Blanket 20mph limit across Wales from 2023

[bigothunter]

Stella Tortoise said:

bigothunter said:

The very point - driving in London is intended to be pure misery now. Cars, motorbikes, vans and even trucks are simply unwelcome...

I wonder why?

You know why Stella...

Ultimate move is banning cars from London central area and then progressively outwards. Maybe there is no option. And where London leads, other cities and large towns follow.

[camel_landy]

Apparently, the new 20mph speed limit could save £100m a year.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-63542427

/DISCUSS=ON

M

[mac96]

camel_landy said:

Apparently, the new 20mph speed limit could save £100m a year.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-63542427

/DISCUSS=ON

M

FWIW here is my response from original thread:

t is irrelevant whether the saving is £1 or £100m when they do not seem to have calculated the cost of wasted time with its associated economic value (both for business and personal journeys), plus the increased fuel costs and the increased pollution caused by vehicles travelling inefficiently slowly.

And I find it surprising that minor accidents reduce- it seems counter-intuitive considering the effect of slowing traffic on pedestrian behaviour. Of course, I may be entirely wrong on this!

I am not actually altogether against this limit reduction- I would prefer the existing default urban 30mph limits, but current system of random often poorly signed stretches of 20 mph makes compliance very difficult. But I would like so see balanced evidence of the economic benefit, not a report written to support a preconceived idea.

The survey is laughable. " Would you prefer to see the speed limit outside your house reduced" is a question to which the selfish will always say 'yes please' without thinking that it really means 'Would you like to have to drive at no more than 20mph everywhere' which is the actual question to which their answer is being attached.

[RazerSauber]

camel_landy said:

Apparently, the new 20mph speed limit could save £100m a year.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-63542427

/DISCUSS=ON

M

What absolute nonsense. What'll happen is people will get irritated, angry and impatient in their cars. That'll lead to speeding when you want to go anywhere in a bit of a hurry and get a fast road. The A55 across North Wales will then be full of people making up journey time on their commute. Just leave it at 30 and accept that sometimes, people step out in front of cars and die. Yes, it's not nice but it happens.

If the sole interest is saving money, ridding obesity and improving mental health then just ban cars altogether and be done with it. Everyone will then be forced to walk or cycle everywhere and we'll all be on the Tour De France next year, everybody will be iron-clad mentally and obesity will be at an all time low. You'll lose money in tonnes of other ways and it'll ruin the economy but we'll all be able to cope with our new found mental health.

[mac96]

And to add to that, as the 'study' is talking about the financial costs, so was I, moral / philosophical issues about the non monetary value of human life are another issue, on which I will just say that we will all die, and many activities have some risk of a premature end for someone.
And the authorities, whether it comes to road safety or health care routinely equate human life with money, even if the try to avoid talking about it that way.

[camel_landy]

RazerSauber said:

Just leave it at 30 and accept that sometimes, people step out in front of cars and die. Yes, it's not nice but it happens.

Indeed... Darwin's principles in action.

M

[Heathwood]

My observations are that the 20mph limit is largely ignored. So how exactly is £100m going to be saved then?!

[bigothunter]

Heathwood said:

My observations are that the 20mph limit is largely ignored. So how exactly is £100m going to be saved then?!

It's all bullst and Drakeford knows that

[bigothunter]

camel_landy said:

RazerSauber said:

Just leave it at 30 and accept that sometimes, people step out in front of cars and die. Yes, it's not nice but it happens.

Indeed... Darwin's principles in action.

Human beings naturally adjust to risk levels. 20mph simply means they take less care and expect motorists to take avoiding action when they step into harms way. Building sites are a prime example of employees taking little responsibility for their personal safety because Health & Safety looks after that.

But what you cannot do is reinstate 30mph limits. They would simply be unacceptable to careless pedestrians. But limiting speed to even less than 20mph is ok. Segregation of cars and pedestrians is the ultimate answer.

[ITP]

How about if a pedestrian gets hit on the road anywhere other than a designated crossing it is always the fault of the pedestrian, unless the car was speeding. And the pedestrian gets fined.

If a pedestrian get hit on a designated crossing it’s always the cars fault, irrespective of speed. And the car driver gets fined.

We need some level of personal responsibility again. However scary that may seem to the wokerati.

[Gweeds]

ITP said:

How about if a pedestrian gets hit on the road anywhere other than a designated crossing it is always the fault of the pedestrian, unless the car was speeding. And the pedestrian gets fined.

If a pedestrian get hit on a designated crossing it’s always the cars fault, irrespective of speed. And the car driver gets fined.

We need some level of personal responsibility again. However scary that may seem to the wokerati.

How many roads have designated crossings then?

