Wales becomes Trumpton

I think you are distracted by small changes which make no difference to the overall calculation.

What I have proven is there is no obvious correlation between impact speed and free travelling speed.

Otherwise 90% of people hit in 40mph roads would die. Fortunately it's around 2% or less.
No, you claim they're small but have not provided any proof of that. You're misusing statistics.

Even here you're misusing them, the average speed of a car in a 40 mph road probably isn't 40mph.

You can't just take your made up 2% and flatly apply it to a given road speed. After all according to you only 2% of pedestrians hit by cars in 60mph roads die.

Either you're not good enough at statistics or you're being deliberately thick.
 
Some cars will be exceeding the 40 limit, some will be well below due to traffic or conditions. The point is the number is so wildly far away from 90% that it shows that a vehicle travelling at 40mph before an accident does not have an impact speed of 40mph or anything close. There is solid data to show that 52% of drivers exceed a 30 limit and that speed limit compliance is highest on national limit roads. It's clear that some people think the way to improve 30mph compliance is to reduce the limit to 20mph, but compliance is even worse on 20mph roads. Avg speeds tend to only drop a few mph. But the psychological affect on the road user is a huge over compensation for safety. Pretty much removing any small potential benefit. This is why studies say that blanket speed limit reductions without associated changes to furniture don't work.


The impact speed on restricted roads is around 10mph and 20mph for national and (m class) roads. That totally destroys the argument that lowering free travelling speed lowers impact speed. It's all about when the driver apples the brakes not how fast he is going before hand.

There is plenty of research to show that concentration levels fall significantly when limits are lower than the 85th percentile. This easily over compensates for any small reduction of free travel speed. If it takes you 1 second longer to react, the benefit of a lower travel speed is more than lost.

All a blanket 20mph limit does is reduce concentration and criminalise drivers who are driving safely. Not to mention the total disruption to traffic, economy, making 500,000+ people angry etc.
 
"For the 20mph sites, the average speed is above the speed limit for all vehicle types, ranging from 24mph to 30mph but below the average speeds seen on the 30mph roads."

Not enforced, nevertheless safer than 30 limits.
 
Some cars will be exceeding the 40 limit, some will be well below due to traffic or conditions. The point is the number is so wildly far away from 90% that it shows that a vehicle travelling at 40mph before an accident does not have an impact speed of 40mph or anything close. There is solid data to show that 52% of drivers exceed a 30 limit and that speed limit compliance is highest on national limit roads. It's clear that some people think the way to improve 30mph compliance is to reduce the limit to 20mph, but compliance is even worse on 20mph roads. Avg speeds tend to only drop a few mph. But the psychological affect on the road user is a huge over compensation for safety. Pretty much removing any small potential benefit. This is why studies say that blanket speed limit reductions without associated changes to furniture don't work.


The impact speed on restricted roads is around 10mph and 20mph for national and (m class) roads. That totally destroys the argument that lowering free travelling speed lowers impact speed. It's all about when the driver apples the brakes not how fast he is going before hand.

There is plenty of research to show that concentration levels fall significantly when limits are lower than the 85th percentile. This easily over compensates for any small reduction of free travel speed. If it takes you 1 second longer to react, the benefit of a lower travel speed is more than lost.

All a blanket 20mph limit does is reduce concentration and criminalise drivers who are driving safely. Not to mention the total disruption to traffic, economy, making 500,000+ people angry etc.
You haven't seen many accident damaged cars have you.

Don't forget in an accident involving 2 different cars, there is a combined speed, not a solitary speed.

Why do you just cherry pick stats? We all know why actually
 
The point is the number is so wildly far away from 90% that it shows that a vehicle travelling at 40mph before an accident does not have an impact speed of 40mph or anything close
No, it doesn't.

Firstly you have no real number for the actual percentage of pedestrians killed in a 40 zone. Your 2% guess is useless here. So many unstated and unvalidated assumptions it's worthless.

Secondly you haven't got anything to give an idea of the speeds before an accident or even the point of impact.

You think it's a bad idea, but don't resort to bad logic to try and support it.
 
Last edited:
I've asked what the actual speeds were a few times, but seemingly it's a stupid question.
It's not in this data set and it's something that's going to be incredibly hard to measure without camera footage of the accidents or black box recordings.
 
impact speed of 40mph or anything close.
I witnessed an accident when a pedestrian was probably hit at ~40mph. A don't do. Late night, gets off a bus, exit at front, in a hurry and simply runs out in front of the bus. Traffic was light. He sailed into the air and finished up with some serious fractures, Very serious but lived. At the time to me the bloke was old so probably ~50 or so. Bones don't repair so well as we get older. The insurance company concerned was rather bothered about the amount they were going to have to pay out.

