Wales becomes Trumpton

So speed limits go lower and road users don't pay attention. You understand the net effect is no reduction in casualties? The stats confirm this.
 
Maybe. But you can't improve driving standards by raising speed limits, or keeping them higher than is safe for the lowest ability driver. No stats give the ability of the driver(s) involved for any true comparison.

I think you consider all drivers are of an acceptable standard. I definitely don't.

Standards are a much longer term item, and needs money to enforce, such as traffic police.

Like it or not, it's easier and cheaper to set the bar to the lowest level.
 
Poor drivers are more noticeable than good drivers. We tend to remember the idiots.

If your treatment makes the few safer, but the many less safe... well you get the results we are seeing in the casualty stats.
 
ajohn said:
20mph - what is the objective and if some one did come up with a sensible definition of a residential road or street how would it be enforced?
Click to expand...
Average speed cameras, depending on the situation. One dual carriageway round here had numerous traffic deaths so it was reduced to a 50 limit with average speed cameras. I see no one speeding now, with very few accidents.
 
motorbiking said:
Poor drivers are more noticeable than good drivers. We tend to remember the idiots.

If your treatment makes the few safer, but the many less safe... well you get the results we are seeing in the casualty stats.
Click to expand...
So 30 is safer than 20 for those poor drivers ?

You cannot (but you do) accept that everybody is capable of sensible and controlled driving.

A 30 limit doesn't make them safer, and there's more of them than just a few. Look at an average driver and then realise around half of all those on the road are worse. You must see them on every journey!
 
carmanmemoranda said:
So 30 is safer than 20 for those poor drivers ?

You cannot (but you do) accept that everybody is capable of sensible and controlled driving.

A 30 limit doesn't make them safer, and there's more of them than just a few. Look at an average driver and then realise around half of all those on the road are worse. You must see them on every journey!
Click to expand...
The data doesn't support your view.
 
motorbiking said:
The data is there if you want it.
Click to expand...
I'd suspect that the dips may relate to type approval. That started in a rather odd way. A US lawyer who got fed up with a number of design factors common to cars that resulted in accidents. Some time in the 70s name and period, afraid I don't remember. The EU made it mandatory in 1996. The factors looked at evolved.

You could try and see if the dips relate to specific changes such as ABS, it's spin off, brake assist, stability and differential wheel spin control. Seat belts became mandatory with some resistance in 1983. More recently airbags. There is some info on that around but I'd be interested in improvements when a car hits a dead solid object and at what speed. Chest crush.
NHTSA estimates that the combination of an airbag plus a lap and shoulder belt reduces the risk of death in frontal crashes by 61%, compared with a 50% reduction for belts alone and a 34% reduction for airbags alone

Brake assist is an interesting one. Having worked on A|BS it relates to panic breaking. Different people don't all press the brake by the same amount. So the apply rate and pressure are used. If detected the system applies full brake pressure and lets the ABS handle what happens. That helped by the fact that the pressure is constant. Once the system can apply pressure the add ons go in.
I've also worked on brake by wire. Steer by wire came along for an entirely different type of reasoning. Mostly design related. Self park cars turn up. Thoughts of driverless, lane control etc.

The next one which will trickle down the price range is AEB. That will do the braking itself if it thinks there is going to be a collision. It will also warn a driver if too close to a vehicle ahead. It seems some people turn it off.

I feel like commenting on how bad early ABS in cheaper cars was. ;) So have.
 
denso13 said:
That's the important bit. Speed kills.
Click to expand...
IMG_2588.jpeg
 
motorbiking said:
I see Noseall is back
Click to expand...
Says a bloke that spent hundreds of posts, attempting to explain why 'tax dodging' Angela Rayner owed tax on her property sale, lol. how did that go? Stick to rowing your dinghy boyo, your credibility is zero.

Read and weep, liar...

The first widespread evaluation of 20mph zones in the UK was carried out by TRL in 19969. It found that injury collisions were reduced by 60 per cent, and child injury collisions were reduced by 67 per cent. The evaluation did not find evidence that collisions increased on surrounding roads due to drivers changing their route. There was a decrease in traffic of 27 per ent in the zones during the evaluation, but the authors attributed a large part of this to bypasses which were also built in conjunction with some of the schemes to take through traffic away from the area.

• From 1994, there was a widespread introduction of 20mph zones in Hull, and by 2003, there were 120 zones covering 500 streets. The casualty statistics between 1994 and 2001 showed a fall of 14 per centin Hull, compared to a rise of 1.5 per cent in the rest of Yorkshire and Humberside. In the 20mph zones in Hull, there was a decrease in total collisions of 56 per cent and in fatal and serious injuries of 90 per cent. The biggest reductions were pedestrian casualties, which fell by 54 per cent, child casualties, which dropped by 54 per cent and child pedestrian casualties, which fell by 74 per cent. 1
• A 2007 review of half of the 20mph zones which had been implemented in London (78 zones) found that they reduced injury collisions by about 42 per cent and fatal or serious collisions by 53 per cent.11
• A major review of road casualties in London between 1986 and 2006 was published in 2009.12 It demonstrated that 20mph zones reduced the number of casualties by over 40 per cent. The 20mph zones were also slightly more effective in preventing fatal or serious injuries to children, which were reduced by half. There was a smaller reduction in casualties among cyclists than any of the other major groups of road users studied, with a reduction of 16.9 per cent.


READ MORE
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top