Wales becomes Trumpton

selective quoting - but you need to read the whole thing and try to understand it.

You understand that a 20 Zone is not what Wales implemented. But you know this.

So...
RoSPA say - 20 zones are better - not what welsh government did
RoSPA say - they must be targeted - not what welsh government did
RoSPA say - they don't support them on every road - not what welsh government did

and of course its irrelevant since. 100s of roads will be converted back as part of the U-turn.

Good use of funds.. not

At least it saved some lives.. oh wait it didn't. Wales performs worse than the rest of the UK.

Good Job - or not.
 
in a local authority area.

But thats not what happened in Wales - they amended the definition of a restricted road "Nationally"

Every restricted road was changed, requiring a traffic order to change it back.

As I said in my opening post - it seems a bit excessive.
 
Last edited:
RoSPA say - 20 zones are better - not what welsh government did
"RoSPA supports and encourages the wider use of 20mph limits".
RoSPA say - they must be targeted - not what welsh government did
They targeted all 30mph roads.
RoSPA say - they don't support them on every road - not what welsh government did
They didn't put them on every road.
At least it saved some lives.. oh wait it didn't.
What speed was the traffic going at when deaths occurred?
 
in a local authority area.

But thats not what happened in Wales - they amended the definition of a restricted road "Nationally"

Every restricted road was changed, requiring a traffic order to change it back.

As I said in my opening post - it seems a bit excessive.
So they didn't do every road. So you can't really use the RoSPA link as support for your argument.

35% of roads is quite a lot, but it is clearly not every road.
 
"RoSPA supports and encourages the wider use of 20mph limits".

They targeted all 30mph roads.

They didn't put them on every road.

What speed was the traffic going at when deaths occurred?
changing the definition of a restricted road is not targeting.
every restricted road was changed.
Why do you think free travelling speed has any relationship to impact speed?
Are you aware that the average impact speed on 70mph roads is 20mph?
Are you also aware than less than 2% of people hit by vehicles in 30 and 40 limit roads die?


So they didn't do every road. So you can't really use the RoSPA link as support for your argument.
Are you suggesting they were clarifying they didn't mean motorways and roads with a national speed limit? I think they credited their readers with a bit more intelligence
 
Why do you think free travelling speed has any relationship to impact speed.
Are you aware that the average impact speed on 70mph roads is 20mph?
Are you also aware than less than 2% of people hit by vehicles in 30 and 40 limit roads die?
So what were the speeds when people were killed last year in Wales?
 
Secondly, in obedience to the laws of physics, speed makes crashes more severe. This is particularly important in cities, towns and villages, where pedestrians are particularly at risk. The Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents informed us that:

"Hit by a car at 40 mph, nine out of ten pedestrians will be killed.

Hit by a car at 30 mph, about half of pedestrians will be killed.

Hit by a car at 20 mph, nine out of ten pedestrians will survive."

 
if only cars had brakes.. oh wait they do.

Which is why <2% hit die.

Perhaps you think 90% of people hit in 40mph limits died
or 80% of people hit in 30mph limits died.

glad I could educate you.
 
Which is why <2% hit die.

Perhaps you think 90% of people hit in 40mph limits died
or 80% of people hit in 30mph limits died.

glad I could educate you.
You could educate me further. What were the actual speeds when people were killed in Wales last year?
 
Perhaps you might want to ask less stupid questions:
- why did the accident happen
- how could it be avoided
- and why did 99.999999etc % who drove on that road manage to do it without an accident.

You might also look at the casualty stats data and ask yourself if

Nearly all KSI collisions with a pedestrian ‘failing to look properly’ were on roads with a 20mph or 30mph speed limit.
Of the 10 CFs that describe an action of a pedestrian as a factor in a collision, ‘pedestrians failing to look properly’ was the most commonly recorded. It was recorded as a factor in 7.3% of all KSI collisions but 15.7% of KSI collisions on 20mph or 30mph roads.

Might be the reason that 20mph limits do not seem to offer any improvement in casualty stats .

What do you think might happen if we run silly campaigns telling people that 20mph limits are answer to road safety. Do you think it creates a false sense of security?
 
Perhaps you might want to ask less stupid questions:
You mean you don't know? You ridicule the 20mph speed limit but don't actually know if is perhaps people travelling much faster than that which is causing the issue?

"It's simple physics", less damage is done at slower speeds.
 
Of the 10 CFs that describe an action of a pedestrian as a factor in a collision, ‘pedestrians failing to look properly’ was the most commonly recorded. It was recorded as a factor in 7.3% of all KSI collisions but 15.7% of KSI collisions on 20mph or 30mph roads.
So what, lower speed = less damage.
Might be the reason that 20mph limits do not seem to offer any improvement in casualty stats
Might not be.
 
"It's simple physics", less damage is done at slower speeds.

It's complete nonsense. Impact speed is about physics, free travelling speed is about observation. otherwise we'd have 10s of thousands of fatal accidents every year.
 
Back
Top