A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

Go Back   Home » CycleBanter.com forum » Regional Cycling » UK
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

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



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #31  
Old December 22nd 17, 10:27 PM posted to uk.rec.driving,uk.rec.cycling,uk.legal
MrCheerful
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,283
Default Reducing speed to 20mph ‘created more deaths

On 22/12/2017 20:40, Ian Jackson wrote:
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.



If you take the humps at the sharpest angle you can, then one wheel at a
time goes up and the overall shock is massively reduced.
Ads
  #32  
Old December 22nd 17, 11:17 PM posted to uk.rec.driving,uk.rec.cycling,uk.legal
Mr Pounder Esquire
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,074
Default Reducing speed to 20mph 'created more deaths than injuries' but council can't afford to scrap them

James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Fri, 22 Dec 2017 21:54:16 -0000, Mr Pounder Esquire
wrote:
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 ******!


Mr Pounder advocates damaging disabled people. You are beyond a joke.

"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".


I see nothing wrong with the above, and neither do the 3 million a
year caught for speeding. Not my fault if you're a slow driver.


Thus you are a prick.


  #33  
Old December 23rd 17, 12:36 AM posted to uk.rec.cycling
Simon Jester
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,615
Default Reducing speed to 20mph ‘created more deaths

On Friday, December 22, 2017 at 10:27:18 PM UTC, MrCheerful wrote:
On 22/12/2017 20:40, Ian Jackson wrote:
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.



If you take the humps at the sharpest angle you can, then one wheel at a
time goes up and the overall shock is massively reduced.


If motorists obeyed speed limits, speed humps would not be necessary.

  #34  
Old December 23rd 17, 09:46 AM posted to uk.rec.driving,uk.rec.cycling,uk.legal
Handsome Jack
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3
Default Reducing speed to 20mph

Ian Jackson posted

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.


Yes, that sort of bumps are stupid. You need the continuous ones right
across the road. I really don't understand why local authorities put in
the square type. Perhaps because of their cycling fetish.


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.


Very rare, I would think. Few drivers are as ****witted as all that.
I've driven in an area with those speed bumps for 25 years now and have
never seen anyone do it.

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.


There are no traffic measures that give complete protection against
utter imbeciles. The best you can do is deter them doing the most
dangerous things, like driving down residential roads at 50.

--
Jack
  #35  
Old December 24th 17, 04:42 PM posted to uk.rec.driving,uk.rec.cycling,uk.legal
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 25
Default Reducing speed to 20mph created more deaths

On Fri, 22 Dec 2017 20:40:33 +0000
Ian Jackson wrote:
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.


The problem with doing that is it badly wears the inside of the tyre tread
though admittedly its better to wear out a tyre than knacker a shock
absorber or spring.

  #38  
Old December 25th 17, 12:20 PM posted to uk.rec.driving,uk.rec.cycling,uk.legal
Nick Finnigan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 524
Default Reducing speed to 20mph ‘created more deaths than injuries’ but council can’t afford to scrap them

On 22/12/2017 10:04, Nightjar wrote:
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.

**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.


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.


According to the 2013 circular ...
"These new arrangements should significantly reduce the requirement for
signing and traffic calming features. Traffic authorities can now
incorporate wider areas within a 20 mph zone, by effectively signing
20mph speed limits on distributor roads where traffic calming features are
not suitable, or for small individual roads or stretches of road, where
mean speeds are already at or below 24 mph. "


  #39  
Old January 19th 18, 12:20 AM posted to uk.rec.driving,uk.rec.cycling,uk.legal
Mr Pounder Esquire
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,074
Default 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 19:28:57 -0000, Nightjar
wrote:
On 18-Dec-17 6:12 PM, tim... wrote:


"Nightjar" wrote in message
...

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

but do they absolutely need to be?

the road outside my estate has speed calming humps, but the speed
limit is still 30 mph


Some measures are not considered to be effective in a 30mph limit and
would probably need to be removed. If humps are retained, they would
need lit warning signs (not required in a 20mph zone) and appropriate
road markings (also not a requirement in a 20mph zone) to be added.


There are no rules, the councils do what they like. There's a 20mph
limit here with a bump which will disable your vehicle completely if
you go more than 5mph over it. Worse still, it's in the middle of
several others which would allow up to 30 mph. Councils operate
above the law and don't give a **** about criminal damage to your
car, or to the spines of the elderly and disabled. They should all
go to jail immediately.


Pillock


  #40  
Old January 19th 18, 12:21 AM posted to uk.rec.driving,uk.rec.cycling,uk.legal
Mr Pounder Esquire
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,074
Default Reducing speed to 20mph

James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Sat, 23 Dec 2017 09:46:28 -0000, Handsome Jack
wrote:
Ian Jackson posted

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.


Yes, that sort of bumps are stupid. You need the continuous ones
right across the road. I really don't understand why local
authorities put in the square type. Perhaps because of their cycling
fetish.
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.


Very rare, I would think. Few drivers are as ****witted as all that.
I've driven in an area with those speed bumps for 25 years now and
have never seen anyone do it.


I overtake people on bumps all the time, it's far easier to get past
someone when they slow to 10mph.
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.


There are no traffic measures that give complete protection against
utter imbeciles. The best you can do is deter them doing the most
dangerous things, like driving down residential roads at 50.


You can't stop me doing that. More bumps and more limits just make
me more angry. All they're doing is slowing down the slow drivers. The
fast ones just raise their middle finger.


Pillock


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
20mph speed limits Bertie Wooster UK 82 January 2nd 12 12:31 AM
CTC Supports Reducing Speed Limits to Discourage Motoring Nuxx Bar[_3_] UK 0 July 19th 11 10:39 AM
20mph speed limits Tom Crispin[_4_] UK 19 September 19th 10 10:14 AM
Reducing Fuel use and Increasing your car speed with FFI MPG-CAPS sexy girl Social Issues 0 February 23rd 08 05:44 AM
No safety benefit in reducing CBD speed limit to 40km/h Russell Lang Australia 11 July 24th 06 06:22 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:14 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2018 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.