Blanket 20mph limit across Wales from 2023
Discussion
MustangGT said:
Why the laugh? Any competent driver should be fully aware of their surroundings and adjust their driving accordingly. Yes, I do use cruise through 30 and 20 limits with minor adjustments. It is easy to observe traffic light sequencing and drive to suit.
From your comments you sound like a driver who has little observation of their surroundings and I hope you live no where near me.
From your comments you sound like a driver who has little observation of their surroundings and I hope you live no where near me.
Because the majority of 20-30 mph zones around the country are littered with parked cars and pinch points that require stop and start traffic. Hence why the average speed through most urban areas is significantly lower than the stated speed limit and why emissions through these zones are significantly higher than steady-state at the posted speed limit.
Pretending that utilising cruise control is normal in urban areas is hilarious
camel_landy said:
The phrase "[not] statistically significant" is doing a lot of heavy lifting in the report.From Wales Online
"They found that a 20mph speed limit was associated with little change in short or long-term outcomes for road traffic collisions, casualties, or driver speed. Specifically, they found crashes were reduced between three and 15% after one and three years but there was no "statistically significant" difference over time.
Casualty rates fell by 16 and 22 per cent one and three years after implementation, but these reductions "weren't statistically significant." Average traffic speed fell by only 0.2 mph one year and by 0.8 mph three years after roll-out."
Evanivitch said:
The phrase "[not] statistically significant" is doing a lot of heavy lifting in the report.
From Wales Online
"They found that a 20mph speed limit was associated with little change in short or long-term outcomes for road traffic collisions, casualties, or driver speed. Specifically, they found crashes were reduced between three and 15% after one and three years but there was no "statistically significant" difference over time.
Casualty rates fell by 16 and 22 per cent one and three years after implementation, but these reductions "weren't statistically significant." Average traffic speed fell by only 0.2 mph one year and by 0.8 mph three years after roll-out."
That sounds like a significant fall to me, but is dependent on traffic volumes. Average traffic speed is a nonsense, unless specific vulnerable locations only are considered.From Wales Online
"They found that a 20mph speed limit was associated with little change in short or long-term outcomes for road traffic collisions, casualties, or driver speed. Specifically, they found crashes were reduced between three and 15% after one and three years but there was no "statistically significant" difference over time.
Casualty rates fell by 16 and 22 per cent one and three years after implementation, but these reductions "weren't statistically significant." Average traffic speed fell by only 0.2 mph one year and by 0.8 mph three years after roll-out."
Pica-Pica said:
That sounds like a significant fall to me, but is dependent on traffic volumes. Average traffic speed is a nonsense, unless specific vulnerable locations only are considered.
it does to me too. Now, if the data sample is insufficient to account for significant sways in results due to limited data set then I understand that, but that's a weakness of the study, not the implementation.768 said:
Evanivitch said:
Average traffic speed fell by only 0.2 mph one year and by 0.8 mph three years after roll-out."
What a farce.Pica-Pica said:
Evanivitch said:
The phrase "[not] statistically significant" is doing a lot of heavy lifting in the report.
From Wales Online
"They found that a 20mph speed limit was associated with little change in short or long-term outcomes for road traffic collisions, casualties, or driver speed. Specifically, they found crashes were reduced between three and 15% after one and three years but there was no "statistically significant" difference over time.
Casualty rates fell by 16 and 22 per cent one and three years after implementation, but these reductions "weren't statistically significant." Average traffic speed fell by only 0.2 mph one year and by 0.8 mph three years after roll-out."
That sounds like a significant fall to me, but is dependent on traffic volumes. Average traffic speed is a nonsense, unless specific vulnerable locations only are considered.From Wales Online
"They found that a 20mph speed limit was associated with little change in short or long-term outcomes for road traffic collisions, casualties, or driver speed. Specifically, they found crashes were reduced between three and 15% after one and three years but there was no "statistically significant" difference over time.
Casualty rates fell by 16 and 22 per cent one and three years after implementation, but these reductions "weren't statistically significant." Average traffic speed fell by only 0.2 mph one year and by 0.8 mph three years after roll-out."
camel_landy said:
becoming a police stateEvanivitch said:
otolith said:
Statistical significance is not a measure of the magnitude of the change, but of the likelihood that the change observed was due to a real effect rather than random variation.
Which points to a very limited data set.camel_landy said:
Gweeds said:
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. ...and of those, how many can we blame on the parents for not teaching basic road safety?
M
Easy isn’t it.
As for ‘blaming the parents’. Pull your head out of your arse.
...but if you want zero, you're looking at banning all forms of transport, even bicycles and horses.
You're going to have to make everyone stay at home, wrapped in cotton wool, which in turn brings about health issues associated with a sedentary lifestyle.
