20mph speed limit called for in towns

[Crispy]

I think you will find ALL 20mph zones were previously 30mph zones.
The data is so conterintuitive as to warrant not imposing blanket 20mph zones until much more research is done.

That data shows no such thing. Look at it again. I couldn't find any data comparing before the creation of a 20mph limit and after - please show me data of this nature.

 

[agricola]

The stats you linked to compared currently existing 20mph and 30mph zones. NOT the results of applying a 20mph to an area that had previously been 30mph. That is the critical thing to examine. What changing to 20mph does.

I suspect that areas that have been changed to 20 had that change applied because they were already accident prone - eg. outside schools, narrow residential etc.

As I said above, simply pointing to the change in speed limits does not explain the effect. What is happening (in London at least) is you are moving from a situation where a 30 mph speed limit is not enforced (the studies show that between 65% and 70% of people routinely break the 30mph limit), to one where a 20 mph speed limit is enforced.

A truer comparison would be to actually enforce a 30 mph zone and see what the end result was.

 

[Crispy]

As I said above, simply pointing to the change in speed limits does not explain the effect. What is happening (in London at least) is you are moving from a situation where a 30 mph speed limit is not enforced (the studies show that between 65% and 70% of people routinely break the 30mph limit), to one where a 20 mph speed limit is enforced.

A truer comparison would be to actually enforce a 30 mph zone and see what the end result was.

Agreed.

 

[citydreams]

The data is so conterintuitive as to warrant not imposing blanket 20mph zones until much more research is done.

what kind of research?

 

[chymaera]

That data shows no such thing. Look at it again. I couldn't find any data comparing before the creation of a 20mph limit and after - please show me data of this nature.

I have no idea about that data.
The data:-
In 20mph zones in 2006 17% of injury crashes were fatal or serious
In 30mph zones in 2006 13% of injury crashes were fatal or serious

Is so counter intuitive it warrants further research to find out why a higher percentage of fatalities in 20mph zones.
Personally I am astounded there are ANY accidents in 20mph zones as unless you are resident in them they are avoided like the plague by most drivers, especially if there are speed bumps as well.

 

[citydreams]

be to actually enforce a 30 mph zone and see what the end result was.

But an even better one is to have a double-blind experiment -
ie compare a 30mph enforced v's not-enforced to a 20mph enforced v's not enforced.

 

[citydreams]

Personally I am astounded there are ANY accidents in 20mph zones as unless you are resident in them they are avoided like the plague by most drivers, especially if there are speed bumps as well.

er, joyriders. 100,000s of the blighters

 

[chymaera]

er, joyriders. 100,000s of the blighters

If you can find some stats about joyriders killing and injuring people in 20mph zones I would be obliged. (I suspect such incidents are mainly confined to a few post codes.)

 

[Crispy]

I still can't figure out how driving 10mph slower might cause more accidents, though. Disregarding enforcement etc. - Can we all agree that slower traffic is safer for pedestrians and drivers alike?

 

[agricola]

But an even better one is to have a double-blind experiment -
ie compare a 30mph enforced v's not-enforced to a 20mph enforced v's not enforced.

True, though I would guess that the thing that made everything work (or not work) was the actual enforcement of the limit (which of course extends to the driving standards on the road), at whatever setting it was. Enforcement, however, is less politically headline-grabbing than reducing the limit.

The point about joyriders is a valid one, and personally I would extend it to point out that the serious accidents that do take place, irrespective of the speed limit, usually have similar causes - not the least of which is drivers who do not follow the law (whether it be the limit, having insurance or a licence, having nicked the car, being drunk, drugged or disqualified etc) and who are not paying attention (to the speed limit or otherwise). Those people will not be affected by cosmetic changes in speed limits, and are very unlikely to be stopped by speed cameras.

 

[citydreams]

Those people will not be affected by cosmetic changes in speed limits, and are very unlikely to be stopped by speed cameras.

But they will be more noticeable at lower speeds, so more likely to be arrested.

A stolen car is 2000 times more likely to be involved in an accident than a legally owned one.
http://www.ned-cab.org.uk/youth/carcrime.shtml

There were 250,000 cases of joyriding in 2004.
http://www.theaa.com/aattitude/driving-truths/young-driver-issues/media-talking.jsp

 

[agricola]

But they will be more noticeable at lower speeds, so more likely to be arrested.

A stolen car is 2000 times more likely to be involved in an accident than a legally owned one.
http://www.ned-cab.org.uk/youth/carcrime.shtml

There were 250,000 cases of joyriding in 2004.
http://www.theaa.com/aattitude/driving-truths/young-driver-issues/media-talking.jsp

Stolen cars, especially those driven by joyriders, are usually quite easy to spot anyway - and if there arent enough Police around because the moneys been spent on speed cameras, its less likely they will have been arrested.

Even if they do get caught, we persist in allowing the Courts to impose joke sentences for those guilty of driving matters (stolen cars or otherwise).

 

[citydreams]

Stolen cars, especially those driven by joyriders, are usually quite easy to spot anyway

I don't think so. Not until they start driving very erratically.. Which in London still isn't easy to spot.

/I'm an ex-joyrider

if there arent enough Police around because the moneys been spent on speed cameras, its less likely they will have been arrested.

How can you aruge that when speed cameras are profitable?

 

[agricola]

How can you aruge that when speed cameras are profitable?

Because the profit made off cameras does not go back to pay for more traffic police (whose numbers have declined since 1997), and also because the source of the profit - usually "normal" people going about their business caught by an unfamiliar camera - is not the group of people who are usually responsible for the problem that the speed camera should be there to prevent.

One might also suggest that traffic police can also go after other groups who are increasingly responsible for serious and fatal accidents - commercial lorry and truck drivers being the most immediately obvious - wheras a speed camera enforcing an arbitrary limit cannot.