The same number cropped up when I needed something cheap to get to work. 2 wheels. Dad asked grand dad - policeman. He asked about the bike exceeding 40mph and mentioned that a crash helmet helped a lot but pointing out that collisions at speeds in excess of this are often rather serious. They can be very at 40 depends on what you hit. :( Dad turned up with a motor scooter. I would have bought a bike.

Work. Data gathering. Does stuff remain in place during "brick wall" collisions, Dead solid things, Not much interest over 40mph as people wont survive. TBH I doubt if that has changed much. Certain aspects have been designed out and in but there are limits. Some one managed to hit a rather solid tree in a modern car a few doors up from me, early hours. Nothing fancy about the car, Result dead. No doubt he used his brakes, Speed no one really knows but given the road I doubt it would be that high. Given what people do at this time of day I'd suspect ~50. 30mph limit. 40 rather commen at all times if conditions allow, Busy road. Not often but ambulances crop up now and again.

The 30, 40, 60 and 70mph limits will have been derived on this style of reasoning. 60's are an odd ball as there are roads where no one is likely to get to that speed. In some cases where they will 50 is introduced. Reasons may be due to bends and people getting it wrong or maybe it's the precautionary principle. All sorts of mights and bound to be better. 20mph is sounding a bit like this to me but this speed is likely to lessen damage to pedestrians. Other aspects - well vehicles will stop more quickly.

Implementation. A local county had the intent to set all 60 limits to 50. It didn't happen. Wales and 20mph. Tricky they have and haven't since they announced tell us where you want them but they have put some signs up and some people, not many are sticking to 20 where there are no signs. Often there is good reason to wonder why 20 has been set. They are also starting to change some 60's to 50. An outstanding example of this sort of thing is the work on the heads of the valley road. A new section, motorway class, no islands proper entrances and exits and they have stuck a 50 limit on it, Similar sections completed earlier are 70. One has as a few islands so speed limits as they are approached,

I feel the precautionary principle has been strong for some time in Wales. Looks like some areas in England are going the same way. It's hard to argue against it. Effectiveness though - I wonder. Different aspect, Counties often respond to serious accidents via road works. Motorways spring to mind. Some are one offs and I wonder if the next one off will be prevented?
 
On reading the last few pages I'm not sure if some people are or aren't in favour of 20 zones. Surely we'd all support them in areas such as housing schemes that tend to have narrower streets, lots of vehicles parked often on both sides and pedestrians that can sometimes appear from nowhere?
 
On reading the last few pages I'm not sure if some people are or aren't in favour of 20 zones. Surely we'd all support them in areas such as housing schemes that tend to have narrower streets, lots of vehicles parked often on both sides and pedestrians that can sometimes appear from nowhere?
It's not really about in favour or not of 20 zones overall. In some places they are a really good idea, but not everywhere

Its mbk trying to prove something that is wrong without any facts and arguing 20 is pointless
 
It's not really about in favour or not of 20 zones overall. In some places they are a really good idea, but not everywhere

Its mbk trying to prove something that is wrong without any facts and arguing 20 is pointless
I 100% agree with this as per my earlier post here and in other related threads.

Ultimately, we'll spoil it for ourselves. Eventually with advances in tech, speed limits will be enforced via vehicle software. We're already seeing that creep in. Can switch off ... for now.

tbh if limits were enforced for all vehicles I couldn't care less any more. At least it would slow down all the idiots and hopefully tailgating would also become a thing of the past. The thing is it won't be every vehicle for years to come. Actually, by the time it is, my driving days will likely be coming to a close!
 
I'm not sure if some people are or aren't in favour of 20 zones.
I have no objection when they make sense - eg near schools around where I live. They aren't long. However one is, a clear road and good visibility. I can guess which council controls it. These do seem to tend cause people to think and pay more attention. On the other hand they may be able to see all is clearly ok.

Other areas - I wonder, it depends on too many things. Simple answer blanket limits. Parked cars are a matter of road width and sometimes the hope that an oncoming driver does know how wide their car is even if there is a white line. Pavements are there and in the case if cars people other than small kids are noticeable. White van man rather different. I don't ever recollect seeing a kid playing in roads around where I live. I feel it's a double edged sword. Pedestrians and drivers need to exercise care. Even oncoming cars in a drivers case. We all generally do when things are tight. I am not sure that 20mph helps much in this respect. Actually on side roads it would be unusual for police to monitor speeds in current 30 zones. I don't think this is down to too many of them, They just pick more major roads where excess speed is more likely.
 
Ultimately, we'll spoil it for ourselves. Eventually with advances in tech, speed limits will be enforced via vehicle software. We're already seeing that creep in. Can switch off ... for now.
I noticed an odd factor on the M42 when variable speed limits came in. Some rather bad accidents from a situation where they were scarce. I put it down to cars etc travelling more closely together but this aspect seems to have passed now. A but though. Once speed is reduced they don't clear so the speed limit may well be changed to a lower one which in turn can make this aspect worse.
 
Back
Top