I wonder if it's because pedestrians become complacent crossing roads with a 20mph limit, maybe they feel traffic is never going fast enough to cause harm to them?
Yes, I think it's a strong possibility that this is one of the causes-they feel safer so they take more risks.
Of course the speed-kills nazis would never take this into consideration because according to them, pedestrians and cyclists never do anything wrong-it's always the car driver's fault.
|
|
I find that the speed cushions in particular are dangerous, because:-
- They are quite often accompanied by a width restriction that means the driver has to concentrate on avoiding hitting oncoming traffic, as you often have to get very near to the centre white line to straddle the speed cushion (as the width restriction posts at the side of the road move the cushion towards the middle of the road);
- The driver has one more thing to think about (as well as avoiding other vehicles, parked cars, cyclists and pedestrians);
- Given that speed cushions have been proven to damage vehcile tyres and suspension if you drive over them straddle-like (inner shoulder damage on tyres and possible tracking issues on wheels) or one wheel directly over (long-term damage to suspension even at slow speeds), it's no wonder that some people make sometimes the wrong choice to how to go over them, occasionally causing accidents. It doesn't help that many speed humps/cushions are poorly maintained (potholes next to them etc) which I think makes the problem even worse (people swerving to avoid the damaged areas).
Well done to the few councils (e.g. London Borough of Barnet) that have stood up to the "elf 'n' safety" p******s and removed many of them.
|
|
|
|
|
Any source for the reported increase? There doesn't seem to be any context given.
|
|
Well I can say from watching people drive around my neighbourhood that the 20mph zones are usually ignored. The council spent a lot of money on new signs where I live and smugly announced how safe we'd all be......in a competely closed off estate with only one in/out road. Yet they haven't bothered to repeat the exercise a little further away near the local primary school, where perhaps it would make people more aware that children are crossing.
|
|
|
Any source for the reported increase? There doesn't seem to be any context given.
Based on the latest accident figures published by the Department for Transport and analysed by the IAM,
|
|
Thats what ABD say, but I'd like to see the data. IAM site doesn't seem to have a reference, but I may have missed it.
|
|
I've now found the data. The IAM report is based on the DoT 2011 figures (main report not yet available) which include KSI and minor injuries by LA area. Portsmouth has many 20 mph zones, but they are not "blanket". DoT data doesn't identify the 20 mph zones separately, and the IAM did not make any comment on the 20 mph zones in their report.
"The majority of residential roads are covered by the 20mph limit, apart from major north-south and east-west routes including London Road, Northern Parade, Mile End Road, Eastern Road, and the seafront - which will keep their current limits" . Portsmouth City Council
Not having ever been to Portsmouth, there seem as I suspected, to be a proportion of roads subject to 30 and higher limits within the LA area. The DoT data doesn't differentiate between 20 and other limits in LA areas. Thus, the ABD have misinterpreted the data IMHO.
tinyurl.com/d2k8yxt DoT
tinyurl.com/cktr728 IAM
tinyurl.com/c8xdszq
Edited by nortones2 on 12/08/2012 at 15:31
|
|
PS: St Helens had higher KSI figures than Portsmouth, yet have not implemented 20mph limits widely.
|
|
|
I've now found the data. The IAM report is based on the DoT 2011 figures (main report not yet available) which include KSI and minor injuries by LA area. Portsmouth has many 20 mph zones, but they are not "blanket". DoT data doesn't identify the 20 mph zones separately, and the IAM did not make any comment on the 20 mph zones in their report.
"The majority of residential roads are covered by the 20mph limit, apart from major north-south and east-west routes including London Road, Northern Parade, Mile End Road, Eastern Road, and the seafront - which will keep their current limits" . Portsmouth City Council
Not having ever been to Portsmouth, there seem as I suspected, to be a proportion of roads subject to 30 and higher limits within the LA area. The DoT data doesn't differentiate between 20 and other limits in LA areas. Thus, the ABD have misinterpreted the data IMHO
If you want read the full report it's here:-
http://assets.dft.gov.uk/publications/speed-limits-portsmouth/speed-limits-portsmouth.pdf
And no, IMHO I don't think that the ABD and the IAM between them have got it wrong.
|
|
I'd be very interested to read the full report but the link doesn't seem to work.
|
|
|
|
I think I've found the source of the misdescription by ABD: tinyurl.com/97s8lma whicj contains a table from DfT. tinyurl.com/9stghoe
The salient point: the number of streets designated as 20 mph zones between 2010 and 2011. If they have increased, as seems likely, then there will be an apparent increase in the number of accidents in 20 mph zones. So this very odd apparent increase is a figment of the overexcited imagination of the ABD IMHO.
|
|
Agree with Nortones. It's an ABD press release and comes with a propaganda warning.
|
|
Yeah well done guys, attack the only pro motoring group which still exists. That'll help the cause.
|
Yeah well done guys, attack the only pro motoring group which still exists. That'll help the cause.
