20mph speed limits increase accidents

On Sat, 9 Oct 2010 11:09:33 -0700 (PDT), Simon Mason
wrote:

On 9 Oct, 18:50, JMS wrote:
On Sat, 9 Oct 2010 10:16:56 -0700 (PDT), Simon Mason

wrote:

snip

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.

"The stopping distance for cyclists does not matter" - unless you are
another road user - a pedestrian, a child running out from between
parked cars or suchlike.

Come on *- don't be shy - or are you so pathetic that you don't know?

You really are a knob.

You have bragged about riding at 20 to 25 mph in a 20 mph zone - and
you don't even know your stopping distance.

You have even commented that there *are three schools in the area
concerned.

You have cocked things up yet again.

Oh really well this is what you said :

"there is a mile long road with a 20mph limit, but with no humps, just
a 20mph sign and a triggered flashing sign. It is 20mph as there are
3 schools down it."


So feel free to explain why you insist on traveling at 20-25 mph in a
20mph limit zone - particularly where there are three schools.



And then when you've done that, you can perhaps tell us what your
stopping distance is at those speeds.


It is beginning to look like you just don't know - or is it the Porky
Chapman school of honesty yet again?





--

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?

"JMS" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 9 Oct 2010 11:09:33 -0700 (PDT), Simon Mason
wrote:

On 9 Oct, 18:50, JMS wrote:
On Sat, 9 Oct 2010 10:16:56 -0700 (PDT), Simon Mason

wrote:

snip

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.

"The stopping distance for cyclists does not matter" - unless you are
another road user - a pedestrian, a child running out from between
parked cars or suchlike.

Come on - don't be shy - or are you so pathetic that you don't know?

You really are a knob.

You have bragged about riding at 20 to 25 mph in a 20 mph zone - and
you don't even know your stopping distance.

You have even commented that there are three schools in the area
concerned.

You have cocked things up yet again.

Oh really well this is what you said :

"there is a mile long road with a 20mph limit, but with no humps, just
a 20mph sign and a triggered flashing sign. It is 20mph as there are
3 schools down it."


So feel free to explain why you insist on traveling at 20-25 mph in a
20mph limit zone - particularly where there are three schools.



And then when you've done that, you can perhaps tell us what your
stopping distance is at those speeds.


It is beginning to look like you just don't know - or is it the Porky
Chapman school of honesty yet again?

Don't be too hard on Simple Simon. He isn't very bright. He takes photos
of snow.


--
Dave - intelligent enough to realise that a push bike, like a skateboard, is
a kid's toy, not a viable form of transport.

"Steve Firth" wrote in message
.. .
Simon Mason wrote:

For a real success you have to install humps like here in Hull

You have my deepest sympathy. I've been to Hull, it's an open sewer.

"From Hell, Hull, and Halifax may the Good Lord deliver us!" 16th century -
not much has changed.


--
Dave - intelligent enough to realise that a push bike, like a skateboard, is
a kid's toy, not a viable form of transport.

"Colin McKenzie" wrote in message
newsp.vkblyuosby8eno@sheepdog...
On Sat, 09 Oct 2010 16:22:57 +0100, Tony Raven
wrote:
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."
...
"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, just to confirm, merely putting up 20mph signs, and doing nothing
else, has reduced casualties slightly more than in other comparable areas,
though the difference is small. Other research shows that the speed
reduction from signs alone is also small.

The safety improvement may even be bigger than the casualty figures
suggest, if the reduced traffic speeds encouraged more people than before
to walk and cycle.


Ermm. No ****wit. People don't cycle because it isn't a viable form of
transport.


--
Dave - intelligent enough to realise that a push bike, like a skateboard, is
a kid's toy, not a viable form of transport.

"Tony Raven" wrote in message
...
Steve Firth wrote:
Tony Raven wrote:

Did you read the actual report Derek, where Atkins say of those killed
and
seriously injured numbers were too small to draw any conclusions?

Yes, oddly enough I also read the reports about the installation of
speed cameras where deaths fell by the same proportion and the assorted
limpwits of URC claimed that the figures showed that speed cameras were
a stunning success.




That's because you haven't understood the difference between statistical
variations in a proportion and a number. Seems those limpwits are more
numerate than you.

I can confirm that facts and figures are not Firth's strongest points.

On Sun, 10 Oct 2010 00:11:58 +0100, The Medway Handyman wrote:


Ermm. No ****wit. People don't cycle because it isn't a viable form of
transport.

I love my non-viable form of transport.



--
67.4 percent of statistics are made up.

On Sat, 09 Oct 2010 12:02:43 -0700, Derek C wrote:


Did you read the article properly Tony? The numbers killed and seriously
injured actually increased.

"Analysis by consultants Atkins, on behalf of the Department for
Transport, found the average number of people killed or seriously
injured annually in Portsmouth rose from 18.7 to 19.9 after the scheme
was launched in 2007".

Derek C


Considering natural variation and the numbers involved this looks like a
non-significant change, easily explained by random variations


--
67.4 percent of statistics are made up.

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!

Or this...

"The Portsmouth speed limit is not enforced by speed humps or cameras,
instead relying on motorists obeying the law."

LOL! Fat chance!

My guess is that these motorists deliberately revolt against the
restrictions imposed on them and what is the point of a restriction
that is not enforced anyway?

-- .
UK Radical Campaigns.
http://www.zing.icom43.net
A driving licence is a licence to kill.

Tony Raven wrote:

Yes, oddly enough I also read the reports about the installation of
speed cameras where deaths fell by the same proportion and the assorted
limpwits of URC claimed that the figures showed that speed cameras were
a stunning success.




That's because you haven't understood the difference between statistical
variations in a proportion and a number.

I understand both, and in the case of speed cameras the sample size was
smaller than the sample size in the case of the Atkins report, the
proportion by which deaths were reduced was of the same order but in
terms of number fewer people were "saved" by the speed cameras *at each
site* yet the morons, and you can add your name to the list, claimed a
staggering victory for speed cameras. That data was statistically
useless for many reasons, regression to the median, pointlessly low
sample sizes and even the choice of a "reference year" which had the
highest number of deaths over a ten year period. Also the geographical
extent of the zone protected by the speed camera was not defined before
the "trial" was commenced.

The Atkins report was performed in a more controlled manner than the
trial of speed cameras and is founded on a greater body of evidence.

Now, you claim that evidence that relates to larger numbers, and which
is therefore slightly more sound a proposition on which to base an
argument that a non-Null effect has been observed is flawed. You remain
an idiot who wants things both ways.

Seems those limpwits are more numerate than you.

More wishful thinking from you. Add your name to the list of limpwits,
you couldn't argue your way out of a paper bag.

Peter Keller wrote:

On Sun, 10 Oct 2010 00:11:58 +0100, The Medway Handyman wrote:


Ermm. No ****wit. People don't cycle because it isn't a viable form of
transport.

I love my non-viable form of transport.

How jolly nice for you. I loved my Jaguar XJR. Are you saying that
everyone should either have a Jag. XJR or a bike?

FWIW I had both, so on the "use a form of transport you love" basis I
scored 100% and was thus saving the planet!