Reducing speed to 20mph ‘created more deaths than injuries’ but council can’t afford to scrap them
 

On 20-Dec-17 6:22 PM, Nick Finnigan wrote:
On 18/12/2017 17:36, Nightjar wrote:

They are talking of 20mph zones. A 20mph speed limit can be reversed
simply by issuing the necessary traffic order and removing the signs.
A 20mph zone has to be designed to be self-enforcing, which means lots
of traffic calming measures.

Â*It doesn't have to be: all of the recent 20mph zones in Lancashire
just have new signs on poles....

Are you sure they are 20mph zones, which have the word ZONE under the
20mph speed limit sign at the start of the zone, and not simply areas
with a 20mph limit, which don't have the word ZONE and, if long enough,
will have 20mph repeater signs?

--
--

Colin Bignell

Reducing speed to 20mph ‘created more deaths
 

On 21-Dec-17 11:09 AM, wrote:
....
I doubt anyone expects cars to stick to 20 anyway. I imagine the thinking
behind it is that at 30 cars do anything up to 40 so put 20 signs up and
they'll do 25-30 which is acceptable.

The aim really is to reduce speeds to 20mph, or not much above it. This
is based upon the 1979 findings that pedestrians struck by a car doing
30mph have a 20% risk of dying, as compared to 2.5% at 20mph. More
recently, this has been revised down to 8% and 1.5%, which may be due to
improvements in vehicle design since the first report. However, it is
the most ignored limit of all, with 84% of cars exceeding 20mph, as
compared to 46% exceeding 70mph on motorways.


--
--

Colin Bignell

Reducing speed to 20mph ‘created more deaths
 

In message , Nightjar
writes
On 21-Dec-17 11:09 AM, wrote:
...
I doubt anyone expects cars to stick to 20 anyway. I imagine the thinking
behind it is that at 30 cars do anything up to 40 so put 20 signs up and
they'll do 25-30 which is acceptable.

The aim really is to reduce speeds to 20mph, or not much above it. This
is based upon the 1979 findings that pedestrians struck by a car doing
30mph have a 20% risk of dying, as compared to 2.5% at 20mph. More
recently, this has been revised down to 8% and 1.5%, which may be due
to improvements in vehicle design since the first report. However, it
is the most ignored limit of all, with 84% of cars exceeding 20mph, as
compared to 46% exceeding 70mph on motorways.

One problem is that if there is an accident because of 'speeding', there
is often an immediate call to lower the speed limit - with little
reference to how fast the offending vehicle was actually going. I recall
near here there was fatal accident on a 50mph limit main road. Some
people wanted a 40 limit - despite the vehicle's estimated speed being
at least 80mph. The obvious answer might be simply be to enforce the
existing limits.



--
Ian

Reducing speed to 20mph ‘created more deaths
 

On 21/12/2017 11:09, wrote:
On Wed, 20 Dec 2017 18:22:23 +0000
Nick Finnigan wrote:
On 18/12/2017 17:36, Nightjar wrote:

They are talking of 20mph zones. A 20mph speed limit can be reversed simply
by issuing the necessary traffic order and removing the signs. A 20mph zone
has to be designed to be self-enforcing, which means lots of traffic
calming measures.

It doesn't have to be: all of the recent 20mph zones in Lancashire just
have new signs on poles.

Those would also need to be removed and the roads
restored to their former condition to reverse a 20mph zone.

... and some stretches of roads reverted to 30mph after the locals
complained.

I doubt anyone expects cars to stick to 20 anyway. I imagine the thinking

For most of the zones you couldn't get above 20mph anyway.

behind it is that at 30 cars do anything up to 40 so put 20 signs up and
they'll do 25-30 which is acceptable
On the main roads, cars would stick to 30mph in a 30 limit; with the 20
signs people seemed to think you are breaking the limit anyway, and it is
not going to be enforced so you might as well be not hanged for a sheep ...

Reducing speed to 20mph ‘created more deaths than injuries’ but council can’t afford to scrap them
 

On 21/12/2017 12:47, Nightjar wrote:
On 20-Dec-17 6:22 PM, Nick Finnigan wrote:
On 18/12/2017 17:36, Nightjar wrote:

They are talking of 20mph zones. A 20mph speed limit can be reversed
simply by issuing the necessary traffic order and removing the signs. A
20mph zone has to be designed to be self-enforcing, which means lots of
traffic calming measures.

Â*Â*It doesn't have to be: all of the recent 20mph zones in Lancashire just
have new signs on poles....

Are you sure they are 20mph zones, which have the word ZONE under the 20mph
speed limit sign at the start of the zone, and not simply areas with a
20mph limit, which don't have the word ZONE and, if long enough, will have
20mph repeater signs?

