Wales becomes Trumpton

[denso13]

Remind me, what obligations exist for non-mechanically propelled vehicle operators to stop and report an accident involving an injury. Is it:

The insurance stats don't count injuries, just claims for any reason. You moved it on to the police figures which are injuries only. And not even all of them.

 

[noseall]

Lower speeds cause less damage, that is just a fact. It's science.

According to MBK...

No damage is done if you don't hit the person or if you stop in time.

I think he's finally got the gist. And any scientist will tell you that it's easier to stop at low speeds than high speeds. Good old RSPA.

 

[motorbiking]

Lower speeds cause less damage, that is just a fact. It's science.

Speeding is hardly ever a main factor in an accident. It's usually failure to look properly, drugs/alcohol etc etc. The vast majority of people choose a sensible speed for the conditions 99.999etc % of the time.

If enforcement of 20mph limits is poor then people will go faster. They might also go faster on other roads to make up time on longer routes so accidents go up. That isn't the problem of 20mph limits per say. That is people being stupid.

That is exactly the result of the wrong strategy. It's not people being stupid, it's human nature. You try something, it doesn't work, don't do more of the same

You could also argue that some roads should have been kept at 30 as 20 is too slow. It doesn't negate the fact that 20 is safer than 30 in an accident.

If people take more risk in the 20 because they are distracted, think it's automatically safer... well that leads to the results we typically see on 20 limits overtime... i.e. they make f**all difference

The insurance stats don't count injuries, just claims for any reason. You moved it on to the police figures which are injuries only. And not even all of them.

Because the quote from e-sure is unreliable.

And because [I think] we all agree that a quarterly blip is irrelevant due to RTTM and the short term effective of change.

 

[denso13]

You try something, it doesn't work, don't do more of the same

If something doesn't work because it isn't enforced then enforcement is the issue, not the speed limit.

Lower speeds are safer, it's basic science.

 

[denso13]

Speeding is hardly ever a main factor in an accident

The vast majority of people choose a sensible speed for the conditions 99.999etc % of the time.

No speed limits then?

 

[motorbiking]

set a speed limit that the 85%ile of drivers would not exceed. Thats a good strategy. Not a speed limit based on the average speed. that just results in the speed limit falling and nothing changing.

 

[motorbiking]

If something doesn't work because it isn't enforced then enforcement is the issue, not the speed limit.

Lower speeds are safer, it's basic science.

basic nonsense.

Driving at speed that allows you to stop in the distance you can see is clear is enough to avoid an accident.

Why would you drive at 20mph if you can see 500m of clear road and pavement ahead?

 

[denso13]

set a speed limit that the 85%ile of drivers would not exceed

Why? If people choose a sensible speed 99.999etc% of the time then all is good.

 

[denso13]

Why would you drive at 20mph

Is it safer to be hit at 20mph or 30mph?

 

[denso13]

Why would you drive at 20mph if you can see 500m of clear road and pavement ahead?

Like I said, you can argue about which roads are suitable for 20 limits, but that is irrelevant to which speed is safer.

 

[Brigadier]

Lower speeds are safer, it's basic science.

But the whole point of driving at all is to get from one place to another.

If the point was maximum safety, speed limit would be zero i.e. driving would be prohibited, full stop.

 

[denso13]

But the whole point of driving at all is to get from one place to another.

If the point was maximum safety, speed limit would be zero i.e. driving would be prohibited, full stop.

Agreed.

 

[fillyboy]

Little Trumpton update.

Insurance company reports big drop in damage claims since 20mph limit introduced

This news follows a fall in the number of casualties last week

www.walesonline.co.uk

That was some hand grenade you lobbed in here.

 

[Brigadier]

Agreed.

So, [you] set a number that is "safe":

- consideration of visibility distances
- junctions etc
- likely other road users / those nearby (school zones, resident parking)
and so on


[You] also have to factor in what is "reasonable", which is basically what speed a sensible and competent driver* would drive: otherwise, it'll just get ignored anyway, and be self-defeating.


* no point considering the nutters, as they will do what they feel like anyway, regardless of what a number-on-a-stick says. Just catch and jail the foookers.

 

[denso13]

So, [you] set a number that is "safe":

- consideration of visibility distances
- junctions etc
- likely other road users / those nearby (school zones, resident parking)
and so on


[You] also have to factor in what is "reasonable", which is basically what speed a sensible and competent driver* would drive: otherwise, it'll just get ignored anyway, and be self-defeating.


* no point considering the nutters, as they will do what they feel like anyway, regardless of what a number-on-a-stick says. Just catch and jail the foookers.

I'm not really disagreeing with that, but it isn't what the "discussion" has been about. I have said a few times that there could be an argument that some 20 limits are in the wrong place.

Mbk is saying, I think, that 20mph limits are not safer than 30 limits at all. In fact fatalities have gone up therefore they are useless in themselves. And speed limits are not required because virtually every drives sensibly anyway.

My view is that it is safer for all concerned if we drive at 20 rather than 30, it results in fewer deaths and injuries as RoSPA have stated. The fact that it isn't enforced properly, or may be in the wrong place, are different issues

it'll just get ignored anyway, and be self-defeating

That's as may be but not a good way to make decisions.