How is that policed?

Wokerati

[mac96]

Gweeds said:

ITP said:

How about if a pedestrian gets hit on the road anywhere other than a designated crossing it is always the fault of the pedestrian, unless the car was speeding. And the pedestrian gets fined.

If a pedestrian get hit on a designated crossing it’s always the cars fault, irrespective of speed. And the car driver gets fined.

We need some level of personal responsibility again. However scary that may seem to the wokerati.

How many roads have designated crossings then?

How is that policed?

Wokerati

There is something in it though.

Pretending that pedestrians are not responsible, at least in part, for the accidents they cause or could with a modicum of care have avoided makes it unlikely that such accidents will reduce.
Sometimes it seems as if we are more concerned about blaming drivers than preventing accidents. A common attitude in other fields as well, where we value blame and punishment over future risk reduction, it is not just road safety.

[camel_landy]

mac96 said:

There is something in it though.

Pretending that pedestrians are not responsible, at least in part, for the accidents they cause or could with a modicum of care have avoided makes it unlikely that such accidents will reduce.
Sometimes it seems as if we are more concerned about blaming drivers than preventing accidents. A common attitude in other fields as well, where we value blame and punishment over future risk reduction, it is not just road safety.

Yep, I agree... You can't just wrap everyone/thing in cotton wool, people need to learn about risk and take responsibility for their own actions. That includes parents teaching children about road safety, on-line safety, not playing on building sites, with fireworks, talking to strangers, etc...

IMO - It's also not just about education. When you want to bring about change, there needs to be a bit of give AND take. Enough of this take, take take...

By all means, cut the speeds on residential streets but balance it out by maintaining/raising the limits on the through roads and raise them on the major trunk roads.

It would also be nice to see rail travel affordable by the masses and not just by the rich.

M

[Gweeds]

What’s an acceptable number of road deaths a year?

[MustangGT]

Evanivitch said:

bigothunter said:

Evidence shows that 20mph limits increase pollution and fuel consumption. I've posted data to support that assertion.

Incorrect. You've provided evidence that travelling at 20 mph is less efficient than 30 mph.

No, it is you that is incorrect from the data given. The data clearly shows that all the 4 cars included in the graph use more fuel at 20 mph than they do at 30 mph. Your waffle about acceleration and deceleration is meaningless since that applies at all speeds. Whenever I travel through a 20 or a 30 I set cruise and make minor adjustments to prevent needless braking for lights etc.

How about you show some data to support an assertion that travelling at 20 mph is less polluting than at 30 mph?

[camel_landy]

Gweeds said:

What’s an acceptable number of road deaths a year?

You tell me...
...and of those, how many can we blame on the parents for not teaching basic road safety?

M

[Gweeds]

camel_landy said:

You tell me...
...and of those, how many can we blame on the parents for not teaching basic road safety?

M

Zero.

Easy isn’t it.

As for ‘blaming the parents’. Pull your head out of your arse.

[MustangGT]

You could probably save that '£100m' by spending a few millions on pedestrian road safety campaigns, certainly cost less than implementing the £32m reduction of speed limits.

[ITP]

Gweeds said:

ITP said:

How about if a pedestrian gets hit on the road anywhere other than a designated crossing it is always the fault of the pedestrian, unless the car was speeding. And the pedestrian gets fined.

If a pedestrian get hit on a designated crossing it’s always the cars fault, irrespective of speed. And the car driver gets fined.

We need some level of personal responsibility again. However scary that may seem to the wokerati.

How many roads have designated crossings then?

How is that policed?

Wokerati

If there are no crossings near to where you are that’s tough, you need to take care crossing as it’s your personal responsibility, simple as that.
If you get run over it’s your fault unless the driver can be proven to be speeding. If it can’t be proven, you’re out of luck I’m afraid. It’s not hard to use your eyes before crossing a road to avoid being run over.

[Evanivitch]

MustangGT said:

Evanivitch said:

bigothunter said:

Evidence shows that 20mph limits increase pollution and fuel consumption. I've posted data to support that assertion.

Incorrect. You've provided evidence that travelling at 20 mph is less efficient than 30 mph.

No, it is you that is incorrect from the data given. The data clearly shows that all the 4 cars included in the graph use more fuel at 20 mph than they do at 30 mph.

The assertion was about the application of 20 mph speed limits. It was not, and is not the reality, that we are comparing travelling at 20 mph or 30 mph at a steady, unchanging speed because neither are true in an urban environment.

MustangGT said:

Your waffle about acceleration and deceleration is meaningless since that applies at all speeds. Whenever I travel through a 20 or a 30 I set cruise and make minor adjustments to prevent needless braking for lights etc.