20mph speed limits increase accidents

It seems that reducing urban speed limits from 30mph to 20mph has
actually increased road accidents in the trial areas, while switching
off speed cameras has reduced accidents in other areas. See:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...=feeds-newsxml

Must be something to do with risk compensation, or motorists dying of
boredom at 20mph!

Derek C

"Derek C" wrote in message
...
It seems that reducing urban speed limits from 30mph to 20mph has
actually increased road accidents in the trial areas, while switching
off speed cameras has reduced accidents in other areas. See:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...=feeds-newsxml

Must be something to do with risk compensation, or motorists dying of
boredom at 20mph!

It might have something to do with pedestrians making the assumption that
traffic will be slower and it does not pose a threat to them.

You generally find that as traffic speed slows, pedestrians become more
brave and will cross the roads at times and places where if the traffic
speed was higher they would wait. Light controlled crossings are of less use
as the pedestrians can cross wherever they wish. Kids in the streets will
take little notice of slow traffic. I generally find driving through my
local town that below about 10 mph, pedestrians and cyclists will pretty
much ignore cars. Above about 25mph and no one dares step into the road when
there is traffic.

There is the argument that if you *increased* urban traffic speed, no ****
would step off the pavement and into the road, no prat would pull out in
front of moving traffic and no one in their right mind would ride a bike or
use anything else on the roads apart from larger vehicles that can keep up
with the traffic flow.

But who would want to live in areas where people are too frightened to walk
or cycle anywhere? rhetorical

On Sat, 9 Oct 2010 06:27:14 -0700 (PDT), Derek C
wrote:

It seems that reducing urban speed limits from 30mph to 20mph has
actually increased road accidents in the trial areas, while switching
off speed cameras has reduced accidents in other areas. See:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...=feeds-newsxml

Must be something to do with risk compensation, or motorists dying of
boredom at 20mph!


Or motorists looking at the speedometer instead of the glass bit at
the front?

--

Ian D

On 9 Oct, 14:27, Derek C wrote:
It seems that reducing urban speed limits from 30mph to 20mph has
actually increased road accidents in the trial areas, while switching
off speed cameras has reduced accidents in other areas. See:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...one-increases-...

Must be something to do with risk compensation, or motorists dying of
boredom at 20mph!

Derek C

Total tripe. The only reason is that these 20mph limits are not
enforced so drivers will drive at any speed they like. For a real
success you have to install humps like here in Hull where the 20mph
zones have been a stunning success.

http://www.publications.parliament.u...57/557ap80.htm

--
Simon Mason

Derek C wrote:

It seems that reducing urban speed limits from 30mph to 20mph has
actually increased road accidents in the trial areas, while switching
off speed cameras has reduced accidents in other areas. See:

Quelle surprise.

It would also be interesting to see what it's doing to air pollution in
those areas.

On Sat, 9 Oct 2010 07:19:58 -0700 (PDT), Simon Mason
wrote:

On 9 Oct, 14:27, Derek C wrote:
It seems that reducing urban speed limits from 30mph to 20mph has
actually increased road accidents in the trial areas, while switching
off speed cameras has reduced accidents in other areas. See:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...one-increases-...

Must be something to do with risk compensation, or motorists dying of
boredom at 20mph!

Derek C

Total tripe. The only reason is that these 20mph limits are not
enforced so drivers will drive at any speed they like. For a real
success you have to install humps like here in Hull where the 20mph
zones have been a stunning success.

http://www.publications.parliament.u...57/557ap80.htm



When you say "stunning success" - I assume that you mean that total
prats like you on bikes can now travel at 20 to 25 MPH when you
couldn't before.

You haven't told us what your stopping distance is at those sort of
speeds.

Is it because you don't know - or you would look an even bigger prat
if you told us?

--

Per billion passenger kilometres

Car KSI 18
Cycle KSI 541
Pedestrian 358

(KSI : Killed or Seriously Injured)
Dft 2008 FIgures

Who says cycling is safer than walking?

In message , JMS
writes
On Sat, 9 Oct 2010 07:19:58 -0700 (PDT), Simon Mason
wrote:

On 9 Oct, 14:27, Derek C wrote:
It seems that reducing urban speed limits from 30mph to 20mph has
actually increased road accidents in the trial areas, while switching
off speed cameras has reduced accidents in other areas. See:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...one-increases-...

Must be something to do with risk compensation, or motorists dying of
boredom at 20mph!

Derek C

Total tripe. The only reason is that these 20mph limits are not
enforced so drivers will drive at any speed they like. For a real
success you have to install humps like here in Hull where the 20mph
zones have been a stunning success.

http://www.publications.parliament.u...t/cmtlgr/557/5
57ap80.htm



When you say "stunning success" - I assume that you mean that total
prats like you on bikes can now travel at 20 to 25 MPH when you
couldn't before.




No. If the driver decides that he can actually drive over the bumps at
20 or 25mph, "stunning" refers to what happens when the heads of the
car's occupants' hit the inside of the roof.



--
Ian

Derek C wrote:
It seems that reducing urban speed limits from 30mph to 20mph has
actually increased road accidents in the trial areas, while switching
off speed cameras has reduced accidents in other areas. See:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...=feeds-newsxml


Must be something to do with risk compensation, or motorists dying of
boredom at 20mph!



Yes, well, another Derekism.

Lets see what the report actually says rather than the Daily Wail's
gleeful interpretation of it:

"There was a 9% reduction in number of vehicles involved in KSI
accidents across the six sectors."

"Comparing the 3 years before the scheme was implemented and the 2 years
afterwards, the number of recorded road casualties has fallen by 22%
from 183 per year to 142 per year. During that period casualty numbers
fell nationally – by about 14% in comparable areas."

"Because the total numbers of deaths and serious injuries and of
casualties by road user type and cause are relatively low, few
inferences about the scheme’s impacts should be drawn from these figures."

"Qualitative surveys indicate that the scheme was generally supported by
residents, although most of the respondents would like to see more
enforcement of the 20 mph speed limits."

"In conclusion, early figures suggest that the implementation of the 20
mph Speed Limit scheme has been associated with reductions in road
casualty numbers. The scheme has reduced average speeds and been
well-supported during its first two years of operation."

Oh, and the roads with the limits were chosen for their low initial speeds:

"Following consultation with the Police, six sectors were then
identified for funding over two years to focus on residential roads,
most of which had existing speeds equal to or less than 24 mph."

So its no basis for assessing general speed limit reduction from 30mph
to 20mph.

Tony

"Simon Mason" wrote in message
...
On 9 Oct, 14:27, Derek C wrote:
It seems that reducing urban speed limits from 30mph to 20mph has
actually increased road accidents in the trial areas, while switching
off speed cameras has reduced accidents in other areas. See:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...one-increases-...

Must be something to do with risk compensation, or motorists dying of
boredom at 20mph!

Derek C

Total tripe. The only reason is that these 20mph limits are not
enforced so drivers will drive at any speed they like. For a real
success you have to install humps like here in Hull where the 20mph
zones have been a stunning success.

http://www.publications.parliament.u...57/557ap80.htm

The humps should keep them awake. They might also help them keep off the
mobile phone too!

On 9 Oct, 15:46, JMS wrote:
On Sat, 9 Oct 2010 07:19:58 -0700 (PDT), Simon Mason





wrote:
On 9 Oct, 14:27, Derek C wrote:
It seems that reducing urban speed limits from 30mph to 20mph has
actually increased road accidents in the trial areas, while switching
off speed cameras has reduced accidents in other areas. See:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...one-increases-...

Must be something to do with risk compensation, or motorists dying of
boredom at 20mph!

Derek C

Total tripe. The only reason is that these 20mph limits are not
enforced so drivers will drive at any speed they like. For a real
success you have to install humps like here in Hull where the 20mph
zones have been a stunning success.

http://www.publications.parliament.u...ect/cmtlgr/557...

When you say "stunning success" - I assume that you mean that total
prats like you on bikes can now travel at 20 to 25 MPH when you
couldn't before.

What? I could ride at 25 mph *before* the humps were put it, of
course. Why would putting humps in *help* me in riding at that speed?
All it has done is stopped cars driving at that speed thus making the
street much safer as the figures testify.
Also, I don't get tailgated any more.


You haven't told us what your stopping distance is at those sort of
speeds.

Is it because you don't know - or you would look an even bigger prat
if you told us?

The figures show that the number of casualties has gone down, which is
the important point - the stopping distance for pedal cycles obviously
doesn't matter, otherwise there would be figures in the Highway Code
giving them, like there are for cars.

--
Simon Mason