Most people, including metro reporters would refer to them as zones.
Lancashire refer to them as areas; BathNES refer to them as rural areas.

Reducing speed to 20mph ‘created more deaths than injuries’ but council can’t afford to scrap them
 

On 21-Dec-17 11:36 PM, Nick Finnigan wrote:
On 21/12/2017 12:47, Nightjar wrote:
On 20-Dec-17 6:22 PM, Nick Finnigan wrote:
On 18/12/2017 17:36, Nightjar wrote:

They are talking of 20mph zones. A 20mph speed limit can be reversed
simply by issuing the necessary traffic order and removing the
signs. A 20mph zone has to be designed to be self-enforcing, which
means lots of traffic calming measures.

Â*Â*It doesn't have to be: all of the recent 20mph zones in Lancashire
just have new signs on poles....

Are you sure they are 20mph zones, which have the word ZONE under the
20mph speed limit sign at the start of the zone, and not simply areas
with a 20mph limit, which don't have the word ZONE and, if long
enough, will have 20mph repeater signs?

Â*Most people, including metro reporters would refer to them as zones.
Lancashire refer to them as areas; BathNES refer to them as rural areas.


Which is why I asked. If they are not officially designated as 20mph
zones, but simply have a 20mph limit, traffic calming measures are optional.

--
--

Colin Bignell

Reducing speed to 20mph ‘created more deaths
 

On Thu, 21 Dec 2017 17:42:28 +0000
Nightjar wrote:
On 21-Dec-17 11:09 AM, wrote:
....
I doubt anyone expects cars to stick to 20 anyway. I imagine the thinking
behind it is that at 30 cars do anything up to 40 so put 20 signs up and
they'll do 25-30 which is acceptable.

The aim really is to reduce speeds to 20mph, or not much above it. This
is based upon the 1979 findings that pedestrians struck by a car doing
30mph have a 20% risk of dying, as compared to 2.5% at 20mph. More
recently, this has been revised down to 8% and 1.5%, which may be due to
improvements in vehicle design since the first report. However, it is

I get a bit fed up with those statistics. You could take it to its absurd
logical conclusion and say at zero mph there is a 0% risk of anyone dying!
However society has to balance risk with activity and I think most drivers
accept that 30mph is pretty much the best compromise limit on local streets
unless they're really narrow or unpaved.

the most ignored limit of all, with 84% of cars exceeding 20mph, as
compared to 46% exceeding 70mph on motorways.

Hardly surprising. I ignore them too. The only people who stick to 20 are
pensioners but thats their normal driving speed anyway.

Reducing speed to 20mph ‘created more deaths
 

On Thu, 21 Dec 2017 19:42:28 +0000
Ian Jackson wrote:
In message , Nightjar
writes
On 21-Dec-17 11:09 AM, wrote:
...
I doubt anyone expects cars to stick to 20 anyway. I imagine the thinking
behind it is that at 30 cars do anything up to 40 so put 20 signs up and
they'll do 25-30 which is acceptable.

The aim really is to reduce speeds to 20mph, or not much above it. This
is based upon the 1979 findings that pedestrians struck by a car doing
30mph have a 20% risk of dying, as compared to 2.5% at 20mph. More
recently, this has been revised down to 8% and 1.5%, which may be due
to improvements in vehicle design since the first report. However, it
is the most ignored limit of all, with 84% of cars exceeding 20mph, as
compared to 46% exceeding 70mph on motorways.

One problem is that if there is an accident because of 'speeding', there
is often an immediate call to lower the speed limit - with little
reference to how fast the offending vehicle was actually going. I recall
near here there was fatal accident on a 50mph limit main road. Some
people wanted a 40 limit - despite the vehicle's estimated speed being
at least 80mph. The obvious answer might be simply be to enforce the
existing limits.

Unfortunately a lot of councils do that with speed humps which limit your
speed to far lower than the posted limit (which is probably deliberate) unless
you want to pay for expensive suspension repairs. If you even did 20 over
some speedhumps you'd **** one or more struts, never mind 30. I find I have
to crawl over some at not much more than 10 or my car risks bumping its stops.

Reducing speed to 20mph ‘created more deaths
 

In message , writes
On Thu, 21 Dec 2017 19:42:28 +0000
Ian Jackson wrote:
In message , Nightjar
writes
On 21-Dec-17 11:09 AM, wrote:
...
I doubt anyone expects cars to stick to 20 anyway. I imagine the thinking
behind it is that at 30 cars do anything up to 40 so put 20 signs up and
they'll do 25-30 which is acceptable.