M
In terms of responsibility we do tend to try to apportion all responsibility 100% in one direction as a consequence of having developed such a legal heavy society where we're always trying to neatly blame ordinary negative every day life occurrences entirely on one individual or organisation so a fine or penalty can be applied. In 'reality' (a word which has appeared quite frequently in this thread) responsibility for road safety is with everybody. It's with the drivers, the authorities, the pedestrians, parents, teachers and children. To try to put the burden of road safety entirely on the shoulders of a single group or even to try and manipulate the natural order such as it is will have unforeseen consequences. As is so often the case the unforeseen consequences (some of which are foreseen and have already been mentioned in this thread) are worse than the problems which likely won't be resolved by the intervention.
ingenieur said:
Essentially it's all about striking the right balance between all the competing demands. 30mph has worked fine since it was introduced more than 100 years ago. The Welsh government is very full of itself if it thinks it knows better.
In terms of responsibility we do tend to try to apportion all responsibility 100% in one direction as a consequence of having developed such a legal heavy society where we're always trying to neatly blame ordinary negative every day life occurrences entirely on one individual or organisation so a fine or penalty can be applied. In 'reality' (a word which has appeared quite frequently in this thread) responsibility for road safety is with everybody. It's with the drivers, the authorities, the pedestrians, parents, teachers and children. To try to put the burden of road safety entirely on the shoulders of a single group or even to try and manipulate the natural order such as it is will have unforeseen consequences. As is so often the case the unforeseen consequences (some of which are foreseen and have already been mentioned in this thread) are worse than the problems which likely won't be resolved by the intervention.
I'm not convinced that the prime motive for these 20mph zones has anything to do with safety...In terms of responsibility we do tend to try to apportion all responsibility 100% in one direction as a consequence of having developed such a legal heavy society where we're always trying to neatly blame ordinary negative every day life occurrences entirely on one individual or organisation so a fine or penalty can be applied. In 'reality' (a word which has appeared quite frequently in this thread) responsibility for road safety is with everybody. It's with the drivers, the authorities, the pedestrians, parents, teachers and children. To try to put the burden of road safety entirely on the shoulders of a single group or even to try and manipulate the natural order such as it is will have unforeseen consequences. As is so often the case the unforeseen consequences (some of which are foreseen and have already been mentioned in this thread) are worse than the problems which likely won't be resolved by the intervention.
bigothunter said:
ingenieur said:
Essentially it's all about striking the right balance between all the competing demands. 30mph has worked fine since it was introduced more than 100 years ago. The Welsh government is very full of itself if it thinks it knows better.
In terms of responsibility we do tend to try to apportion all responsibility 100% in one direction as a consequence of having developed such a legal heavy society where we're always trying to neatly blame ordinary negative every day life occurrences entirely on one individual or organisation so a fine or penalty can be applied. In 'reality' (a word which has appeared quite frequently in this thread) responsibility for road safety is with everybody. It's with the drivers, the authorities, the pedestrians, parents, teachers and children. To try to put the burden of road safety entirely on the shoulders of a single group or even to try and manipulate the natural order such as it is will have unforeseen consequences. As is so often the case the unforeseen consequences (some of which are foreseen and have already been mentioned in this thread) are worse than the problems which likely won't be resolved by the intervention.
I'm not convinced that the prime motive for these 20mph zones has anything to do with safety...In terms of responsibility we do tend to try to apportion all responsibility 100% in one direction as a consequence of having developed such a legal heavy society where we're always trying to neatly blame ordinary negative every day life occurrences entirely on one individual or organisation so a fine or penalty can be applied. In 'reality' (a word which has appeared quite frequently in this thread) responsibility for road safety is with everybody. It's with the drivers, the authorities, the pedestrians, parents, teachers and children. To try to put the burden of road safety entirely on the shoulders of a single group or even to try and manipulate the natural order such as it is will have unforeseen consequences. As is so often the case the unforeseen consequences (some of which are foreseen and have already been mentioned in this thread) are worse than the problems which likely won't be resolved by the intervention.
It probably ties in with their recycling goals. I raised the question to one of the welsh gov as to what their eventual recycling target is - 80%? 90%? 125% ? At what point is "good enough" and the same applies to roads. If the data doesn't show significant claimed improvements in 12-18 months they should be grown up enough to roll it back and apologise.
Evanivitch said:
bigothunter said:
I'm not convinced that the prime motive for these 20mph zones has anything to do with safety...
What do you think it is then? Because there's no extra funding for policing.We spent money we don't have, doing something completely pointless but it doesn't matter because we did a thing!
M
camel_landy said:
Evanivitch said:
bigothunter said:
I'm not convinced that the prime motive for these 20mph zones has anything to do with safety...
What do you think it is then? Because there's no extra funding for policing.We spent money we don't have, doing something completely pointless but it doesn't matter because we did a thing!
M
ingenieur said:
I like the way you've phrased this but got to bear in mind they don't have to defend themselves because there's zero chance of anyone else ever having control of the Senedd. So I don't agree that they are arming themselves for battle in any sense.
Just call me an optimist. 
M
bmwmike said:
It probably ties in with their recycling goals. I raised the question to one of the welsh gov as to what their eventual recycling target is - 80%? 90%? 125% ? At what point is "good enough" and the same applies to roads. If the data doesn't show significant claimed improvements in 12-18 months they should be grown up enough to roll it back and apologise.
local government/Council apologise??? I admire your optimism Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff