I have just seen I doubt that I shall get a reply.
I have just watched the report on News 24 about the idea of a blanket 20 mph speed limit in urban areas. I can honestly say that this was the most shamefully biased piece of reporting I have ever had the misfortune to witness. The statistics mentioned were not valid, it is not possible to extend from the results achieved on one piece of road to surmise what may happen to road deaths across the nation. When mentioning the improvement in road deaths over recent history there was no mention at all of the vast safety improvements due to the engineering improvements in vehicles, implying that all of the improvement was caused by speed limit policy. This report was yet another example of bias towards the failed and discredited mantra "speed kills". Even the statistics regarding the accident rate on 20 mph limits vs 30 mph limts are not as clear cut as one might think, for more clarification on this you must speak to the Safespeed organistaion. In fact in the interests of journalistic integrity you should always contact this organisation when discussing any road safety issue where speed alone is being blamed for any problems.
I hope you will have the decency to reply to this, however given the lack of integrity shown in the report I have just seen I doubt that I shall get a reply.
andmole said:
I have just complained about the reporting on News 24 about this issue, this is what I sent:
I have just watched the report on News 24 about the idea of a blanket 20 mph speed limit in urban areas. I can honestly say that this was the most shamefully biased piece of reporting I have ever had the misfortune to witness. The statistics mentioned were not valid, it is not possible to extend from the results achieved on one piece of road to surmise what may happen to road deaths across the nation. When mentioning the improvement in road deaths over recent history there was no mention at all of the vast safety improvements due to the engineering improvements in vehicles, implying that all of the improvement was caused by speed limit policy. This report was yet another example of bias towards the failed and discredited mantra "speed kills". Even the statistics regarding the accident rate on 20 mph limits vs 30 mph limts are not as clear cut as one might think, for more clarification on this you must speak to the Safespeed organistaion. In fact in the interests of journalistic integrity you should always contact this organisation when discussing any road safety issue where speed alone is being blamed for any problems.
I hope you will have the decency to reply to this, however given the lack of integrity shown in the report I have just seen I doubt that I shall get a reply.
If that was the worst bit of BBC journalism I take it was the first time you've evr watched it then - the coverage of Climate Change is far more despicable (Not that this BS isn't).I have just watched the report on News 24 about the idea of a blanket 20 mph speed limit in urban areas. I can honestly say that this was the most shamefully biased piece of reporting I have ever had the misfortune to witness. The statistics mentioned were not valid, it is not possible to extend from the results achieved on one piece of road to surmise what may happen to road deaths across the nation. When mentioning the improvement in road deaths over recent history there was no mention at all of the vast safety improvements due to the engineering improvements in vehicles, implying that all of the improvement was caused by speed limit policy. This report was yet another example of bias towards the failed and discredited mantra "speed kills". Even the statistics regarding the accident rate on 20 mph limits vs 30 mph limts are not as clear cut as one might think, for more clarification on this you must speak to the Safespeed organistaion. In fact in the interests of journalistic integrity you should always contact this organisation when discussing any road safety issue where speed alone is being blamed for any problems.
I hope you will have the decency to reply to this, however given the lack of integrity shown in the report I have just seen I doubt that I shall get a reply.
On the plus side, the useless coommie scum are all losing their jobs, so, reasons to be cheerful!!
Chrispy Porker said:
Isn't the average speed in cities about 10mph?
I think a lot of commuters would be delighted to be able to do 20mph.
I drive to work at about 6:00 am. I could very easily, and in perfect safety, drive at about 40 on most of the roads I traverse. Twenty at that time in the morning would be fecking ridiculous.I think a lot of commuters would be delighted to be able to do 20mph.
I don't get it, you're still quite likely to be killed if you're hit by a car at 20mph.
People get killed by forklifits with a top speed of 6mph, and if you're unlucky enough to be squashed by a reversing Artic, 1mph or less will do it.
It's just political nonsense, it makes no sense at all.
People get killed by forklifits with a top speed of 6mph, and if you're unlucky enough to be squashed by a reversing Artic, 1mph or less will do it.
It's just political nonsense, it makes no sense at all.
Apparently the justification they are using is that cameras are safer and more effective than speed bumps.
Utter cobblers, arent speed humps the only thing that actually and factually show they have an effect on road speeds and/or accident statistics?
But, its not about the revenue.
Velocity tax boocks.
Utter cobblers, arent speed humps the only thing that actually and factually show they have an effect on road speeds and/or accident statistics?
But, its not about the revenue.
Velocity tax bo
ocks.On R4 earlier:
Not where I come from mate. Along with the highway code, all traffic signs & signals, common sense, personal responsibility & courtesy are optional. Especially for the pedestrians.
What I don't understand in the obvious confusion with red lights. A big round one for cars & a person shaped one for pedestrians. Simple? Oh no.
Still, making a blanking 20mph is unlikely to encourage more pedestrians unless they also address that other fave topic at the moment - obesity. I can't imagine all those heffers making their way on foot to get their Kentucky Fried Bucket or Maccy D.
anti-death cars-r-killers loony campainer know-it-all said:
People are being killed all the time. No one is safe. If the speed limit was 20mph, pedestrians would feel safer and decide to walk more
Not where I come from mate. Along with the highway code, all traffic signs & signals, common sense, personal responsibility & courtesy are optional. Especially for the pedestrians.
What I don't understand in the obvious confusion with red lights. A big round one for cars & a person shaped one for pedestrians. Simple? Oh no.