If 'the cause' is what the ABD wants then as somebody who also walks, rides and uses public transport it's a cause I want no part of.
|
|
Yet when morons like Brake come out with statistics which go beyond misrepresentation into plain fabricated to push an agenda of banning motoring altogether, nobody gets in a huff and questions that organisation. So why do it to the ABD?
Why is it acceptable to lie if you're anti-car these days? Why are these people not criticised in the same manner as groups like the ABD?
Edited by jamie745 on 13/08/2012 at 18:50
|
|
|
|
|
Of course they don't work because the 'speed kills' message is not based on statistics but rather a religious anti-motoring agenda. If you make people drive at an unrealistically slow speed the most likely outcome is they will ignore the limit and drive at a natural speed anyway. People don't buy cars to travel at walking pace.
|
|
I usually find that sensible limits are usually self enforcing. If I'm driving down an urban street with cars parked on both sides, I'm not going to go at 30 'because I can'. Exactly the same applies to very twisty , narrow, rural roads-the speed limit is irrelevant.
It's much better for drivers to be left to make their own decisions and only use carefully targeted traffic enforcement in black spots. Brake and all the other wannable Emmeline Pankhursts never seem to realise the danger of crying wolf.
|
|
I'm a driver, cyclist, pedestrian and a family man. My experience is that everyones idea of a sensible speed limit is different. That's why we have speed limits rather than a free for all.
Where I live is a fairly standard urban road, which often has cars parked on one or both sides. That doesn't stop the local morons thinking 40/50 mph is a 'sensible' limit (afterall they're great drivers). The Council made it a 20mph zone, and as I would expect it made not the sligtest different.
And now, because of these local morons, who have a different view to mine and others of what is a 'sensible' limit, the Council are considering traffic calming measure (road humps). So if and when these thing are introduced I will thank the morons who have set their 'sensible' limit higher than others.
I have no doubt that speed not only increases the carnage but increases the risk if an incident. (faster you are going the more distance you travel before you react)
|
The Council made it a 20mph zone, and as I would expect it made not the sligtest different.
Exactly. They're redefining rules for the minority that completely ignore the rules. Pointless. I have no problem with chicanes which are an effective traffic calming measure that don't damage the suspension.
|
|
Some good points made on this subject. I also subscribe to the argument that pedestrians become complacent in traffic calmed areas. It is certainly esier to stop walking than stop a car, even at 20mph. Around here the local morons ignore every speed limit anyway. Even our new 20mph one. At least it is better than road humps, which are a complete pain. Unthrottled gave the best comments regarding chicanes. They do the job and remove the need for humps. Even our local boy racers need to show respect to chicanes or their precious alloy wheels will take a battering. But as unthrottled also said, we all should drive to the prevailing conditions, which include parked cars, pedestrians, weather and local limits. Some forethought and commom sense from every road and pavement user would not go amiss. I still can't help thinking that the accidents that are caused are caused by a small moronic element and that redefining the rules for everyone to target this element is not the answer. Cheers Concrete
|
I also subscribe to the argument that pedestrians become complacent in traffic calmed areas. It is certainly esier to stop walking than stop a car, even at 20mph.
Of course they do. Speak to people who have to drive in heavily built up areas quite often (taxi drivers for example) and it's interesting how most of them will you that the most problematic group are not cyclists, van drivers, pensioner drivers or any of them but rather pedestrians. People who walk in the road without looking, on the phone, plugged into an iPod, talking to somebody and don't forget the classic of the mother who sticks the buggie out into the road and then looks both ways.
|
|
I'm a driver, cyclist, pedestrian and a family man. My experience is that everyones idea of a sensible speed limit is different. That's why we have speed limits rather than a free for all.
What does family man have to do with speed limits? You're right theres differences in peoples view of a sensible speed but speed limits were set up (at least originally) based on the formula of setting the limit at the speed which 85% of the traffic would travel at if there was no limit, thereby being able to penalise the dangerous idiots while not restricting convenience for the sensible majority. 20mph limits on roads which don't need them do not adhere to this basic principle of a speed limit.
Where I live is a fairly standard urban road, which often has cars parked on one or both sides. That doesn't stop the local morons thinking 40/50 mph is a 'sensible' limit (afterall they're great drivers). The Council made it a 20mph zone, and as I would expect it made not the sligtest different.
If its a road where you can do 30-40mph down it with no problem then its unrealistic to expect people to drive at 20mph on it. Forcing people to stare at their speedo while doing an unnatural speed is only going to result in more accidents.
I have no doubt that speed not only increases the carnage but increases the risk if an incident.
Well a) There is no carnage, statistics prove that and b) You can refuse to doubt something as much as you like but that doesn't make it true.
(faster you are going the more distance you travel before you react)
That old chesnut. Unfortunately you could use that argument to justify limiting every car to 1mph which would defeat the object of a car, so that argument itself is a poor one.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