 

[chymaera]

- Can we all agree that slower traffic is safer for pedestrians and drivers alike?

I would have done until I saw the data showing otherwise. There would appear to be a point where the opposite is happening, which needs some investigation as to why.

 

[twistedAM]

Disregarding enforcement etc. - Can we all agree that slower traffic is safer for pedestrians and drivers alike?

People would have to get new cars if it was 20mph for substantial stretches. I would barely get in 3rd gear.

The more I read this thread the more I am in favour of keeping things the same. My concentration seems to veer when stuck behind some high-as-a-kite twunt doing 20-25mph at night.

 

[mk12]

You've obviously never been in the situation where you're driving along at 20 mph (painfully slowly) on a completely empty stretch of road in a well-lit city centre at around 3am.

Exactly. It's awful. Someone died on a stretch of road (60mph), so they cut the speed down to 40mph.

He died because he bent down to pick a mobile phone off the floor of his car. Nothing to do with speed. It's unbearable driving along that road now, and I don't know anyone who adheres to it. Just because a few old gits in a local village campaigned to get the limit changed

 

[gentlegreen]

People would have to get new cars if it was 20mph for substantial stretches. I would barely get in 3rd gear.

The more I read this thread the more I am in favour of keeping things the same. My concentration seems to veer when stuck behind some high-as-a-kite twunt doing 20-25mph at night.

That "high-as-a-kite twunt", may simply be someone like me (completely sober), who has simply found that lower speeds are waaaay less stressful.
(I gave up motorcycles and speed in my 20s.)

 

[TAE]

The data:-
In 20mph zones in 2006 17% of injury crashes were fatal or serious
In 30mph zones in 2006 13% of injury crashes were fatal or serious

That does not tell us how many fatal crashes there were in the two types of zones.

Also, as others have pointed out, it is possible that the 20mph zones were more at risk and that's why they were 20mph zones.

 

[chymaera]

That does not tell us how many fatal crashes there were in the two types of zones.

Also, as others have pointed out, it is possible that the 20mph zones were more at risk and that's why they were 20mph zones.

Which is why I think further investigation is necessary before any blanket imposition of 20mph speed limits.

 

[TAE]

Or we could just look at the numbers we already have.

 

[chymaera]

Or we could just look at the numbers we already have.

If you can find them feel free to reference them here.

 

[TAE]

Post #32 !

"Lowering the speed limit to 20mph reduces total road traffic casualty levels by around 60% and child casualties by around 70% according to studies in both Britain and Denmark."

 

[Nigel]

KILL ALL NANNY STATE FUCKING LIBERALS!!!
KILL ALL NANNY STATE FUCKING LIBERALS!!!
KILL ALL NANNY STATE FUCKING LIBERALS!!!
KILL ALL NANNY STATE FUCKING LIBERALS!!!
KILL ALL NANNY STATE FUCKING LIBERALS!!!
KILL ALL NANNY STATE FUCKING LIBERALS!!!
KILL ALL NANNY STATE FUCKING LIBERALS!!!
KILL ALL NANNY STATE FUCKING LIBERALS!!!
KILL ALL NANNY STATE FUCKING LIBERALS!!!
KILL ALL NANNY STATE FUCKING LIBERALS!!!

 

[agricola]

KILL ALL NANNY STATE FUCKING LIBERALS!!!
KILL ALL NANNY STATE FUCKING LIBERALS!!!
KILL ALL NANNY STATE FUCKING LIBERALS!!!
KILL ALL NANNY STATE FUCKING LIBERALS!!!
KILL ALL NANNY STATE FUCKING LIBERALS!!!
KILL ALL NANNY STATE FUCKING LIBERALS!!!
KILL ALL NANNY STATE FUCKING LIBERALS!!!
KILL ALL NANNY STATE FUCKING LIBERALS!!!
KILL ALL NANNY STATE FUCKING LIBERALS!!!
KILL ALL NANNY STATE FUCKING LIBERALS!!!

.....

 

[Crispy]

What about liberals who don't fuck the nanny state?

 

[detective-boy]

I agree. Alas the traffic police seem to always park their speed traps on wide, safe ring roads. Catching people doing 40mph on roads that it's perfectly safe to drive that speed on. I have never seen a police speed trap on a small residential road.

Never mind the traffic police ... there are precious few of them anyway. Have you ever seen a camera on a small residential road.

(If so, please tell me where ... I want to come and have a look at it!)

 

[detective-boy]

A truer comparison would be to actually enforce a 30 mph zone and see what the end result was.

You also need to seperate out the speed limit from the speed the driver in the accident was going. Most accidents are caused by other things apart from speed such as driving without due care and attention. The driver who is driving without due care and attention is hardly likely to be observing the speed limit, no matter what it is.

No matter what speed limit you put in, a competent and careful driver will not have as many accidents as the twat. They may or may not be observing the posted speed limit, but that is a moot point - they simply won't have as many accidents as their driving will be appropriate for the conditions and would be regardless of the arbitrary limit. Meanwhile the twat will have more accidents because (a) they won't observe the arbitrary speed limit and (b) even if they do, they are still likely to be driving like a twat.

 

[detective-boy]

Can we all agree that slower traffic is safer for pedestrians and drivers alike?

Yes. But why stop there? Why not go to 10mph? Or 5mph? Or ban cars? Or make pedestrians stay in bed?

It is a balance, not one absolute. A question of proportionality.

 

[detective-boy]

He died because he bent down to pick a mobile phone off the floor of his car. Nothing to do with speed.

Another success for the (non-existent) "(Only) Speed Kills" brigade.

(Cue Donna Ferentes, foaming at the mouth ...)