The aim really is to reduce speeds to 20mph, or not much above it. This
is based upon the 1979 findings that pedestrians struck by a car doing
30mph have a 20% risk of dying, as compared to 2.5% at 20mph. More
recently, this has been revised down to 8% and 1.5%, which may be due
to improvements in vehicle design since the first report. However, it
is the most ignored limit of all, with 84% of cars exceeding 20mph, as
compared to 46% exceeding 70mph on motorways.

One problem is that if there is an accident because of 'speeding', there
is often an immediate call to lower the speed limit - with little
reference to how fast the offending vehicle was actually going. I recall
near here there was fatal accident on a 50mph limit main road. Some
people wanted a 40 limit - despite the vehicle's estimated speed being
at least 80mph. The obvious answer might be simply be to enforce the
existing limits.

Unfortunately a lot of councils do that with speed humps which limit your
speed to far lower than the posted limit (which is probably deliberate) unless
you want to pay for expensive suspension repairs. If you even did 20 over
some speedhumps you'd **** one or more struts, never mind 30. I find I have
to crawl over some at not much more than 10 or my car risks bumping its stops.

In my local town, there are 13 speed bumps in a 30 limit, all in a
distance of about 600 yards. They are the individual, rectangular type,
in pairs - one on each half of the road.

Motor bikes can pass between the bumps, or on either side. Chelsea
Tractors (which comprise at least half the vehicles in this affluent
part of the world) can usually completely straddle one the bumps. It's
really only those with 'ordinary' cars with a 'normal' wheel width that
really suffer. You have the choice of having either the left side or the
right side of the car experiencing the full lift of centre of the a
bump, or partially straddling it - with both sides of the car getting
only a partial lift as the wheels pass simultaneously over both of the
sloping shoulders.

Despite it being a 30 limit, I wouldn't dream of passing over any of the
13 bumps at more than about 20mph. As I resist the temptation to
accelerate between the bumps, I end up travelling the whole 600 yards at
20. [I don't mind this at all - and would indeed be happy to do the same
if there was a bump-less 20 limit.] However, I then often end up with a
procession of vehicles following me at 20mph. There are occasions when
one vehicle will suddenly break rank, and tear off furiously to the
front of the procession at a hell of a lot more than the 30 limit. As
the road with the bumps ends at a 'Give Way' sign at a T-junction with
another road, I usually reach the end immediately behind the vehicle
that couldn't wait behind me, waiting at the Give Way sign.

The whole thing is crazy.


--
Ian

Reducing speed to 20mph 'created more deaths than injuries' but council can't afford to scrap them
 

James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Mon, 18 Dec 2017 14:03:39 -0000, Brian Reay wrote:

On 18/12/2017 09:59, Bod wrote:
On 18/12/2017 09:41, Bod wrote:
A council has said that 20mph zones recently introduced in its area
will stay despite a rise in the number of deaths and injuries.

Bath and North East Somerset Council spent £871,000 bringing in
the 13 new speed zones just 12 months ago. Woman openly admits she
loves her dog more than her only child But one year on, a report
has found that the rate of people killed or seriously injured has
gone up in seven out of the 13 new 20mph zones. The report,
published in May 2017 by Bath and North East Somerset Council,
says this is a national trend. The council suggests people are 'less
diligent' when walking and
crossing roads within the zones, because they think they are safer.
Deputy council leader Councillor Patrick Anketell-Jones has
admitted there simply isn't the money available to reverse the
20mph zones.
http://metro.co.uk/2017/12/18/reduci...8/?ito=cbshare


The Council said "it would cost £800,000 to remove the signs"
That's a ridiculous amount!


The findings won't stop 'pressure groups' demanding more such zones
or councils introducing them- leading to more unnecessary injuries
and deaths. Obviously there are instances of bad driving- including of
course
driving under the influence etc.- and no one is suggesting they
shouldn't be dealt with. However, introducing measures which are not
only known to fail but be harmful is more than ridiculous.

Especially speedbumps which cause criminal damage to the spines of
the elderly and disabled. I want to see council employees jailed.

Hucker's psychopathic views on road safety are below.
What a ******!

"I have driven a Ford Sierra 1.6 at 90mph on single track roads
with passing places in the NW of Scotland. ****ing great fun"!

"I am proud of being nicked 10 times, and even prouder of talking my
way out of twice that number of offences".
"Make that 12. 9 speeding offences, 2 seatbelts, and 1 unroadworthy
vehicle".
Make that 3 seatbelt offences,

"I don't give a **** about the law".
"**** the law".
"It's only illegal is you get caught".
"Something being illegal does not matter".
"The law is irrelevant".