Still, making a blanking 20mph is unlikely to encourage more pedestrians unless they also address that other fave topic at the moment - obesity. I can't imagine all those heffers making their way on foot to get their Kentucky Fried Bucket or Maccy D.
perhaps they should teach pedestrians that roads are for cars and pavements are for people?
on a less flippant note, 'good' drivers should be driving below 30mph where the conditions present numerous hazards - schools, parked cars, kids etc. I would like to know the statistics for fatalities in 30 limits and also the initial speed (ie before brakes were applied) of the vehicle that hit the person. i have a feeling that a the majority of vehicles may have been exceeding the posted limit anyway, therefroe what use would the 20 limit be? obviously some would have been complete accidents. what does annoy me is that at no time is the motorist considered, they have been driving along at 25mph watching out and some young child jumps out and gets squashed. immediately the motorist is accused of speeding, driving recklessly - how about PARENTS educate you children, take some responsibility for them - they are not just a play thing (and yes I have a youngster!)
on a less flippant note, 'good' drivers should be driving below 30mph where the conditions present numerous hazards - schools, parked cars, kids etc. I would like to know the statistics for fatalities in 30 limits and also the initial speed (ie before brakes were applied) of the vehicle that hit the person. i have a feeling that a the majority of vehicles may have been exceeding the posted limit anyway, therefroe what use would the 20 limit be? obviously some would have been complete accidents. what does annoy me is that at no time is the motorist considered, they have been driving along at 25mph watching out and some young child jumps out and gets squashed. immediately the motorist is accused of speeding, driving recklessly - how about PARENTS educate you children, take some responsibility for them - they are not just a play thing (and yes I have a youngster!)
If we are all forced to drive at 20MPH instead of 30MPH that will mean that we will have to drop down one or possibly two gears to retain proper control of our vehicles. This means that we will necessarily be consuming more fuel and therefore creating more pollution in the less efficient lower gears, and probably generating more noise too. How does this help the environment ? How much will the increased pollution from all the cars affect everyone else's health ? Will it actually kill more people per year than the few toddlers lives the proposed changes are supposed to save ?
Argh! Just enforce the sodding driving standards in urban areas first, and then see what speed limit you need (or don't) after that!
It's like the people crashing into things because they can't work out what is or isn't a reasonable time to make a telephone call - the law is now something like immediate exile to the Moon for so much as thinking about a telephone while driving a car, but it doesn't matter one iota as it's rarely if ever enforced.
It pisses me off that I know a large number of places where I can attract a hefty fine or even lose my license while driving safely (albeit not legally), but I can drive past not just my house, but the house of nearly everyone I know, at 70mph, one hand on the wheel, adjusting the stereo, in a car that's not even roadworthy, and unless I'm really unlucky I'll get away with it.
It's like the people crashing into things because they can't work out what is or isn't a reasonable time to make a telephone call - the law is now something like immediate exile to the Moon for so much as thinking about a telephone while driving a car, but it doesn't matter one iota as it's rarely if ever enforced.
It pisses me off that I know a large number of places where I can attract a hefty fine or even lose my license while driving safely (albeit not legally), but I can drive past not just my house, but the house of nearly everyone I know, at 70mph, one hand on the wheel, adjusting the stereo, in a car that's not even roadworthy, and unless I'm really unlucky I'll get away with it.
jwo said:
what does annoy me is that at no time is the motorist considered, they have been driving along at 25mph watching out and some young child jumps out and gets squashed. immediately the motorist is accused of speeding, driving recklessly - how about PARENTS educate you children, take some responsibility for them - they are not just a play thing (and yes I have a youngster!)
55 year old university lecturers do this as well unbelievably.The report i caught on Radio 4 said that 20 zones have less traffic and less accidents, that is a massive no sshitt sherlock 20 zones are generally a small estate that as soon as it became 20 dropped off the rat run routes. Scalling up won't happen, I may avoid a 20 zone by driving a half mile more and sticking to main roads, missing out a whole town/city no chance.
Plotloss said:
Apparently the justification they are using is that cameras are safer and more effective than speed bumps.
Utter cobblers, arent speed humps the only thing that actually and factually show they have an effect on road speeds and/or accident statistics?
But, its not about the revenue.
Velocity tax boocks.
Speed bumps are very effective - As a general rule no matter what car I am driving if I come across a speed bump I will stop and crawl over. Or if there is any possible alternate route I will do a U turn and go another way. 2 of my cars have had unexplained bush/suspension issues and the local MOT place told me that since the speed bumps were insttalled all around the town where they live they have seen a massive increase in the same kind of failures. I cant be the only one who does this so they are doing a good job of reducing the traffic levels. Ok so it doesnt help the other pile of crap that is so called global warming because now when i want to go to the local swimming pool (for example) instead of it being about 2 miles drive its now about 3.5 as I have to go all around the outside of town and down the bypass to avoid the humps. Utter cobblers, arent speed humps the only thing that actually and factually show they have an effect on road speeds and/or accident statistics?
But, its not about the revenue.
Velocity tax bo
ocks.And yes I do sometimes cycle or walk to the pool but on a cold dark night the car is the only option...
There's a road near us which has a primary school on it. Used to be a 30, and was used as a rat-run (often not at 30!). Now a 20 with humps...far less traffic on the road (due to humps), but the 20 is arguably unnecessary - the humps near the school slow you down enough, and they're only really needed for 2-3hrs a day. Not sure what the correct answer was (20 or humps or smth else), but both is overkill (and bl''dy uncomfortable in the 'teg!!!).
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff