Accidents ‘may be more likely’ in York's 20mph zones

CONTROVERSIAL 20mph zones could be increasing rather than reducing the risk of accidents, a new report has warned.

The reduced limits could be lulling pedestrians into a false sense of security, so they take less care, a transport boss at City of York Council says.

The revelation has sparked calls for a rethink on York’s “twenty’s plenty” campaign, central to Labour’s transport strategy.

National statistics released at the weekend showed the accident rate in 20mph areas increased by a quarter last year, while the rate in other urban areas fell by one per cent.

Neil Taylor, the council’s interim director of city and environmental services, noted concerns in a written report following a meeting behind closed doors to discuss objections to a new 20mph zone in South Bank and Clementhorpe.

He said: “Officers have examined the national casualty data and there are more accidents in 20mph areas, although there are also more 20mph areas than were in existence previously.”

He said officers werecontacting Portsmouth and Islington councils to get as much feedback as possible on their projects, but said: “One scenario is that pedestrians may be less vigilant when in a 20mph zone and have a false sense of security.

“Officers have identified that as a possibility and will be working closely with colleagues to help win the hearts and minds of residents.”

Council transport plannner Tom Horner said in a report to the meeting that there had been “substantial increases in killed and seriously injured casualties” in two areas implementing widespread 20mph speed limits, but said there was little clue yet as to the cause.

Coun Dave Merrett , cabinet member for transport issues, said in a statement it was not appropriate to assume the statistics meant 20mph zones were more dangerous.

He said: “There has been a significant increase in road length covered by the 20mph speed limits from 2010/11 nationally, and this on its own could be the reason behind the apparent increase in accidents. The point is nobody has the full information at this point in time to understand the true explanation, but it is important that such an analysis is undertaken so as to feed into future policy.”S He said the council was working with police to ensure 20mph limits were implemented in York sensibly, to minimise accidents, and said a number of such zones in York had already proved successful in reducing accidents.

His statement did not say where these zones were.

He said extra funds had been committed for traffic-calming measures on non-residential roads with higher speeds, and said a pilot in Bishopthorpe Road and Scarcroft Road would be closely monitored.

Coun Merrett said the 20mph zones were in line with residents’ wishes and said work was also being carried out to raise public awareness.

Conservative group leader Ian Gillies said Labour’s push for 20mph zones was “purely ideological”, and said: “Motorists ignore them, the police will not enforce them and there are no statistics to justify them.”

Liberal Democrat leader Carol Runciman said the report “completely undermines” Labour’s claims about 20mph limits and said the possible increase in accidents was “worrying”.

She said: “This scheme will cost somewhere approaching £1 million and Lib Dems think this is a waste of valuable resources which could be invested elsewhere, including on enforcing existing speed limits.”

The increase in the number of accidents in 20mph areas was raised by the Lib Dems.

The concerns were discussed at a meeting on July 31, along with concerns from four residents, including ones about air pollution and value for money.

Mr Taylor approved the South Bank and Clementhorpe 20mph zone in consultation with Richard Wood, the council’s assistant director for strategic planning and transport, and Coun Merrett.

Comments (76)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

11:15am Wed 15 Aug 12

yorkshirelad says...

Anyone who knows anything at all about statistics will know that this cannot be used to say that the 20mph zones are more dangerous...that would need far more study.

It's a bit like saying motorways are the safest roads for pedestrians...or the Netherlands is the most dangerous country for cycling...

It would be completely irresponsible to jump on this statistic for political ends...it simply flags up something that needs more investigation.

These 20mph zones are common across Europe...I suspect we just need to try and get used to them. Coun. Gillies 'motorists just ignore them' comment is perhaps a clue to some of the accident figures?
Anyone who knows anything at all about statistics will know that this cannot be used to say that the 20mph zones are more dangerous...that would need far more study. It's a bit like saying motorways are the safest roads for pedestrians...or the Netherlands is the most dangerous country for cycling... It would be completely irresponsible to jump on this statistic for political ends...it simply flags up something that needs more investigation. These 20mph zones are common across Europe...I suspect we just need to try and get used to them. Coun. Gillies 'motorists just ignore them' comment is perhaps a clue to some of the accident figures? yorkshirelad
  • Score: 0

11:17am Wed 15 Aug 12

Gary Gilmores Eyes says...

rather shafts the Brake campagin
rather shafts the Brake campagin Gary Gilmores Eyes
  • Score: 0

11:21am Wed 15 Aug 12

John Cossham says...

Oh dear oh dear, here's a case of someone looking at some data and not interpreting it correctly.

Although the ACTUAL NUMBERS of accidents on 20mph roads has gone up, what hasn't been taken into consideration is that nationally, the number of roads with these speed limits has increased many times over... for instance, the whole of Newcastle has now got a 20mph limit.

This means that any accidents in these streets used to be recorded under the 30mph roads, and are now recorded under the 20mph roads. So, yes, the raw data says there are more accidents in 20mph roads.... and that's because there are more of them than when last surveyed.

What we need is a accidents and injuries PER MILE of road or PER MILE OF VEHICLE USE. This would make far more sense than using half the data.

I hope that the York air quality and accident data is monitored carefully and looked at by competent statisticians so that we can see if having 20mph limits does reduce pollution and injuries. If not, the speed limits can be put back up in a few years time.
Oh dear oh dear, here's a case of someone looking at some data and not interpreting it correctly. Although the ACTUAL NUMBERS of accidents on 20mph roads has gone up, what hasn't been taken into consideration is that nationally, the number of roads with these speed limits has increased many times over... for instance, the whole of Newcastle has now got a 20mph limit. This means that any accidents in these streets used to be recorded under the 30mph roads, and are now recorded under the 20mph roads. So, yes, the raw data says there are more accidents in 20mph roads.... and that's because there are more of them than when last surveyed. What we need is a accidents and injuries PER MILE of road or PER MILE OF VEHICLE USE. This would make far more sense than using half the data. I hope that the York air quality and accident data is monitored carefully and looked at by competent statisticians so that we can see if having 20mph limits does reduce pollution and injuries. If not, the speed limits can be put back up in a few years time. John Cossham
  • Score: 0

11:22am Wed 15 Aug 12

Ignatius Lumpopo says...

Isn't the road safety thing being blown a little out of proportion? Surely the reason 20mph limits are being mooted is because they'll be a sure-fire revenue earner. Think of the increased number of speeding offenders there are going to be and all those lovely fines heading for the Treasury. We all know the easiest way to raise revenue is for motorists to be taxed or fined. The story continues...
Isn't the road safety thing being blown a little out of proportion? Surely the reason 20mph limits are being mooted is because they'll be a sure-fire revenue earner. Think of the increased number of speeding offenders there are going to be and all those lovely fines heading for the Treasury. We all know the easiest way to raise revenue is for motorists to be taxed or fined. The story continues... Ignatius Lumpopo
  • Score: 0

11:35am Wed 15 Aug 12

Overproof says...

I think the data is pretty clear, there is a HIGHER RISK, in other words, pedestrians are more likely to be involved in an accident in a 20 zone.

Both pedestrians and motorists possibly pay less attention in these areas resulting in a greater chance of an accident.
I think the data is pretty clear, there is a HIGHER RISK, in other words, pedestrians are more likely to be involved in an accident in a 20 zone. Both pedestrians and motorists possibly pay less attention in these areas resulting in a greater chance of an accident. Overproof
  • Score: 0

11:41am Wed 15 Aug 12

farmer_robot says...

http://fullfact.org/
articles/road_safety
_20mph_zones_limits_
casualties-27766 Read this. Says EXACTLY what needs saying about the misinformed gibberish being spouted from the mainstream press about the 20mph zones. Total misinformation all based from some seriously flawed conclusions from a set of ambiguous stats.
http://fullfact.org/ articles/road_safety _20mph_zones_limits_ casualties-27766 Read this. Says EXACTLY what needs saying about the misinformed gibberish being spouted from the mainstream press about the 20mph zones. Total misinformation all based from some seriously flawed conclusions from a set of ambiguous stats. farmer_robot
  • Score: 0

11:45am Wed 15 Aug 12

yorkshirelad says...

Overproof wrote:
I think the data is pretty clear, there is a HIGHER RISK, in other words, pedestrians are more likely to be involved in an accident in a 20 zone.

Both pedestrians and motorists possibly pay less attention in these areas resulting in a greater chance of an accident.
I'm afraid if you know even the most basic of statistics..this is actually not what it is saying. Raw amounts do not equate to risk.
[quote][p][bold]Overproof[/bold] wrote: I think the data is pretty clear, there is a HIGHER RISK, in other words, pedestrians are more likely to be involved in an accident in a 20 zone. Both pedestrians and motorists possibly pay less attention in these areas resulting in a greater chance of an accident.[/p][/quote]I'm afraid if you know even the most basic of statistics..this is actually not what it is saying. Raw amounts do not equate to risk. yorkshirelad
  • Score: 0

11:59am Wed 15 Aug 12

yorkshirelad says...

Ignatius Lumpopo wrote:
Isn't the road safety thing being blown a little out of proportion? Surely the reason 20mph limits are being mooted is because they'll be a sure-fire revenue earner. Think of the increased number of speeding offenders there are going to be and all those lovely fines heading for the Treasury. We all know the easiest way to raise revenue is for motorists to be taxed or fined. The story continues...
There it is...the word revenue which pops up in the paranoid world of the persecuted motorist. It is of course complete nonsense...

On the other hand...if taxes have to be raised, would it not be better if people who break the law pay more via fines? Now...there's an idea...
[quote][p][bold]Ignatius Lumpopo[/bold] wrote: Isn't the road safety thing being blown a little out of proportion? Surely the reason 20mph limits are being mooted is because they'll be a sure-fire revenue earner. Think of the increased number of speeding offenders there are going to be and all those lovely fines heading for the Treasury. We all know the easiest way to raise revenue is for motorists to be taxed or fined. The story continues...[/p][/quote]There it is...the word revenue which pops up in the paranoid world of the persecuted motorist. It is of course complete nonsense... On the other hand...if taxes have to be raised, would it not be better if people who break the law pay more via fines? Now...there's an idea... yorkshirelad
  • Score: 0

12:02pm Wed 15 Aug 12

YorkPatrol says...

Can pedestrians actually achieve 20mph?
Can pedestrians actually achieve 20mph? YorkPatrol
  • Score: 0

12:08pm Wed 15 Aug 12

greenmonkey says...

Reducing the speed limit is not a magic bullet. And as John says if there were accidents on a 30mph stretch of road that now has a 20 limit, unless there was a miraculous zero score the next year the number of accidents on 30mph roads will go down and the number on 20mph roads goes up accordingly. There is also the problem that a general upward trend in accidents in built up areas (eg weather related) will also show as an increase in accidents on the roads changing from 30mph to 20mph.
The article also fails to mention that 742 residents responses were in favour of 20mph on Bishopthorpe Rd with 240 against and 422 wanted 20mph on their own street while only 89 were against this. Those who care enough about the issue to send back the form clearly want lower speeds on their roads and in their neighbourhood. Success does depend on convincing those driving through the area that this is the case, and 10 - 15 seconds on their journey is a small price to pay for better quality of life for people who live in the area.
Reducing the speed limit is not a magic bullet. And as John says if there were accidents on a 30mph stretch of road that now has a 20 limit, unless there was a miraculous zero score the next year the number of accidents on 30mph roads will go down and the number on 20mph roads goes up accordingly. There is also the problem that a general upward trend in accidents in built up areas (eg weather related) will also show as an increase in accidents on the roads changing from 30mph to 20mph. The article also fails to mention that 742 residents responses were in favour of 20mph on Bishopthorpe Rd with 240 against and 422 wanted 20mph on their own street while only 89 were against this. Those who care enough about the issue to send back the form clearly want lower speeds on their roads and in their neighbourhood. Success does depend on convincing those driving through the area that this is the case, and 10 - 15 seconds on their journey is a small price to pay for better quality of life for people who live in the area. greenmonkey
  • Score: 0

12:12pm Wed 15 Aug 12

Mr Udigawa says...

Overproof wrote:
I think the data is pretty clear, there is a HIGHER RISK, in other words, pedestrians are more likely to be involved in an accident in a 20 zone. Both pedestrians and motorists possibly pay less attention in these areas resulting in a greater chance of an accident.
Perhaps we could look into increasing speed limits in residential areas, I imagine if speed limits were raised from 20mph to 60mph we would see a 0% accident rate because all the pedestrians woudl have to be really careful and pay attention......
[quote][p][bold]Overproof[/bold] wrote: I think the data is pretty clear, there is a HIGHER RISK, in other words, pedestrians are more likely to be involved in an accident in a 20 zone. Both pedestrians and motorists possibly pay less attention in these areas resulting in a greater chance of an accident.[/p][/quote]Perhaps we could look into increasing speed limits in residential areas, I imagine if speed limits were raised from 20mph to 60mph we would see a 0% accident rate because all the pedestrians woudl have to be really careful and pay attention...... Mr Udigawa
  • Score: 0

12:24pm Wed 15 Aug 12

Pete the Brickie says...

Is there really no one on the council who can interpret this data properly ie using the number of accidents and the number of road miles in a given year to produce a frequency rate or percentage chance and then do the same for current year to give an accutate comparison? I'm talking about "officers" and councillors from all parties here as none seem to grasp the acutal concept of statistics reading their quotes.
Is there really no one on the council who can interpret this data properly ie using the number of accidents and the number of road miles in a given year to produce a frequency rate or percentage chance and then do the same for current year to give an accutate comparison? I'm talking about "officers" and councillors from all parties here as none seem to grasp the acutal concept of statistics reading their quotes. Pete the Brickie
  • Score: 0

12:26pm Wed 15 Aug 12

YSTClinguist says...

farmer_robot wrote:
http://fullfact.org/

articles/road_safety

_20mph_zones_limits_

casualties-27766 Read this. Says EXACTLY what needs saying about the misinformed gibberish being spouted from the mainstream press about the 20mph zones. Total misinformation all based from some seriously flawed conclusions from a set of ambiguous stats.
Thanks for linking to a site that references the data table (RAS30006) since it wasn't put in this Press article.

It does worry me that there are deaths in 20mph zones, and that they are increasing. Why? Because vehicles are designed with front ends to minimise harm to pedestrians in the event of an accident, and at a speed of 20mph (maximum) it becomes hard to see how so many could be killed by being hit.

I think we can all assume here that the drivers entering those zones are not following the law, and that speeding is the cause of the accidents. Pedestrians lulled into false safety? Only if they believe that drivers won't speed.

So, it appears no matter what speed zone we place in an area, arrogant drivers are going speed and cause deaths, which may lead to a push for legislation towards GPS speed limiting on vehicles in built up zones. When that day comes, the driving community will only have itself to blame (over a trail of dead bodies consisting of kids and OAP's might I add)

All drivers are not like this, but since some of you are doing this, limiting may need to be implemented. The only alternative is banning personal driving in this country, and that's just not feasible. After all, why should the majority lose their privileges because of a minority?
[quote][p][bold]farmer_robot[/bold] wrote: http://fullfact.org/ articles/road_safety _20mph_zones_limits_ casualties-27766 Read this. Says EXACTLY what needs saying about the misinformed gibberish being spouted from the mainstream press about the 20mph zones. Total misinformation all based from some seriously flawed conclusions from a set of ambiguous stats.[/p][/quote]Thanks for linking to a site that references the data table (RAS30006) since it wasn't put in this Press article. It does worry me that there are deaths in 20mph zones, and that they are increasing. Why? Because vehicles are designed with front ends to minimise harm to pedestrians in the event of an accident, and at a speed of 20mph (maximum) it becomes hard to see how so many could be killed by being hit. I think we can all assume here that the drivers entering those zones are not following the law, and that speeding is the cause of the accidents. Pedestrians lulled into false safety? Only if they believe that drivers won't speed. So, it appears no matter what speed zone we place in an area, arrogant drivers are going speed and cause deaths, which may lead to a push for legislation towards GPS speed limiting on vehicles in built up zones. When that day comes, the driving community will only have itself to blame (over a trail of dead bodies consisting of kids and OAP's might I add) All drivers are not like this, but since some of you are doing this, limiting may need to be implemented. The only alternative is banning personal driving in this country, and that's just not feasible. After all, why should the majority lose their privileges because of a minority? YSTClinguist
  • Score: 0

12:39pm Wed 15 Aug 12

farmer_robot says...

another interesting piece on this here... http://road.cc/conte
nt/news/63367-media-
criticised-misleadin
g-coverage-stats-sho
wing-jump-casualties
-20mph-zones Interesting that there's also been such a sudden uptake in the reporting of statistics from a DfT report from way back in June. Googling for the subject shows a large swathe of similar reports from local press, nationwide. Quite saddening really. You have to wonder if there is some pro-motoring group behind the dissemination of such analysis of data which clearly isn't granular enough to support the claims being made against 20 mph zones.
another interesting piece on this here... http://road.cc/conte nt/news/63367-media- criticised-misleadin g-coverage-stats-sho wing-jump-casualties -20mph-zones Interesting that there's also been such a sudden uptake in the reporting of statistics from a DfT report from way back in June. Googling for the subject shows a large swathe of similar reports from local press, nationwide. Quite saddening really. You have to wonder if there is some pro-motoring group behind the dissemination of such analysis of data which clearly isn't granular enough to support the claims being made against 20 mph zones. farmer_robot
  • Score: 0

12:42pm Wed 15 Aug 12

Dave Taylor says...

The article makes a basic mistake in the interpretation of the statistics. Clearly as more miles of roads have been designated as 20mph zones, more accidents will have occurred in the increased mileage of roadspace.

To be fair, this is a point Cllr Merrett makes, but the Tories and Lib Dems seem to be clueless when it comes to stats.

The national data does not give us the breakdown necessary, so while the Council is right to ask questions of Islington and Portsmouth the basic premise that roads are safer at 20mph is almost certainly true. Certainly if you are hit by a car at 20mph it will do you far less harm than a car travelling 30mph. The severity of accidents is unquestionable.
The article makes a basic mistake in the interpretation of the statistics. Clearly as more miles of roads have been designated as 20mph zones, more accidents will have occurred in the increased mileage of roadspace. To be fair, this is a point Cllr Merrett makes, but the Tories and Lib Dems seem to be clueless when it comes to stats. The national data does not give us the breakdown necessary, so while the Council is right to ask questions of Islington and Portsmouth the basic premise that roads are safer at 20mph is almost certainly true. Certainly if you are hit by a car at 20mph it will do you far less harm than a car travelling 30mph. The severity of accidents is unquestionable. Dave Taylor
  • Score: 0

12:45pm Wed 15 Aug 12

farmer_robot says...

even if there was a higher risk of pedestrian incidents due to lower perceived risk (and there doesn't seem to be supporting data to back up any claim like this), then one has to keep in mind the massive difference in injury sustained between vehicles travelling at 30 mph and 20mph. If we're looking at reducing road deaths and serious injuries (which is only one of the many reasons to be for the 20mph limits) then keep this in mind.

Also keep in mind, if you have ever tried it, how much easier and less intimidating it is, when cycling, to integrate with traffic at 20mph than at 30mph. It makes a world of difference. It doesn't take too much imagination to figure out the benefits of such restrictions, but livingstreets have put a site together too... http://www.livingstr
eets.org.uk/make-a-c
hange/urgent-actions
/20-mph
even if there was a higher risk of pedestrian incidents due to lower perceived risk (and there doesn't seem to be supporting data to back up any claim like this), then one has to keep in mind the massive difference in injury sustained between vehicles travelling at 30 mph and 20mph. If we're looking at reducing road deaths and serious injuries (which is only one of the many reasons to be for the 20mph limits) then keep this in mind. Also keep in mind, if you have ever tried it, how much easier and less intimidating it is, when cycling, to integrate with traffic at 20mph than at 30mph. It makes a world of difference. It doesn't take too much imagination to figure out the benefits of such restrictions, but livingstreets have put a site together too... http://www.livingstr eets.org.uk/make-a-c hange/urgent-actions /20-mph farmer_robot
  • Score: 0

12:49pm Wed 15 Aug 12

farmer_robot says...

WayneCarr wrote:
I see that on the Job Centre website there is a Permanent 20mph Project Officer vacancy. This commands a salary of up to over £24k pa. I really do feel that such money could be better deployed elsewhere during times of austerity. If you must implement these measures then do so when money is more plentiful.
If you think that £24k for a person to oversee such a scheme is expensive vs. the net benefits of such a scheme then so be it. You'll see far more pointless positions being offered for far greater salaries elsewhere.
[quote][p][bold]WayneCarr[/bold] wrote: I see that on the Job Centre website there is a Permanent 20mph Project Officer vacancy. This commands a salary of up to over £24k pa. I really do feel that such money could be better deployed elsewhere during times of austerity. If you must implement these measures then do so when money is more plentiful.[/p][/quote]If you think that £24k for a person to oversee such a scheme is expensive vs. the net benefits of such a scheme then so be it. You'll see far more pointless positions being offered for far greater salaries elsewhere. farmer_robot
  • Score: 0

12:56pm Wed 15 Aug 12

Stevie D says...

The point, surely, is that 20mph zones are being proposed mostly for areas where average traffic speeds are below 25mph anyway, so will make minimal difference to the speed of vehicles, and that the police have said they can't and won't enforce 20mph zones, so drivers who want to drive faster can continue to do so with impunity.

If 20mph zones were likely to make a meaningful difference to people's safety then I would be all for them. But there's no evidence that that is the case, and when you look at the cost of putting them in place against a likely nil benefit, it's hard to see why these are being introduced at all, let alone in a time of supposed austerity.
The point, surely, is that 20mph zones are being proposed mostly for areas where average traffic speeds are below 25mph anyway, so will make minimal difference to the speed of vehicles, and that the police have said they can't and won't enforce 20mph zones, so drivers who want to drive faster can continue to do so with impunity. If 20mph zones were likely to make a meaningful difference to people's safety then I would be all for them. But there's no evidence that that is the case, and when you look at the cost of putting them in place against a likely nil benefit, it's hard to see why these are being introduced at all, let alone in a time of supposed austerity. Stevie D
  • Score: 0

12:57pm Wed 15 Aug 12

invisibleman says...

Whilst walking to the train station this morning I had to cross Blossom street outside the Odean cinema, Land Rover went through the crossing on red followed by a young lady on a bike. The little green man started to flash before it was safe for me to cross. As I reached the end of Blossom street I noticed a bloke trying to cross from Nunnery lane towards the railway station, he had to jump back out of the way of a waggon as the waggon ran a red light. Then as I approched the entrance to the side road towards the Railway Institute a Mondeo swerved into the side road at approx 30mph nearly hitting a small white van that was exitting the side road onto Station Rise. This is just a typical mornings walk to work at 7am. If simple rules cannot be enforced now, how on earth are they going to enforce a 20mph speed limit in most areas of the city?
Whilst walking to the train station this morning I had to cross Blossom street outside the Odean cinema, Land Rover went through the crossing on red followed by a young lady on a bike. The little green man started to flash before it was safe for me to cross. As I reached the end of Blossom street I noticed a bloke trying to cross from Nunnery lane towards the railway station, he had to jump back out of the way of a waggon as the waggon ran a red light. Then as I approched the entrance to the side road towards the Railway Institute a Mondeo swerved into the side road at approx 30mph nearly hitting a small white van that was exitting the side road onto Station Rise. This is just a typical mornings walk to work at 7am. If simple rules cannot be enforced now, how on earth are they going to enforce a 20mph speed limit in most areas of the city? invisibleman
  • Score: 0

1:05pm Wed 15 Aug 12

YSTClinguist says...

invisibleman wrote:
Whilst walking to the train station this morning I had to cross Blossom street outside the Odean cinema, Land Rover went through the crossing on red followed by a young lady on a bike. The little green man started to flash before it was safe for me to cross. As I reached the end of Blossom street I noticed a bloke trying to cross from Nunnery lane towards the railway station, he had to jump back out of the way of a waggon as the waggon ran a red light. Then as I approched the entrance to the side road towards the Railway Institute a Mondeo swerved into the side road at approx 30mph nearly hitting a small white van that was exitting the side road onto Station Rise. This is just a typical mornings walk to work at 7am. If simple rules cannot be enforced now, how on earth are they going to enforce a 20mph speed limit in most areas of the city?
This sort of thing has been pointed out numerous times before. There are flashpoints where this is happening and it may become necessary for our local police force to run a campaign that will suck up resources, placing their officers at these flashpoints to stop and prosecute all drivers committing these offences until road users get their heads round the way they were taught to drive.
[quote][p][bold]invisibleman[/bold] wrote: Whilst walking to the train station this morning I had to cross Blossom street outside the Odean cinema, Land Rover went through the crossing on red followed by a young lady on a bike. The little green man started to flash before it was safe for me to cross. As I reached the end of Blossom street I noticed a bloke trying to cross from Nunnery lane towards the railway station, he had to jump back out of the way of a waggon as the waggon ran a red light. Then as I approched the entrance to the side road towards the Railway Institute a Mondeo swerved into the side road at approx 30mph nearly hitting a small white van that was exitting the side road onto Station Rise. This is just a typical mornings walk to work at 7am. If simple rules cannot be enforced now, how on earth are they going to enforce a 20mph speed limit in most areas of the city?[/p][/quote]This sort of thing has been pointed out numerous times before. There are flashpoints where this is happening and it may become necessary for our local police force to run a campaign that will suck up resources, placing their officers at these flashpoints to stop and prosecute all drivers committing these offences until road users get their heads round the way they were taught to drive. YSTClinguist
  • Score: 0

1:28pm Wed 15 Aug 12

YorkGP says...

I'm all for safer roads, but the street I live in is in the proposed 20mph area and I'm lucky to do 15mph as it is currently so potholed and has massive 'speed bumps' aka 'suspension wreckers' on it. If I could go 20mph on a nice smooth road it would be a blessing. Spend the money on road repairs not more street cluttering 20mph signage.
I'm all for safer roads, but the street I live in is in the proposed 20mph area and I'm lucky to do 15mph as it is currently so potholed and has massive 'speed bumps' aka 'suspension wreckers' on it. If I could go 20mph on a nice smooth road it would be a blessing. Spend the money on road repairs not more street cluttering 20mph signage. YorkGP
  • Score: 0

1:41pm Wed 15 Aug 12

MissConstrood says...

you can set whatever speed limit, safety precautions, health and safety assessments etc etc but people and children will still be exactly that and you cant take the human element out of these accidents. That is why they are that - accidents. Much as i would love no one to be ever hurt or killed in accidents - its not going to happen - we just have to raise awareness of the concequences of whatever circumstances we are in - whether that be, a 20/30/60/national speed limit or walking on a frozen pond or standing under a tree in a storm.
you can set whatever speed limit, safety precautions, health and safety assessments etc etc but people and children will still be exactly that and you cant take the human element out of these accidents. That is why they are that - accidents. Much as i would love no one to be ever hurt or killed in accidents - its not going to happen - we just have to raise awareness of the concequences of whatever circumstances we are in - whether that be, a 20/30/60/national speed limit or walking on a frozen pond or standing under a tree in a storm. MissConstrood
  • Score: 0

2:05pm Wed 15 Aug 12

Woody G Mellor says...

Where and when are these accidents happening on South Bank which are caused by vehicles attempting to reach 30mph? I'm finding it difficult to recall any.

Parents. Please inform Tarquin and Isabella that roads are for cars. Not for playing on or near.
Where and when are these accidents happening on South Bank which are caused by vehicles attempting to reach 30mph? I'm finding it difficult to recall any. Parents. Please inform Tarquin and Isabella that roads are for cars. Not for playing on or near. Woody G Mellor
  • Score: 0

2:11pm Wed 15 Aug 12

farmer_robot says...

Stevie D wrote:
The point, surely, is that 20mph zones are being proposed mostly for areas where average traffic speeds are below 25mph anyway, so will make minimal difference to the speed of vehicles, and that the police have said they can't and won't enforce 20mph zones, so drivers who want to drive faster can continue to do so with impunity.

If 20mph zones were likely to make a meaningful difference to people's safety then I would be all for them. But there's no evidence that that is the case, and when you look at the cost of putting them in place against a likely nil benefit, it's hard to see why these are being introduced at all, let alone in a time of supposed austerity.
You could look at some the reports on previous 20mph conversions.

http://www1.uwe.ac.u
k/bl/bbs/research/bs
mc/researchprojects/
20splenty.aspx

There's plenty to chew on there. Certainly not a waste of money or resource.

You only need a minority of people to stick to the limits and drivers behind such cars often have no option but to do so also.

As I've said before, it's not *just* accident reduction this is aimed at, it covers reduction in noise, stop-start congestion spots and making streets more appealing for cycling (thus the benefits which come from this activity).

There's a wealth of information about the benefits, taken from real world examples, not hypothetical models, out there and available to the public if you wish to do some further reading on the matter.

As for the comments about austerity, would we not have been better equipped to make these changes had we not frozen fuel duty!
[quote][p][bold]Stevie D[/bold] wrote: The point, surely, is that 20mph zones are being proposed mostly for areas where average traffic speeds are below 25mph anyway, so will make minimal difference to the speed of vehicles, and that the police have said they can't and won't enforce 20mph zones, so drivers who want to drive faster can continue to do so with impunity. If 20mph zones were likely to make a meaningful difference to people's safety then I would be all for them. But there's no evidence that that is the case, and when you look at the cost of putting them in place against a likely nil benefit, it's hard to see why these are being introduced at all, let alone in a time of supposed austerity.[/p][/quote]You could look at some the reports on previous 20mph conversions. http://www1.uwe.ac.u k/bl/bbs/research/bs mc/researchprojects/ 20splenty.aspx There's plenty to chew on there. Certainly not a waste of money or resource. You only need a minority of people to stick to the limits and drivers behind such cars often have no option but to do so also. As I've said before, it's not *just* accident reduction this is aimed at, it covers reduction in noise, stop-start congestion spots and making streets more appealing for cycling (thus the benefits which come from this activity). There's a wealth of information about the benefits, taken from real world examples, not hypothetical models, out there and available to the public if you wish to do some further reading on the matter. As for the comments about austerity, would we not have been better equipped to make these changes had we not frozen fuel duty! farmer_robot
  • Score: 0

2:12pm Wed 15 Aug 12

again says...

Bring on the computer driven vehicle. Get the idiots away from the controls!
Bring on the computer driven vehicle. Get the idiots away from the controls! again
  • Score: 0

2:17pm Wed 15 Aug 12

YSTClinguist says...

YorkGP wrote:
I'm all for safer roads, but the street I live in is in the proposed 20mph area and I'm lucky to do 15mph as it is currently so potholed and has massive 'speed bumps' aka 'suspension wreckers' on it. If I could go 20mph on a nice smooth road it would be a blessing. Spend the money on road repairs not more street cluttering 20mph signage.
What speed hump design are you looking at specifically? The giant platform ones can be an issue to drivers, but the bump like ones you line up square between your wheels are less of a problem and actually 'encourage' speeding, since at 30mph they jolt your car nastily but at 40-45mph you almost float over them with a little kick. Don't forget that historically they were designed to keep TWOKers to 70-80mph max before they lost control of their XR3i's on the estates.
[quote][p][bold]YorkGP[/bold] wrote: I'm all for safer roads, but the street I live in is in the proposed 20mph area and I'm lucky to do 15mph as it is currently so potholed and has massive 'speed bumps' aka 'suspension wreckers' on it. If I could go 20mph on a nice smooth road it would be a blessing. Spend the money on road repairs not more street cluttering 20mph signage.[/p][/quote]What speed hump design are you looking at specifically? The giant platform ones can be an issue to drivers, but the bump like ones you line up square between your wheels are less of a problem and actually 'encourage' speeding, since at 30mph they jolt your car nastily but at 40-45mph you almost float over them with a little kick. Don't forget that historically they were designed to keep TWOKers to 70-80mph max before they lost control of their XR3i's on the estates. YSTClinguist
  • Score: 0

2:18pm Wed 15 Aug 12

farmer_robot says...

MissConstrood wrote:
you can set whatever speed limit, safety precautions, health and safety assessments etc etc but people and children will still be exactly that and you cant take the human element out of these accidents. That is why they are that - accidents. Much as i would love no one to be ever hurt or killed in accidents - its not going to happen - we just have to raise awareness of the concequences of whatever circumstances we are in - whether that be, a 20/30/60/national speed limit or walking on a frozen pond or standing under a tree in a storm.
You can raise awareness all you want, but like you say accidents will happen. The severity of an accident is much lessened by a reduction in speed of the vehicle. The reaction time and stopping distance of a vehicle, to say, a child running out in the road is reduced from an overall 23 meters to just 12 meters when driving at 20mph instead of 30. That's almost double the distance required to react and stop.

When was the last time you saw someone driving at 30mph with a 23 meter gap behind the car in front? Not often? Yet the distance left doesn't typically reduce by a half when behind someone at 20mph.

Driving too closely to the vehicle in front is one of the causes of vehicles "not seeing" a cyclist until the last second, which creates unnecessary risk.
[quote][p][bold]MissConstrood[/bold] wrote: you can set whatever speed limit, safety precautions, health and safety assessments etc etc but people and children will still be exactly that and you cant take the human element out of these accidents. That is why they are that - accidents. Much as i would love no one to be ever hurt or killed in accidents - its not going to happen - we just have to raise awareness of the concequences of whatever circumstances we are in - whether that be, a 20/30/60/national speed limit or walking on a frozen pond or standing under a tree in a storm.[/p][/quote]You can raise awareness all you want, but like you say accidents will happen. The severity of an accident is much lessened by a reduction in speed of the vehicle. The reaction time and stopping distance of a vehicle, to say, a child running out in the road is reduced from an overall 23 meters to just 12 meters when driving at 20mph instead of 30. That's almost double the distance required to react and stop. When was the last time you saw someone driving at 30mph with a 23 meter gap behind the car in front? Not often? Yet the distance left doesn't typically reduce by a half when behind someone at 20mph. Driving too closely to the vehicle in front is one of the causes of vehicles "not seeing" a cyclist until the last second, which creates unnecessary risk. farmer_robot
  • Score: 0

2:19pm Wed 15 Aug 12

Geoffers says...

Statistics are used rather like a drunk uses a lamppost - for support, not illumination!

You can also say, with equal validity, that the 25% increase in accidents in a 20mph zone is equal to the reduction in accidents (1%) in other urban zones!
Given that the total number of accidents in all urban zones has remained the same.
Statistics are used rather like a drunk uses a lamppost - for support, not illumination! You can also say, with equal validity, that the 25% increase in accidents in a 20mph zone is equal to the reduction in accidents (1%) in other urban zones! Given that the total number of accidents in all urban zones has remained the same. Geoffers
  • Score: 0

3:24pm Wed 15 Aug 12

yorkshirelad says...

Woody G Mellor wrote:
Where and when are these accidents happening on South Bank which are caused by vehicles attempting to reach 30mph? I'm finding it difficult to recall any.

Parents. Please inform Tarquin and Isabella that roads are for cars. Not for playing on or near.
Meanwhile a report elsewhere in the Press highlights the massive exependiture on medications used for diabetes which is linked to growing obesity in the UK....

So here's another view...residential streets are for people, walking, cycling, playing, chatting...and for vehicles to go down. All can mix quite safely if the default speed is low and (crucially) vulnerable road users have priority.

It's normal in many areas abroad and here it could easily be done on appropriate roads.

As for humps...perhaps if attitudes to speed limits change we wouldn't needs them...until they do....
[quote][p][bold]Woody G Mellor[/bold] wrote: Where and when are these accidents happening on South Bank which are caused by vehicles attempting to reach 30mph? I'm finding it difficult to recall any. Parents. Please inform Tarquin and Isabella that roads are for cars. Not for playing on or near.[/p][/quote]Meanwhile a report elsewhere in the Press highlights the massive exependiture on medications used for diabetes which is linked to growing obesity in the UK.... So here's another view...residential streets are for people, walking, cycling, playing, chatting...and for vehicles to go down. All can mix quite safely if the default speed is low and (crucially) vulnerable road users have priority. It's normal in many areas abroad and here it could easily be done on appropriate roads. As for humps...perhaps if attitudes to speed limits change we wouldn't needs them...until they do.... yorkshirelad
  • Score: 0

3:32pm Wed 15 Aug 12

YorkGP says...

YSTClinguist wrote:
YorkGP wrote: I'm all for safer roads, but the street I live in is in the proposed 20mph area and I'm lucky to do 15mph as it is currently so potholed and has massive 'speed bumps' aka 'suspension wreckers' on it. If I could go 20mph on a nice smooth road it would be a blessing. Spend the money on road repairs not more street cluttering 20mph signage.
What speed hump design are you looking at specifically? The giant platform ones can be an issue to drivers, but the bump like ones you line up square between your wheels are less of a problem and actually 'encourage' speeding, since at 30mph they jolt your car nastily but at 40-45mph you almost float over them with a little kick. Don't forget that historically they were designed to keep TWOKers to 70-80mph max before they lost control of their XR3i's on the estates.
Look at Charlton Street/Ann Street off Bishy Road, you can't miss them.
[quote][p][bold]YSTClinguist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]YorkGP[/bold] wrote: I'm all for safer roads, but the street I live in is in the proposed 20mph area and I'm lucky to do 15mph as it is currently so potholed and has massive 'speed bumps' aka 'suspension wreckers' on it. If I could go 20mph on a nice smooth road it would be a blessing. Spend the money on road repairs not more street cluttering 20mph signage.[/p][/quote]What speed hump design are you looking at specifically? The giant platform ones can be an issue to drivers, but the bump like ones you line up square between your wheels are less of a problem and actually 'encourage' speeding, since at 30mph they jolt your car nastily but at 40-45mph you almost float over them with a little kick. Don't forget that historically they were designed to keep TWOKers to 70-80mph max before they lost control of their XR3i's on the estates.[/p][/quote]Look at Charlton Street/Ann Street off Bishy Road, you can't miss them. YorkGP
  • Score: 0

3:58pm Wed 15 Aug 12

Mr Udigawa says...

WayneCarr wrote:
farmer_robot wrote:
MissConstrood wrote: you can set whatever speed limit, safety precautions, health and safety assessments etc etc but people and children will still be exactly that and you cant take the human element out of these accidents. That is why they are that - accidents. Much as i would love no one to be ever hurt or killed in accidents - its not going to happen - we just have to raise awareness of the concequences of whatever circumstances we are in - whether that be, a 20/30/60/national speed limit or walking on a frozen pond or standing under a tree in a storm.
You can raise awareness all you want, but like you say accidents will happen. The severity of an accident is much lessened by a reduction in speed of the vehicle. The reaction time and stopping distance of a vehicle, to say, a child running out in the road is reduced from an overall 23 meters to just 12 meters when driving at 20mph instead of 30. That's almost double the distance required to react and stop. When was the last time you saw someone driving at 30mph with a 23 meter gap behind the car in front? Not often? Yet the distance left doesn't typically reduce by a half when behind someone at 20mph. Driving too closely to the vehicle in front is one of the causes of vehicles "not seeing" a cyclist until the last second, which creates unnecessary risk.
Farmer' seems to know all on this subject, must be the pedalling penis in disguise!
No way, far too much common sense and reasoning behind his posts, not enough Hepblather.
[quote][p][bold]WayneCarr[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]farmer_robot[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]MissConstrood[/bold] wrote: you can set whatever speed limit, safety precautions, health and safety assessments etc etc but people and children will still be exactly that and you cant take the human element out of these accidents. That is why they are that - accidents. Much as i would love no one to be ever hurt or killed in accidents - its not going to happen - we just have to raise awareness of the concequences of whatever circumstances we are in - whether that be, a 20/30/60/national speed limit or walking on a frozen pond or standing under a tree in a storm.[/p][/quote]You can raise awareness all you want, but like you say accidents will happen. The severity of an accident is much lessened by a reduction in speed of the vehicle. The reaction time and stopping distance of a vehicle, to say, a child running out in the road is reduced from an overall 23 meters to just 12 meters when driving at 20mph instead of 30. That's almost double the distance required to react and stop. When was the last time you saw someone driving at 30mph with a 23 meter gap behind the car in front? Not often? Yet the distance left doesn't typically reduce by a half when behind someone at 20mph. Driving too closely to the vehicle in front is one of the causes of vehicles "not seeing" a cyclist until the last second, which creates unnecessary risk.[/p][/quote]Farmer' seems to know all on this subject, must be the pedalling penis in disguise![/p][/quote]No way, far too much common sense and reasoning behind his posts, not enough Hepblather. Mr Udigawa
  • Score: 0

4:03pm Wed 15 Aug 12

powerwatt says...

In York the Police say that areas that have introduced a 20mph zone have had a rise in accidents since they were created.
In York the Police say that areas that have introduced a 20mph zone have had a rise in accidents since they were created. powerwatt
  • Score: 0

4:30pm Wed 15 Aug 12

BioLogic says...

There is intentional misinterpretation going on from both sides here. You cannot assume anything from these stats relating to compliance with the law at all and you make a mockery of your previous comments by suggesting so. If the 20mph zones are effective in reducing accidents then we should see a reduction in the combined accident rate for 20mph zones and 30mph areas as a set as 30mph zones are introduced. This would manifest itself as a stable or accident rate in 20mph zones. It isn't and that is indicative of the zones not being effective. The reasons for that could be many and cannot be gleaned from such a limited data set, however it is unquestionable that the zones are not working as expected and it is important that the reason for that is established before they are rolled out widely at significant cost in terms of both financial and negative environmental impact.
There is intentional misinterpretation going on from both sides here. You cannot assume anything from these stats relating to compliance with the law at all and you make a mockery of your previous comments by suggesting so. If the 20mph zones are effective in reducing accidents then we should see a reduction in the combined accident rate for 20mph zones and 30mph areas as a set as 30mph zones are introduced. This would manifest itself as a stable or accident rate in 20mph zones. It isn't and that is indicative of the zones not being effective. The reasons for that could be many and cannot be gleaned from such a limited data set, however it is unquestionable that the zones are not working as expected and it is important that the reason for that is established before they are rolled out widely at significant cost in terms of both financial and negative environmental impact. BioLogic
  • Score: 0

4:30pm Wed 15 Aug 12

BioLogic says...

YSTClinguist wrote:
farmer_robot wrote:
http://fullfact.org/


articles/road_safety


_20mph_zones_limits_


casualties-27766 Read this. Says EXACTLY what needs saying about the misinformed gibberish being spouted from the mainstream press about the 20mph zones. Total misinformation all based from some seriously flawed conclusions from a set of ambiguous stats.
Thanks for linking to a site that references the data table (RAS30006) since it wasn't put in this Press article.

It does worry me that there are deaths in 20mph zones, and that they are increasing. Why? Because vehicles are designed with front ends to minimise harm to pedestrians in the event of an accident, and at a speed of 20mph (maximum) it becomes hard to see how so many could be killed by being hit.

I think we can all assume here that the drivers entering those zones are not following the law, and that speeding is the cause of the accidents. Pedestrians lulled into false safety? Only if they believe that drivers won't speed.

So, it appears no matter what speed zone we place in an area, arrogant drivers are going speed and cause deaths, which may lead to a push for legislation towards GPS speed limiting on vehicles in built up zones. When that day comes, the driving community will only have itself to blame (over a trail of dead bodies consisting of kids and OAP's might I add)

All drivers are not like this, but since some of you are doing this, limiting may need to be implemented. The only alternative is banning personal driving in this country, and that's just not feasible. After all, why should the majority lose their privileges because of a minority?
There is intentional misinterpretation going on from both sides here. You cannot assume anything from these stats relating to compliance with the law at all and you make a mockery of your previous comments by suggesting so. If the 20mph zones are effective in reducing accidents then we should see a reduction in the combined accident rate for 20mph zones and 30mph areas as a set as 30mph zones are introduced. This would manifest itself as a stable or accident rate in 20mph zones. It isn't and that is indicative of the zones not being effective. The reasons for that could be many and cannot be gleaned from such a limited data set, however it is unquestionable that the zones are not working as expected and it is important that the reason for that is established before they are rolled out widely at significant cost in terms of both financial and negative environmental impact.
[quote][p][bold]YSTClinguist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]farmer_robot[/bold] wrote: http://fullfact.org/ articles/road_safety _20mph_zones_limits_ casualties-27766 Read this. Says EXACTLY what needs saying about the misinformed gibberish being spouted from the mainstream press about the 20mph zones. Total misinformation all based from some seriously flawed conclusions from a set of ambiguous stats.[/p][/quote]Thanks for linking to a site that references the data table (RAS30006) since it wasn't put in this Press article. It does worry me that there are deaths in 20mph zones, and that they are increasing. Why? Because vehicles are designed with front ends to minimise harm to pedestrians in the event of an accident, and at a speed of 20mph (maximum) it becomes hard to see how so many could be killed by being hit. I think we can all assume here that the drivers entering those zones are not following the law, and that speeding is the cause of the accidents. Pedestrians lulled into false safety? Only if they believe that drivers won't speed. So, it appears no matter what speed zone we place in an area, arrogant drivers are going speed and cause deaths, which may lead to a push for legislation towards GPS speed limiting on vehicles in built up zones. When that day comes, the driving community will only have itself to blame (over a trail of dead bodies consisting of kids and OAP's might I add) All drivers are not like this, but since some of you are doing this, limiting may need to be implemented. The only alternative is banning personal driving in this country, and that's just not feasible. After all, why should the majority lose their privileges because of a minority?[/p][/quote]There is intentional misinterpretation going on from both sides here. You cannot assume anything from these stats relating to compliance with the law at all and you make a mockery of your previous comments by suggesting so. If the 20mph zones are effective in reducing accidents then we should see a reduction in the combined accident rate for 20mph zones and 30mph areas as a set as 30mph zones are introduced. This would manifest itself as a stable or accident rate in 20mph zones. It isn't and that is indicative of the zones not being effective. The reasons for that could be many and cannot be gleaned from such a limited data set, however it is unquestionable that the zones are not working as expected and it is important that the reason for that is established before they are rolled out widely at significant cost in terms of both financial and negative environmental impact. BioLogic
  • Score: 0

4:42pm Wed 15 Aug 12

Woody Mellor says...

yorkshirelad wrote:
Woody G Mellor wrote:
Where and when are these accidents happening on South Bank which are caused by vehicles attempting to reach 30mph? I'm finding it difficult to recall any.

Parents. Please inform Tarquin and Isabella that roads are for cars. Not for playing on or near.
Meanwhile a report elsewhere in the Press highlights the massive exependiture on medications used for diabetes which is linked to growing obesity in the UK....

So here's another view...residential streets are for people, walking, cycling, playing, chatting...and for vehicles to go down. All can mix quite safely if the default speed is low and (crucially) vulnerable road users have priority.

It's normal in many areas abroad and here it could easily be done on appropriate roads.

As for humps...perhaps if attitudes to speed limits change we wouldn't needs them...until they do....
"So here's another view...residential streets are for people, walking, cycling, playing, chatting...and for vehicles to go down. All can mix quite safely if the default speed is low and (crucially) vulnerable road users have priority"

Yes, it must be very nice to have lived in Aidensfield. But I'm afraid this is York, and the year is 2012.
[quote][p][bold]yorkshirelad[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Woody G Mellor[/bold] wrote: Where and when are these accidents happening on South Bank which are caused by vehicles attempting to reach 30mph? I'm finding it difficult to recall any. Parents. Please inform Tarquin and Isabella that roads are for cars. Not for playing on or near.[/p][/quote]Meanwhile a report elsewhere in the Press highlights the massive exependiture on medications used for diabetes which is linked to growing obesity in the UK.... So here's another view...residential streets are for people, walking, cycling, playing, chatting...and for vehicles to go down. All can mix quite safely if the default speed is low and (crucially) vulnerable road users have priority. It's normal in many areas abroad and here it could easily be done on appropriate roads. As for humps...perhaps if attitudes to speed limits change we wouldn't needs them...until they do....[/p][/quote]"So here's another view...residential streets are for people, walking, cycling, playing, chatting...and for vehicles to go down. All can mix quite safely if the default speed is low and (crucially) vulnerable road users have priority" Yes, it must be very nice to have lived in Aidensfield. But I'm afraid this is York, and the year is 2012. Woody Mellor
  • Score: 0

5:29pm Wed 15 Aug 12

YSTClinguist says...

BioLogic wrote:
YSTClinguist wrote:
farmer_robot wrote:
http://fullfact.org/



articles/road_safety



_20mph_zones_limits_



casualties-27766 Read this. Says EXACTLY what needs saying about the misinformed gibberish being spouted from the mainstream press about the 20mph zones. Total misinformation all based from some seriously flawed conclusions from a set of ambiguous stats.
Thanks for linking to a site that references the data table (RAS30006) since it wasn't put in this Press article.

It does worry me that there are deaths in 20mph zones, and that they are increasing. Why? Because vehicles are designed with front ends to minimise harm to pedestrians in the event of an accident, and at a speed of 20mph (maximum) it becomes hard to see how so many could be killed by being hit.

I think we can all assume here that the drivers entering those zones are not following the law, and that speeding is the cause of the accidents. Pedestrians lulled into false safety? Only if they believe that drivers won't speed.

So, it appears no matter what speed zone we place in an area, arrogant drivers are going speed and cause deaths, which may lead to a push for legislation towards GPS speed limiting on vehicles in built up zones. When that day comes, the driving community will only have itself to blame (over a trail of dead bodies consisting of kids and OAP's might I add)

All drivers are not like this, but since some of you are doing this, limiting may need to be implemented. The only alternative is banning personal driving in this country, and that's just not feasible. After all, why should the majority lose their privileges because of a minority?
There is intentional misinterpretation going on from both sides here. You cannot assume anything from these stats relating to compliance with the law at all and you make a mockery of your previous comments by suggesting so. If the 20mph zones are effective in reducing accidents then we should see a reduction in the combined accident rate for 20mph zones and 30mph areas as a set as 30mph zones are introduced. This would manifest itself as a stable or accident rate in 20mph zones. It isn't and that is indicative of the zones not being effective. The reasons for that could be many and cannot be gleaned from such a limited data set, however it is unquestionable that the zones are not working as expected and it is important that the reason for that is established before they are rolled out widely at significant cost in terms of both financial and negative environmental impact.
From a purely physics standpoint, it's worrying to see improving safety technology in cars and reduced speed areas resulting in more deaths. Maybe it's an assumption on my behalf (and perhaps others feel the same way) that drivers are driving too fast, leading to driver error. I've seen vehicles in 20mph zones near schools racing along well past the prior speed limit and as we've seen on this site, there are a plethora of stories recounting many, many 'driver errors' (and we're looking at the intentional ones here.)

So, you say there are many possible reasons for it, but you are unable to specify. Someone needs to gather data, to sit on our streets with a speed gun, video equipment and a recording pad and see what is going on. You point out that implementing 20mph zones will increase costs. But if they are in place and used correctly would they not save the taxpayers money? Less damage to roads, less insurance claims, less injury/loss of life (although that is a contentious point so far) less pollution.
[quote][p][bold]BioLogic[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]YSTClinguist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]farmer_robot[/bold] wrote: http://fullfact.org/ articles/road_safety _20mph_zones_limits_ casualties-27766 Read this. Says EXACTLY what needs saying about the misinformed gibberish being spouted from the mainstream press about the 20mph zones. Total misinformation all based from some seriously flawed conclusions from a set of ambiguous stats.[/p][/quote]Thanks for linking to a site that references the data table (RAS30006) since it wasn't put in this Press article. It does worry me that there are deaths in 20mph zones, and that they are increasing. Why? Because vehicles are designed with front ends to minimise harm to pedestrians in the event of an accident, and at a speed of 20mph (maximum) it becomes hard to see how so many could be killed by being hit. I think we can all assume here that the drivers entering those zones are not following the law, and that speeding is the cause of the accidents. Pedestrians lulled into false safety? Only if they believe that drivers won't speed. So, it appears no matter what speed zone we place in an area, arrogant drivers are going speed and cause deaths, which may lead to a push for legislation towards GPS speed limiting on vehicles in built up zones. When that day comes, the driving community will only have itself to blame (over a trail of dead bodies consisting of kids and OAP's might I add) All drivers are not like this, but since some of you are doing this, limiting may need to be implemented. The only alternative is banning personal driving in this country, and that's just not feasible. After all, why should the majority lose their privileges because of a minority?[/p][/quote]There is intentional misinterpretation going on from both sides here. You cannot assume anything from these stats relating to compliance with the law at all and you make a mockery of your previous comments by suggesting so. If the 20mph zones are effective in reducing accidents then we should see a reduction in the combined accident rate for 20mph zones and 30mph areas as a set as 30mph zones are introduced. This would manifest itself as a stable or accident rate in 20mph zones. It isn't and that is indicative of the zones not being effective. The reasons for that could be many and cannot be gleaned from such a limited data set, however it is unquestionable that the zones are not working as expected and it is important that the reason for that is established before they are rolled out widely at significant cost in terms of both financial and negative environmental impact.[/p][/quote]From a purely physics standpoint, it's worrying to see improving safety technology in cars and reduced speed areas resulting in more deaths. Maybe it's an assumption on my behalf (and perhaps others feel the same way) that drivers are driving too fast, leading to driver error. I've seen vehicles in 20mph zones near schools racing along well past the prior speed limit and as we've seen on this site, there are a plethora of stories recounting many, many 'driver errors' (and we're looking at the intentional ones here.) So, you say there are many possible reasons for it, but you are unable to specify. Someone needs to gather data, to sit on our streets with a speed gun, video equipment and a recording pad and see what is going on. You point out that implementing 20mph zones will increase costs. But if they are in place and used correctly would they not save the taxpayers money? Less damage to roads, less insurance claims, less injury/loss of life (although that is a contentious point so far) less pollution. YSTClinguist
  • Score: 0

5:30pm Wed 15 Aug 12

Caecilius says...

Woody Mellor wrote:
yorkshirelad wrote:
Woody G Mellor wrote: Where and when are these accidents happening on South Bank which are caused by vehicles attempting to reach 30mph? I'm finding it difficult to recall any. Parents. Please inform Tarquin and Isabella that roads are for cars. Not for playing on or near.
Meanwhile a report elsewhere in the Press highlights the massive exependiture on medications used for diabetes which is linked to growing obesity in the UK.... So here's another view...residential streets are for people, walking, cycling, playing, chatting...and for vehicles to go down. All can mix quite safely if the default speed is low and (crucially) vulnerable road users have priority. It's normal in many areas abroad and here it could easily be done on appropriate roads. As for humps...perhaps if attitudes to speed limits change we wouldn't needs them...until they do....
"So here's another view...residential streets are for people, walking, cycling, playing, chatting...and for vehicles to go down. All can mix quite safely if the default speed is low and (crucially) vulnerable road users have priority" Yes, it must be very nice to have lived in Aidensfield. But I'm afraid this is York, and the year is 2012.
If you mean that we simply have to accept the assumed "right" of some motorists to do whatever they like at everyone else's expense - no, we don't. Given the will, they can and should be made to fall into line with what the community wants, and that includes enforcing an appropriate speed limit on residential streets.
[quote][p][bold]Woody Mellor[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]yorkshirelad[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Woody G Mellor[/bold] wrote: Where and when are these accidents happening on South Bank which are caused by vehicles attempting to reach 30mph? I'm finding it difficult to recall any. Parents. Please inform Tarquin and Isabella that roads are for cars. Not for playing on or near.[/p][/quote]Meanwhile a report elsewhere in the Press highlights the massive exependiture on medications used for diabetes which is linked to growing obesity in the UK.... So here's another view...residential streets are for people, walking, cycling, playing, chatting...and for vehicles to go down. All can mix quite safely if the default speed is low and (crucially) vulnerable road users have priority. It's normal in many areas abroad and here it could easily be done on appropriate roads. As for humps...perhaps if attitudes to speed limits change we wouldn't needs them...until they do....[/p][/quote]"So here's another view...residential streets are for people, walking, cycling, playing, chatting...and for vehicles to go down. All can mix quite safely if the default speed is low and (crucially) vulnerable road users have priority" Yes, it must be very nice to have lived in Aidensfield. But I'm afraid this is York, and the year is 2012.[/p][/quote]If you mean that we simply have to accept the assumed "right" of some motorists to do whatever they like at everyone else's expense - no, we don't. Given the will, they can and should be made to fall into line with what the community wants, and that includes enforcing an appropriate speed limit on residential streets. Caecilius
  • Score: 0

5:32pm Wed 15 Aug 12

YSTClinguist says...

powerwatt wrote:
In York the Police say that areas that have introduced a 20mph zone have had a rise in accidents since they were created.
Have they released a comprehensive report on this we can look at? Including a breakdown of accidents, why they occurred, etc. The problem we are currently facing is tables of numbers with no breakdown that can be used for politic means to fight any corner, and this is upsetting all parties.
[quote][p][bold]powerwatt[/bold] wrote: In York the Police say that areas that have introduced a 20mph zone have had a rise in accidents since they were created.[/p][/quote]Have they released a comprehensive report on this we can look at? Including a breakdown of accidents, why they occurred, etc. The problem we are currently facing is tables of numbers with no breakdown that can be used for politic means to fight any corner, and this is upsetting all parties. YSTClinguist
  • Score: 0

5:36pm Wed 15 Aug 12

Guy Fawkes says...

Agreed with all above that we have no meaningful statistics on which to base any rational conclusion, and that we need figures of deaths, injuries and financial loss in accidents per mile travelled on 20mph roads versus 30mph ones in order to advance the debate.

Two points have not been mentioned here, though. Firstly, 20mph limits have to be more environmentally destructive. A typical car is designed to travel efficiently at 30 (i.e. at around 1,200 to 1,500 revs in fourth gear), but not at 20 (around 2,000 revs in third). It will therefore be burning more petrol, and emitting more exhaust gas that will dissipate more slowly at 20 than it will at 30.

Secondly, 20-limits are not just ideologically motivated, but they are campaigned for by residents who want them outside their own front door as a vanity feature (like humps, perceived to increase the value of their houses), but are very reluctant to obey them while driving past the front doors of others. Anecdotal: I've lost count of the number of times when slowing to obey the 30-limits through Shipton, Tollerton and Flawith, I've been tailgated, flashed at and beeped at by someone behind me, who then turns into a driveway or side-street in the village. In other words, they are a local resident who objects to obeying the speed limit in their own village. In my view, the law should be changed so that the fine for breaking the limit within one mile of your home address is quadrupled, and you also get a mandatory three-month driving ban. That would make people think about whether 20-limits are really necessary in their neighbourhoods before they campaign for them.
Agreed with all above that we have no meaningful statistics on which to base any rational conclusion, and that we need figures of deaths, injuries and financial loss in accidents per mile travelled on 20mph roads versus 30mph ones in order to advance the debate. Two points have not been mentioned here, though. Firstly, 20mph limits have to be more environmentally destructive. A typical car is designed to travel efficiently at 30 (i.e. at around 1,200 to 1,500 revs in fourth gear), but not at 20 (around 2,000 revs in third). It will therefore be burning more petrol, and emitting more exhaust gas that will dissipate more slowly at 20 than it will at 30. Secondly, 20-limits are not just ideologically motivated, but they are campaigned for by residents who want them outside their own front door as a vanity feature (like humps, perceived to increase the value of their houses), but are very reluctant to obey them while driving past the front doors of others. Anecdotal: I've lost count of the number of times when slowing to obey the 30-limits through Shipton, Tollerton and Flawith, I've been tailgated, flashed at and beeped at by someone behind me, who then turns into a driveway or side-street in the village. In other words, they are a local resident who objects to obeying the speed limit in their own village. In my view, the law should be changed so that the fine for breaking the limit within one mile of your home address is quadrupled, and you also get a mandatory three-month driving ban. That would make people think about whether 20-limits are really necessary in their neighbourhoods before they campaign for them. Guy Fawkes
  • Score: 0

6:06pm Wed 15 Aug 12

Digeorge says...

Yorkshirelad

"Anyone who knows anything at all about statistics will know that this cannot be used to say that the 20mph zones are more dangerous...that would need far more study".

For once, I agree with you!

But why we need 20 mph around housing estates that you can't get more than 20 mph in any way because they are so windy, I don't know (that is what people want round here) is questionable.

And why we need 20 mph around schools with humps in the road when it is not school term time, during the evening or night-time, I really don't know.
Yorkshirelad "Anyone who knows anything at all about statistics will know that this cannot be used to say that the 20mph zones are more dangerous...that would need far more study". For once, I agree with you! But why we need 20 mph around housing estates that you can't get more than 20 mph in any way because they are so windy, I don't know (that is what people want round here) is questionable. And why we need 20 mph around schools with humps in the road when it is not school term time, during the evening or night-time, I really don't know. Digeorge
  • Score: 0

6:23pm Wed 15 Aug 12

lowbeam says...

for goodness sake,will you all get over it..stuff happens..deal with it!!
for goodness sake,will you all get over it..stuff happens..deal with it!! lowbeam
  • Score: 0

6:27pm Wed 15 Aug 12

BioLogic says...

YSTClinguist wrote:
BioLogic wrote:
YSTClinguist wrote:
farmer_robot wrote:
http://fullfact.org/




articles/road_safety




_20mph_zones_limits_




casualties-27766 Read this. Says EXACTLY what needs saying about the misinformed gibberish being spouted from the mainstream press about the 20mph zones. Total misinformation all based from some seriously flawed conclusions from a set of ambiguous stats.
Thanks for linking to a site that references the data table (RAS30006) since it wasn't put in this Press article.

It does worry me that there are deaths in 20mph zones, and that they are increasing. Why? Because vehicles are designed with front ends to minimise harm to pedestrians in the event of an accident, and at a speed of 20mph (maximum) it becomes hard to see how so many could be killed by being hit.

I think we can all assume here that the drivers entering those zones are not following the law, and that speeding is the cause of the accidents. Pedestrians lulled into false safety? Only if they believe that drivers won't speed.

So, it appears no matter what speed zone we place in an area, arrogant drivers are going speed and cause deaths, which may lead to a push for legislation towards GPS speed limiting on vehicles in built up zones. When that day comes, the driving community will only have itself to blame (over a trail of dead bodies consisting of kids and OAP's might I add)

All drivers are not like this, but since some of you are doing this, limiting may need to be implemented. The only alternative is banning personal driving in this country, and that's just not feasible. After all, why should the majority lose their privileges because of a minority?
There is intentional misinterpretation going on from both sides here. You cannot assume anything from these stats relating to compliance with the law at all and you make a mockery of your previous comments by suggesting so. If the 20mph zones are effective in reducing accidents then we should see a reduction in the combined accident rate for 20mph zones and 30mph areas as a set as 30mph zones are introduced. This would manifest itself as a stable or accident rate in 20mph zones. It isn't and that is indicative of the zones not being effective. The reasons for that could be many and cannot be gleaned from such a limited data set, however it is unquestionable that the zones are not working as expected and it is important that the reason for that is established before they are rolled out widely at significant cost in terms of both financial and negative environmental impact.
From a purely physics standpoint, it's worrying to see improving safety technology in cars and reduced speed areas resulting in more deaths. Maybe it's an assumption on my behalf (and perhaps others feel the same way) that drivers are driving too fast, leading to driver error. I've seen vehicles in 20mph zones near schools racing along well past the prior speed limit and as we've seen on this site, there are a plethora of stories recounting many, many 'driver errors' (and we're looking at the intentional ones here.)

So, you say there are many possible reasons for it, but you are unable to specify. Someone needs to gather data, to sit on our streets with a speed gun, video equipment and a recording pad and see what is going on. You point out that implementing 20mph zones will increase costs. But if they are in place and used correctly would they not save the taxpayers money? Less damage to roads, less insurance claims, less injury/loss of life (although that is a contentious point so far) less pollution.
It is a fallacy that 20mph zones reduce pollution, most vehicles are not running efficiently at 20mph and produce more exhaust emissons not less. They don't reduce damage, to vehicles, the required road furniture for enforcement causes significantly more damage to vehicles. So a he moment the not benefit is a disputable point about better or (maybe worse) risk to pedestrians. Some benefit.
[quote][p][bold]YSTClinguist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BioLogic[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]YSTClinguist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]farmer_robot[/bold] wrote: http://fullfact.org/ articles/road_safety _20mph_zones_limits_ casualties-27766 Read this. Says EXACTLY what needs saying about the misinformed gibberish being spouted from the mainstream press about the 20mph zones. Total misinformation all based from some seriously flawed conclusions from a set of ambiguous stats.[/p][/quote]Thanks for linking to a site that references the data table (RAS30006) since it wasn't put in this Press article. It does worry me that there are deaths in 20mph zones, and that they are increasing. Why? Because vehicles are designed with front ends to minimise harm to pedestrians in the event of an accident, and at a speed of 20mph (maximum) it becomes hard to see how so many could be killed by being hit. I think we can all assume here that the drivers entering those zones are not following the law, and that speeding is the cause of the accidents. Pedestrians lulled into false safety? Only if they believe that drivers won't speed. So, it appears no matter what speed zone we place in an area, arrogant drivers are going speed and cause deaths, which may lead to a push for legislation towards GPS speed limiting on vehicles in built up zones. When that day comes, the driving community will only have itself to blame (over a trail of dead bodies consisting of kids and OAP's might I add) All drivers are not like this, but since some of you are doing this, limiting may need to be implemented. The only alternative is banning personal driving in this country, and that's just not feasible. After all, why should the majority lose their privileges because of a minority?[/p][/quote]There is intentional misinterpretation going on from both sides here. You cannot assume anything from these stats relating to compliance with the law at all and you make a mockery of your previous comments by suggesting so. If the 20mph zones are effective in reducing accidents then we should see a reduction in the combined accident rate for 20mph zones and 30mph areas as a set as 30mph zones are introduced. This would manifest itself as a stable or accident rate in 20mph zones. It isn't and that is indicative of the zones not being effective. The reasons for that could be many and cannot be gleaned from such a limited data set, however it is unquestionable that the zones are not working as expected and it is important that the reason for that is established before they are rolled out widely at significant cost in terms of both financial and negative environmental impact.[/p][/quote]From a purely physics standpoint, it's worrying to see improving safety technology in cars and reduced speed areas resulting in more deaths. Maybe it's an assumption on my behalf (and perhaps others feel the same way) that drivers are driving too fast, leading to driver error. I've seen vehicles in 20mph zones near schools racing along well past the prior speed limit and as we've seen on this site, there are a plethora of stories recounting many, many 'driver errors' (and we're looking at the intentional ones here.) So, you say there are many possible reasons for it, but you are unable to specify. Someone needs to gather data, to sit on our streets with a speed gun, video equipment and a recording pad and see what is going on. You point out that implementing 20mph zones will increase costs. But if they are in place and used correctly would they not save the taxpayers money? Less damage to roads, less insurance claims, less injury/loss of life (although that is a contentious point so far) less pollution.[/p][/quote]It is a fallacy that 20mph zones reduce pollution, most vehicles are not running efficiently at 20mph and produce more exhaust emissons not less. They don't reduce damage, to vehicles, the required road furniture for enforcement causes significantly more damage to vehicles. So a he moment the not benefit is a disputable point about better or (maybe worse) risk to pedestrians. Some benefit. BioLogic
  • Score: 0

6:30pm Wed 15 Aug 12

Sawday2 says...

The report states quite clearly "there had been “substantial increases in killed and seriously injured casualties” in two areas implementing widespread 20mph speed limits". So nothing to do with the fact that there are more 20mph areas and therefore more accidents. The report was comparing accidents on roads before and after the 20mph restriction was introduced. Al all earlier commentators complaining that the statistics are being misinterpreted should reread the report and then get THEIR facts right.
The report states quite clearly "there had been “substantial increases in killed and seriously injured casualties” in two areas implementing widespread 20mph speed limits". So nothing to do with the fact that there are more 20mph areas and therefore more accidents. The report was comparing accidents on roads before and after the 20mph restriction was introduced. Al all earlier commentators complaining that the statistics are being misinterpreted should reread the report and then get THEIR facts right. Sawday2
  • Score: 0

7:10pm Wed 15 Aug 12

Woody G Mellor says...

I've said it before and I'll say it again. I will not be taking any notice of the pathetic, unnecessary 20mph ridiculous idea!
I've said it before and I'll say it again. I will not be taking any notice of the pathetic, unnecessary 20mph ridiculous idea! Woody G Mellor
  • Score: 0

8:00pm Wed 15 Aug 12

Buzz Light-year says...

And I've said it before and I'll say it again. No matter how many statistics you throw at it, if you legislate away people's ability to judge for themselves you will create idiots incapable of making judgement.
And I've said it before and I'll say it again. No matter how many statistics you throw at it, if you legislate away people's ability to judge for themselves you will create idiots incapable of making judgement. Buzz Light-year
  • Score: 0

10:29pm Wed 15 Aug 12

UsernameNotAvailable says...

The key thing with road safety is attitudes. Too many car drivers have the belief that pedestrians should never set foot on a road and should somehow float from pavement to pavement instead. Selfish, impatient, erratic and inappropriate driving (hard acceleration yet still within a given speed limit) are the most dangerous and intimidating factors for pedestrians and cyclists in York - especially with some of the narrow pavements. The less said about the vile thug in a car screaming foul abuse at an elderly lady for not crossing quickly enough for him that I witnessed today, the better. I have been a car driver for 17 years but a pedestrian much longer - never thought I'd hear myself say this, but I actually support a 20mph limit in residential areas. There is no need to go faster, keep that for the ring road. (ha! see what I did there? I suggested you could travel at over 20mph on the 1237!! As if!! :D )
The key thing with road safety is attitudes. Too many car drivers have the belief that pedestrians should never set foot on a road and should somehow float from pavement to pavement instead. Selfish, impatient, erratic and inappropriate driving (hard acceleration yet still within a given speed limit) are the most dangerous and intimidating factors for pedestrians and cyclists in York - especially with some of the narrow pavements. The less said about the vile thug in a car screaming foul abuse at an elderly lady for not crossing quickly enough for him that I witnessed today, the better. I have been a car driver for 17 years but a pedestrian much longer - never thought I'd hear myself say this, but I actually support a 20mph limit in residential areas. There is no need to go faster, keep that for the ring road. (ha! see what I did there? I suggested you could travel at over 20mph on the 1237!! As if!! :D ) UsernameNotAvailable
  • Score: 0

10:32pm Wed 15 Aug 12

BioLogic says...

It is a fallacy that 20mph zones reduce pollution, most vehicles are not running efficiently at 20mph and produce more exhaust emissons not less. They don't reduce damage, to vehicles, the required road furniture for enforcement causes significantly more damage to vehicles. So a he moment the not benefit is a disputable point about better or (maybe worse) risk to pedestrians. Some benefit.
It is a fallacy that 20mph zones reduce pollution, most vehicles are not running efficiently at 20mph and produce more exhaust emissons not less. They don't reduce damage, to vehicles, the required road furniture for enforcement causes significantly more damage to vehicles. So a he moment the not benefit is a disputable point about better or (maybe worse) risk to pedestrians. Some benefit. BioLogic
  • Score: 0

10:35pm Wed 15 Aug 12

UsernameNotAvailable says...

Reading back I see I was too busy makings jokes and failed to justify my conclusion. Although making a road 20mph cannot force a reduction in speed without enforcement (which we know there won't be) I feel that just having those numbers up can have a positive effect on the majority of driver attitudes. The minority of tw4ts will always drive and act like tw4ts, but hopefully the rest will see those signs, slow down and pay more attention to their driving and surroundings, which can only be good for everyone.
Reading back I see I was too busy makings jokes and failed to justify my conclusion. Although making a road 20mph cannot force a reduction in speed without enforcement (which we know there won't be) I feel that just having those numbers up can have a positive effect on the majority of driver attitudes. The minority of tw4ts will always drive and act like tw4ts, but hopefully the rest will see those signs, slow down and pay more attention to their driving and surroundings, which can only be good for everyone. UsernameNotAvailable
  • Score: 0

11:21pm Wed 15 Aug 12

lowbeam says...

I see my comment got pulled..
all i said was if people are daft enough to walk on a road where there is traffic,then that is their choice..don't gripe if and when you get run over and die..deal with it..oops..you cant..
I see my comment got pulled.. all i said was if people are daft enough to walk on a road where there is traffic,then that is their choice..don't gripe if and when you get run over and die..deal with it..oops..you cant.. lowbeam
  • Score: 0

8:38am Thu 16 Aug 12

Mr Udigawa says...

UsernameNotAvailable wrote:
Reading back I see I was too busy makings jokes and failed to justify my conclusion. Although making a road 20mph cannot force a reduction in speed without enforcement (which we know there won't be) I feel that just having those numbers up can have a positive effect on the majority of driver attitudes. The minority of tw4ts will always drive and act like tw4ts, but hopefully the rest will see those signs, slow down and pay more attention to their driving and surroundings, which can only be good for everyone.
This is my thought too, it's about culture change.
[quote][p][bold]UsernameNotAvailable[/bold] wrote: Reading back I see I was too busy makings jokes and failed to justify my conclusion. Although making a road 20mph cannot force a reduction in speed without enforcement (which we know there won't be) I feel that just having those numbers up can have a positive effect on the majority of driver attitudes. The minority of tw4ts will always drive and act like tw4ts, but hopefully the rest will see those signs, slow down and pay more attention to their driving and surroundings, which can only be good for everyone.[/p][/quote]This is my thought too, it's about culture change. Mr Udigawa
  • Score: 0

9:47am Thu 16 Aug 12

Davroshasissues says...

Great, more speed bumps to wreck my suspension. you can hit those things at 5mph and still feel the pain of your car's shock absorbers. i may bill the council next time they need replacing.

I'm all for safe road zones and speed control, having children myself of course i can see the benefit, but to me a speed camera would be more of a deterant.
Great, more speed bumps to wreck my suspension. you can hit those things at 5mph and still feel the pain of your car's shock absorbers. i may bill the council next time they need replacing. I'm all for safe road zones and speed control, having children myself of course i can see the benefit, but to me a speed camera would be more of a deterant. Davroshasissues
  • Score: 0

9:52am Thu 16 Aug 12

Digeorge says...

"Great, more speed bumps to wreck my suspension. you can hit those things at 5mph and still feel the pain of your car's shock absorbers. i may bill the council next time they need replacing." LOL

And that includes more work for osteopaths in putting people's back straight when they go over these humps.
"Great, more speed bumps to wreck my suspension. you can hit those things at 5mph and still feel the pain of your car's shock absorbers. i may bill the council next time they need replacing." LOL And that includes more work for osteopaths in putting people's back straight when they go over these humps. Digeorge
  • Score: 0

9:53am Thu 16 Aug 12

farmer_robot says...

WayneCarr wrote:
farmer_robot wrote:
MissConstrood wrote:
you can set whatever speed limit, safety precautions, health and safety assessments etc etc but people and children will still be exactly that and you cant take the human element out of these accidents. That is why they are that - accidents. Much as i would love no one to be ever hurt or killed in accidents - its not going to happen - we just have to raise awareness of the concequences of whatever circumstances we are in - whether that be, a 20/30/60/national speed limit or walking on a frozen pond or standing under a tree in a storm.
You can raise awareness all you want, but like you say accidents will happen. The severity of an accident is much lessened by a reduction in speed of the vehicle. The reaction time and stopping distance of a vehicle, to say, a child running out in the road is reduced from an overall 23 meters to just 12 meters when driving at 20mph instead of 30. That's almost double the distance required to react and stop.

When was the last time you saw someone driving at 30mph with a 23 meter gap behind the car in front? Not often? Yet the distance left doesn't typically reduce by a half when behind someone at 20mph.

Driving too closely to the vehicle in front is one of the causes of vehicles "not seeing" a cyclist until the last second, which creates unnecessary risk.
Farmer' seems to know all on this subject, must be the pedalling penis in disguise!
Yes, quite. Amazing what information about a subject you can read (assuming you have such abilities) when you look for it.
[quote][p][bold]WayneCarr[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]farmer_robot[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]MissConstrood[/bold] wrote: you can set whatever speed limit, safety precautions, health and safety assessments etc etc but people and children will still be exactly that and you cant take the human element out of these accidents. That is why they are that - accidents. Much as i would love no one to be ever hurt or killed in accidents - its not going to happen - we just have to raise awareness of the concequences of whatever circumstances we are in - whether that be, a 20/30/60/national speed limit or walking on a frozen pond or standing under a tree in a storm.[/p][/quote]You can raise awareness all you want, but like you say accidents will happen. The severity of an accident is much lessened by a reduction in speed of the vehicle. The reaction time and stopping distance of a vehicle, to say, a child running out in the road is reduced from an overall 23 meters to just 12 meters when driving at 20mph instead of 30. That's almost double the distance required to react and stop. When was the last time you saw someone driving at 30mph with a 23 meter gap behind the car in front? Not often? Yet the distance left doesn't typically reduce by a half when behind someone at 20mph. Driving too closely to the vehicle in front is one of the causes of vehicles "not seeing" a cyclist until the last second, which creates unnecessary risk.[/p][/quote]Farmer' seems to know all on this subject, must be the pedalling penis in disguise![/p][/quote]Yes, quite. Amazing what information about a subject you can read (assuming you have such abilities) when you look for it. farmer_robot
  • Score: 0

9:58am Thu 16 Aug 12

Micklegate says...

Dave Taylor wrote:
The article makes a basic mistake in the interpretation of the statistics. Clearly as more miles of roads have been designated as 20mph zones, more accidents will have occurred in the increased mileage of roadspace. To be fair, this is a point Cllr Merrett makes, but the Tories and Lib Dems seem to be clueless when it comes to stats. The national data does not give us the breakdown necessary, so while the Council is right to ask questions of Islington and Portsmouth the basic premise that roads are safer at 20mph is almost certainly true. Certainly if you are hit by a car at 20mph it will do you far less harm than a car travelling 30mph. The severity of accidents is unquestionable.
Why only go to 20mph then? Instead of '20's plenty' why don't we have '5 to stay alive'?
[quote][p][bold]Dave Taylor[/bold] wrote: The article makes a basic mistake in the interpretation of the statistics. Clearly as more miles of roads have been designated as 20mph zones, more accidents will have occurred in the increased mileage of roadspace. To be fair, this is a point Cllr Merrett makes, but the Tories and Lib Dems seem to be clueless when it comes to stats. The national data does not give us the breakdown necessary, so while the Council is right to ask questions of Islington and Portsmouth the basic premise that roads are safer at 20mph is almost certainly true. Certainly if you are hit by a car at 20mph it will do you far less harm than a car travelling 30mph. The severity of accidents is unquestionable.[/p][/quote]Why only go to 20mph then? Instead of '20's plenty' why don't we have '5 to stay alive'? Micklegate
  • Score: 0

10:02am Thu 16 Aug 12

farmer_robot says...

BioLogic wrote:
YSTClinguist wrote:
BioLogic wrote:
YSTClinguist wrote:
farmer_robot wrote:
http://fullfact.org/





articles/road_safety





_20mph_zones_limits_





casualties-27766 Read this. Says EXACTLY what needs saying about the misinformed gibberish being spouted from the mainstream press about the 20mph zones. Total misinformation all based from some seriously flawed conclusions from a set of ambiguous stats.
Thanks for linking to a site that references the data table (RAS30006) since it wasn't put in this Press article.

It does worry me that there are deaths in 20mph zones, and that they are increasing. Why? Because vehicles are designed with front ends to minimise harm to pedestrians in the event of an accident, and at a speed of 20mph (maximum) it becomes hard to see how so many could be killed by being hit.

I think we can all assume here that the drivers entering those zones are not following the law, and that speeding is the cause of the accidents. Pedestrians lulled into false safety? Only if they believe that drivers won't speed.

So, it appears no matter what speed zone we place in an area, arrogant drivers are going speed and cause deaths, which may lead to a push for legislation towards GPS speed limiting on vehicles in built up zones. When that day comes, the driving community will only have itself to blame (over a trail of dead bodies consisting of kids and OAP's might I add)

All drivers are not like this, but since some of you are doing this, limiting may need to be implemented. The only alternative is banning personal driving in this country, and that's just not feasible. After all, why should the majority lose their privileges because of a minority?
There is intentional misinterpretation going on from both sides here. You cannot assume anything from these stats relating to compliance with the law at all and you make a mockery of your previous comments by suggesting so. If the 20mph zones are effective in reducing accidents then we should see a reduction in the combined accident rate for 20mph zones and 30mph areas as a set as 30mph zones are introduced. This would manifest itself as a stable or accident rate in 20mph zones. It isn't and that is indicative of the zones not being effective. The reasons for that could be many and cannot be gleaned from such a limited data set, however it is unquestionable that the zones are not working as expected and it is important that the reason for that is established before they are rolled out widely at significant cost in terms of both financial and negative environmental impact.
From a purely physics standpoint, it's worrying to see improving safety technology in cars and reduced speed areas resulting in more deaths. Maybe it's an assumption on my behalf (and perhaps others feel the same way) that drivers are driving too fast, leading to driver error. I've seen vehicles in 20mph zones near schools racing along well past the prior speed limit and as we've seen on this site, there are a plethora of stories recounting many, many 'driver errors' (and we're looking at the intentional ones here.)

So, you say there are many possible reasons for it, but you are unable to specify. Someone needs to gather data, to sit on our streets with a speed gun, video equipment and a recording pad and see what is going on. You point out that implementing 20mph zones will increase costs. But if they are in place and used correctly would they not save the taxpayers money? Less damage to roads, less insurance claims, less injury/loss of life (although that is a contentious point so far) less pollution.
It is a fallacy that 20mph zones reduce pollution, most vehicles are not running efficiently at 20mph and produce more exhaust emissons not less. They don't reduce damage, to vehicles, the required road furniture for enforcement causes significantly more damage to vehicles. So a he moment the not benefit is a disputable point about better or (maybe worse) risk to pedestrians. Some benefit.
You're assuming that in a 30mph zone vehicles are running at 30mph. They're not. They stop and start due to junctions, traffic lights, pedestrians and cyclists. In a 20 mph zone, the speed averaged over the distance driven may well end up being the same as same wait times apply. I back this up using anecdotal evidence of cycling. The other week I had an incident of a van impatiently beeping at me to move for him. I won't go into the details here other than by the time I finished crossing York, I'd passed the van stood in traffic (all 30 mph zone) a number of times and ended up far ahead of the van in a queue of traffic on Holgate Road. The average speed of my journey was well below 16mph.

It's the pointless accelerating up to 30mph only to have to stop again, constantly, that causes the pollution as the energy required to get the car up to this speed is greater than getting it up to 20 only to be lost when the car comes to a standstill.

You don't have to have road furniture to have a 20mph zone. If it is present then the damage to the vehicle can be minimised by not driving over / around it at speed, almost as if that was the intention of such additions to the road.
[quote][p][bold]BioLogic[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]YSTClinguist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BioLogic[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]YSTClinguist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]farmer_robot[/bold] wrote: http://fullfact.org/ articles/road_safety _20mph_zones_limits_ casualties-27766 Read this. Says EXACTLY what needs saying about the misinformed gibberish being spouted from the mainstream press about the 20mph zones. Total misinformation all based from some seriously flawed conclusions from a set of ambiguous stats.[/p][/quote]Thanks for linking to a site that references the data table (RAS30006) since it wasn't put in this Press article. It does worry me that there are deaths in 20mph zones, and that they are increasing. Why? Because vehicles are designed with front ends to minimise harm to pedestrians in the event of an accident, and at a speed of 20mph (maximum) it becomes hard to see how so many could be killed by being hit. I think we can all assume here that the drivers entering those zones are not following the law, and that speeding is the cause of the accidents. Pedestrians lulled into false safety? Only if they believe that drivers won't speed. So, it appears no matter what speed zone we place in an area, arrogant drivers are going speed and cause deaths, which may lead to a push for legislation towards GPS speed limiting on vehicles in built up zones. When that day comes, the driving community will only have itself to blame (over a trail of dead bodies consisting of kids and OAP's might I add) All drivers are not like this, but since some of you are doing this, limiting may need to be implemented. The only alternative is banning personal driving in this country, and that's just not feasible. After all, why should the majority lose their privileges because of a minority?[/p][/quote]There is intentional misinterpretation going on from both sides here. You cannot assume anything from these stats relating to compliance with the law at all and you make a mockery of your previous comments by suggesting so. If the 20mph zones are effective in reducing accidents then we should see a reduction in the combined accident rate for 20mph zones and 30mph areas as a set as 30mph zones are introduced. This would manifest itself as a stable or accident rate in 20mph zones. It isn't and that is indicative of the zones not being effective. The reasons for that could be many and cannot be gleaned from such a limited data set, however it is unquestionable that the zones are not working as expected and it is important that the reason for that is established before they are rolled out widely at significant cost in terms of both financial and negative environmental impact.[/p][/quote]From a purely physics standpoint, it's worrying to see improving safety technology in cars and reduced speed areas resulting in more deaths. Maybe it's an assumption on my behalf (and perhaps others feel the same way) that drivers are driving too fast, leading to driver error. I've seen vehicles in 20mph zones near schools racing along well past the prior speed limit and as we've seen on this site, there are a plethora of stories recounting many, many 'driver errors' (and we're looking at the intentional ones here.) So, you say there are many possible reasons for it, but you are unable to specify. Someone needs to gather data, to sit on our streets with a speed gun, video equipment and a recording pad and see what is going on. You point out that implementing 20mph zones will increase costs. But if they are in place and used correctly would they not save the taxpayers money? Less damage to roads, less insurance claims, less injury/loss of life (although that is a contentious point so far) less pollution.[/p][/quote]It is a fallacy that 20mph zones reduce pollution, most vehicles are not running efficiently at 20mph and produce more exhaust emissons not less. They don't reduce damage, to vehicles, the required road furniture for enforcement causes significantly more damage to vehicles. So a he moment the not benefit is a disputable point about better or (maybe worse) risk to pedestrians. Some benefit.[/p][/quote]You're assuming that in a 30mph zone vehicles are running at 30mph. They're not. They stop and start due to junctions, traffic lights, pedestrians and cyclists. In a 20 mph zone, the speed averaged over the distance driven may well end up being the same as same wait times apply. I back this up using anecdotal evidence of cycling. The other week I had an incident of a van impatiently beeping at me to move for him. I won't go into the details here other than by the time I finished crossing York, I'd passed the van stood in traffic (all 30 mph zone) a number of times and ended up far ahead of the van in a queue of traffic on Holgate Road. The average speed of my journey was well below 16mph. It's the pointless accelerating up to 30mph only to have to stop again, constantly, that causes the pollution as the energy required to get the car up to this speed is greater than getting it up to 20 only to be lost when the car comes to a standstill. You don't have to have road furniture to have a 20mph zone. If it is present then the damage to the vehicle can be minimised by not driving over / around it at speed, almost as if that was the intention of such additions to the road. farmer_robot
  • Score: 0

10:06am Thu 16 Aug 12

farmer_robot says...

Davroshasissues wrote:
Great, more speed bumps to wreck my suspension. you can hit those things at 5mph and still feel the pain of your car's shock absorbers. i may bill the council next time they need replacing.

I'm all for safe road zones and speed control, having children myself of course i can see the benefit, but to me a speed camera would be more of a deterant.
Really. What car are you driving? I've yet to drive a car which, after slowing to the speed required to drive over such a bump (kind of the point of it to start with), causes any particular discomfort or noticeable damage to the car.
[quote][p][bold]Davroshasissues[/bold] wrote: Great, more speed bumps to wreck my suspension. you can hit those things at 5mph and still feel the pain of your car's shock absorbers. i may bill the council next time they need replacing. I'm all for safe road zones and speed control, having children myself of course i can see the benefit, but to me a speed camera would be more of a deterant.[/p][/quote]Really. What car are you driving? I've yet to drive a car which, after slowing to the speed required to drive over such a bump (kind of the point of it to start with), causes any particular discomfort or noticeable damage to the car. farmer_robot
  • Score: 0

10:13am Thu 16 Aug 12

Davroshasissues says...

Previously, a fiat...shock absorber smashed to pieces...and was doing under 20mph...could be because it was an old car.

But even my Zafira i have now is not smooth over the bumps. It's mainly those speed cushions, with the sharp corners that I have the issues with.
Previously, a fiat...shock absorber smashed to pieces...and was doing under 20mph...could be because it was an old car. But even my Zafira i have now is not smooth over the bumps. It's mainly those speed cushions, with the sharp corners that I have the issues with. Davroshasissues
  • Score: 0

10:22am Thu 16 Aug 12

Theapplesarecoming says...

If anyone can actually achieve over 20mph during the hours where pedestrians will be most likely running into roads (between 8-10am and 3.30-6 pm on the school run and work commute) I'll be very surprised ,

The rest of the Time is there really the much of a risk to spend this amount of money ?

Of corse I appreciate saving people's life's but there is an argument here for the people who's life's have been made a misery by cutting the care fund in York leaving the old and needy living a life which is no doubt unbearable for some of them

If someone is stupid enough the step in the road without looking it is going to kill them at some point , that goes without saying ,

This is of corse a sensitive subject however..

Life quality for 100s of people in need is better then spending the money saving a couple of people who don't look both ways
If anyone can actually achieve over 20mph during the hours where pedestrians will be most likely running into roads (between 8-10am and 3.30-6 pm on the school run and work commute) I'll be very surprised , The rest of the Time is there really the much of a risk to spend this amount of money ? Of corse I appreciate saving people's life's but there is an argument here for the people who's life's have been made a misery by cutting the care fund in York leaving the old and needy living a life which is no doubt unbearable for some of them If someone is stupid enough the step in the road without looking it is going to kill them at some point , that goes without saying , This is of corse a sensitive subject however.. Life quality for 100s of people in need is better then spending the money saving a couple of people who don't look both ways Theapplesarecoming
  • Score: 0

10:42am Thu 16 Aug 12

farmer_robot says...

YSTClinguist wrote:
BioLogic wrote:
YSTClinguist wrote:
farmer_robot wrote:
http://fullfact.org/




articles/road_safety




_20mph_zones_limits_




casualties-27766 Read this. Says EXACTLY what needs saying about the misinformed gibberish being spouted from the mainstream press about the 20mph zones. Total misinformation all based from some seriously flawed conclusions from a set of ambiguous stats.
Thanks for linking to a site that references the data table (RAS30006) since it wasn't put in this Press article.

It does worry me that there are deaths in 20mph zones, and that they are increasing. Why? Because vehicles are designed with front ends to minimise harm to pedestrians in the event of an accident, and at a speed of 20mph (maximum) it becomes hard to see how so many could be killed by being hit.

I think we can all assume here that the drivers entering those zones are not following the law, and that speeding is the cause of the accidents. Pedestrians lulled into false safety? Only if they believe that drivers won't speed.

So, it appears no matter what speed zone we place in an area, arrogant drivers are going speed and cause deaths, which may lead to a push for legislation towards GPS speed limiting on vehicles in built up zones. When that day comes, the driving community will only have itself to blame (over a trail of dead bodies consisting of kids and OAP's might I add)

All drivers are not like this, but since some of you are doing this, limiting may need to be implemented. The only alternative is banning personal driving in this country, and that's just not feasible. After all, why should the majority lose their privileges because of a minority?
There is intentional misinterpretation going on from both sides here. You cannot assume anything from these stats relating to compliance with the law at all and you make a mockery of your previous comments by suggesting so. If the 20mph zones are effective in reducing accidents then we should see a reduction in the combined accident rate for 20mph zones and 30mph areas as a set as 30mph zones are introduced. This would manifest itself as a stable or accident rate in 20mph zones. It isn't and that is indicative of the zones not being effective. The reasons for that could be many and cannot be gleaned from such a limited data set, however it is unquestionable that the zones are not working as expected and it is important that the reason for that is established before they are rolled out widely at significant cost in terms of both financial and negative environmental impact.
From a purely physics standpoint, it's worrying to see improving safety technology in cars and reduced speed areas resulting in more deaths. Maybe it's an assumption on my behalf (and perhaps others feel the same way) that drivers are driving too fast, leading to driver error. I've seen vehicles in 20mph zones near schools racing along well past the prior speed limit and as we've seen on this site, there are a plethora of stories recounting many, many 'driver errors' (and we're looking at the intentional ones here.)

So, you say there are many possible reasons for it, but you are unable to specify. Someone needs to gather data, to sit on our streets with a speed gun, video equipment and a recording pad and see what is going on. You point out that implementing 20mph zones will increase costs. But if they are in place and used correctly would they not save the taxpayers money? Less damage to roads, less insurance claims, less injury/loss of life (although that is a contentious point so far) less pollution.
Maybe from a physics standpoint, but from a risk perspective it's not surprising at all. The more technology we put into the motorcar, computerised braking, airbags etc. (all good things to have), the lower the perceived risk of driving becomes and the greater the phenomenon of 'risk compensation'. This will always make some people drive in a less safe manner.

I keep meaning to read the book "Risk" by John Adams which seems to be quite a well received book on the subject and does also cover some aspects of automotive safety and their affects of perceived risk and compensation for it.

Also, a lot of thought has already been engineered out of driving which makes it easier for people's minds to wander off on to other things. A plethora of distractions have been introduced, from GPS navigation to complicated stereo systems with on screen menus and graphic displays and that's before the distractions carried on-board such as the mobile phone are taken into consideration.
[quote][p][bold]YSTClinguist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BioLogic[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]YSTClinguist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]farmer_robot[/bold] wrote: http://fullfact.org/ articles/road_safety _20mph_zones_limits_ casualties-27766 Read this. Says EXACTLY what needs saying about the misinformed gibberish being spouted from the mainstream press about the 20mph zones. Total misinformation all based from some seriously flawed conclusions from a set of ambiguous stats.[/p][/quote]Thanks for linking to a site that references the data table (RAS30006) since it wasn't put in this Press article. It does worry me that there are deaths in 20mph zones, and that they are increasing. Why? Because vehicles are designed with front ends to minimise harm to pedestrians in the event of an accident, and at a speed of 20mph (maximum) it becomes hard to see how so many could be killed by being hit. I think we can all assume here that the drivers entering those zones are not following the law, and that speeding is the cause of the accidents. Pedestrians lulled into false safety? Only if they believe that drivers won't speed. So, it appears no matter what speed zone we place in an area, arrogant drivers are going speed and cause deaths, which may lead to a push for legislation towards GPS speed limiting on vehicles in built up zones. When that day comes, the driving community will only have itself to blame (over a trail of dead bodies consisting of kids and OAP's might I add) All drivers are not like this, but since some of you are doing this, limiting may need to be implemented. The only alternative is banning personal driving in this country, and that's just not feasible. After all, why should the majority lose their privileges because of a minority?[/p][/quote]There is intentional misinterpretation going on from both sides here. You cannot assume anything from these stats relating to compliance with the law at all and you make a mockery of your previous comments by suggesting so. If the 20mph zones are effective in reducing accidents then we should see a reduction in the combined accident rate for 20mph zones and 30mph areas as a set as 30mph zones are introduced. This would manifest itself as a stable or accident rate in 20mph zones. It isn't and that is indicative of the zones not being effective. The reasons for that could be many and cannot be gleaned from such a limited data set, however it is unquestionable that the zones are not working as expected and it is important that the reason for that is established before they are rolled out widely at significant cost in terms of both financial and negative environmental impact.[/p][/quote]From a purely physics standpoint, it's worrying to see improving safety technology in cars and reduced speed areas resulting in more deaths. Maybe it's an assumption on my behalf (and perhaps others feel the same way) that drivers are driving too fast, leading to driver error. I've seen vehicles in 20mph zones near schools racing along well past the prior speed limit and as we've seen on this site, there are a plethora of stories recounting many, many 'driver errors' (and we're looking at the intentional ones here.) So, you say there are many possible reasons for it, but you are unable to specify. Someone needs to gather data, to sit on our streets with a speed gun, video equipment and a recording pad and see what is going on. You point out that implementing 20mph zones will increase costs. But if they are in place and used correctly would they not save the taxpayers money? Less damage to roads, less insurance claims, less injury/loss of life (although that is a contentious point so far) less pollution.[/p][/quote]Maybe from a physics standpoint, but from a risk perspective it's not surprising at all. The more technology we put into the motorcar, computerised braking, airbags etc. (all good things to have), the lower the perceived risk of driving becomes and the greater the phenomenon of 'risk compensation'. This will always make some people drive in a less safe manner. I keep meaning to read the book "Risk" by John Adams which seems to be quite a well received book on the subject and does also cover some aspects of automotive safety and their affects of perceived risk and compensation for it. Also, a lot of thought has already been engineered out of driving which makes it easier for people's minds to wander off on to other things. A plethora of distractions have been introduced, from GPS navigation to complicated stereo systems with on screen menus and graphic displays and that's before the distractions carried on-board such as the mobile phone are taken into consideration. farmer_robot
  • Score: 0

10:45am Thu 16 Aug 12

farmer_robot says...

Davroshasissues wrote:
Previously, a fiat...shock absorber smashed to pieces...and was doing under 20mph...could be because it was an old car.

But even my Zafira i have now is not smooth over the bumps. It's mainly those speed cushions, with the sharp corners that I have the issues with.
Ok, maybe it's the longer wheel base or something.
[quote][p][bold]Davroshasissues[/bold] wrote: Previously, a fiat...shock absorber smashed to pieces...and was doing under 20mph...could be because it was an old car. But even my Zafira i have now is not smooth over the bumps. It's mainly those speed cushions, with the sharp corners that I have the issues with.[/p][/quote]Ok, maybe it's the longer wheel base or something. farmer_robot
  • Score: 0

11:08am Thu 16 Aug 12

Davroshasissues says...

More than likely...great car though...on flat roads...
More than likely...great car though...on flat roads... Davroshasissues
  • Score: 0

11:17am Thu 16 Aug 12

BioLogic says...

farmer_robot wrote:
BioLogic wrote:
YSTClinguist wrote:
BioLogic wrote:
YSTClinguist wrote:
farmer_robot wrote:
http://fullfact.org/






articles/road_safety






_20mph_zones_limits_






casualties-27766 Read this. Says EXACTLY what needs saying about the misinformed gibberish being spouted from the mainstream press about the 20mph zones. Total misinformation all based from some seriously flawed conclusions from a set of ambiguous stats.
Thanks for linking to a site that references the data table (RAS30006) since it wasn't put in this Press article.

It does worry me that there are deaths in 20mph zones, and that they are increasing. Why? Because vehicles are designed with front ends to minimise harm to pedestrians in the event of an accident, and at a speed of 20mph (maximum) it becomes hard to see how so many could be killed by being hit.

I think we can all assume here that the drivers entering those zones are not following the law, and that speeding is the cause of the accidents. Pedestrians lulled into false safety? Only if they believe that drivers won't speed.

So, it appears no matter what speed zone we place in an area, arrogant drivers are going speed and cause deaths, which may lead to a push for legislation towards GPS speed limiting on vehicles in built up zones. When that day comes, the driving community will only have itself to blame (over a trail of dead bodies consisting of kids and OAP's might I add)

All drivers are not like this, but since some of you are doing this, limiting may need to be implemented. The only alternative is banning personal driving in this country, and that's just not feasible. After all, why should the majority lose their privileges because of a minority?
There is intentional misinterpretation going on from both sides here. You cannot assume anything from these stats relating to compliance with the law at all and you make a mockery of your previous comments by suggesting so. If the 20mph zones are effective in reducing accidents then we should see a reduction in the combined accident rate for 20mph zones and 30mph areas as a set as 30mph zones are introduced. This would manifest itself as a stable or accident rate in 20mph zones. It isn't and that is indicative of the zones not being effective. The reasons for that could be many and cannot be gleaned from such a limited data set, however it is unquestionable that the zones are not working as expected and it is important that the reason for that is established before they are rolled out widely at significant cost in terms of both financial and negative environmental impact.
From a purely physics standpoint, it's worrying to see improving safety technology in cars and reduced speed areas resulting in more deaths. Maybe it's an assumption on my behalf (and perhaps others feel the same way) that drivers are driving too fast, leading to driver error. I've seen vehicles in 20mph zones near schools racing along well past the prior speed limit and as we've seen on this site, there are a plethora of stories recounting many, many 'driver errors' (and we're looking at the intentional ones here.)

So, you say there are many possible reasons for it, but you are unable to specify. Someone needs to gather data, to sit on our streets with a speed gun, video equipment and a recording pad and see what is going on. You point out that implementing 20mph zones will increase costs. But if they are in place and used correctly would they not save the taxpayers money? Less damage to roads, less insurance claims, less injury/loss of life (although that is a contentious point so far) less pollution.
It is a fallacy that 20mph zones reduce pollution, most vehicles are not running efficiently at 20mph and produce more exhaust emissons not less. They don't reduce damage, to vehicles, the required road furniture for enforcement causes significantly more damage to vehicles. So a he moment the not benefit is a disputable point about better or (maybe worse) risk to pedestrians. Some benefit.
You're assuming that in a 30mph zone vehicles are running at 30mph. They're not. They stop and start due to junctions, traffic lights, pedestrians and cyclists. In a 20 mph zone, the speed averaged over the distance driven may well end up being the same as same wait times apply. I back this up using anecdotal evidence of cycling. The other week I had an incident of a van impatiently beeping at me to move for him. I won't go into the details here other than by the time I finished crossing York, I'd passed the van stood in traffic (all 30 mph zone) a number of times and ended up far ahead of the van in a queue of traffic on Holgate Road. The average speed of my journey was well below 16mph.

It's the pointless accelerating up to 30mph only to have to stop again, constantly, that causes the pollution as the energy required to get the car up to this speed is greater than getting it up to 20 only to be lost when the car comes to a standstill.

You don't have to have road furniture to have a 20mph zone. If it is present then the damage to the vehicle can be minimised by not driving over / around it at speed, almost as if that was the intention of such additions to the road.
If it is a 20mph zone as opposed to a section of speed limit then you must have enforcement by traffic calming (and all the associated speed humps etc) and the speed limit cannot be enforced by the police. What is being proposed in York is zones just like this so you are wrong, on that point.

When you have traffic calming you always get traffic slowing for a speed hump then accelerating because the current designs of speed hump cn only be negotiated at speeds below 20. This constant slowing and accelerating causes raised emissons and increased wear and tear on vehicles along with increased noise levels in residential areas.
[quote][p][bold]farmer_robot[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BioLogic[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]YSTClinguist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BioLogic[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]YSTClinguist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]farmer_robot[/bold] wrote: http://fullfact.org/ articles/road_safety _20mph_zones_limits_ casualties-27766 Read this. Says EXACTLY what needs saying about the misinformed gibberish being spouted from the mainstream press about the 20mph zones. Total misinformation all based from some seriously flawed conclusions from a set of ambiguous stats.[/p][/quote]Thanks for linking to a site that references the data table (RAS30006) since it wasn't put in this Press article. It does worry me that there are deaths in 20mph zones, and that they are increasing. Why? Because vehicles are designed with front ends to minimise harm to pedestrians in the event of an accident, and at a speed of 20mph (maximum) it becomes hard to see how so many could be killed by being hit. I think we can all assume here that the drivers entering those zones are not following the law, and that speeding is the cause of the accidents. Pedestrians lulled into false safety? Only if they believe that drivers won't speed. So, it appears no matter what speed zone we place in an area, arrogant drivers are going speed and cause deaths, which may lead to a push for legislation towards GPS speed limiting on vehicles in built up zones. When that day comes, the driving community will only have itself to blame (over a trail of dead bodies consisting of kids and OAP's might I add) All drivers are not like this, but since some of you are doing this, limiting may need to be implemented. The only alternative is banning personal driving in this country, and that's just not feasible. After all, why should the majority lose their privileges because of a minority?[/p][/quote]There is intentional misinterpretation going on from both sides here. You cannot assume anything from these stats relating to compliance with the law at all and you make a mockery of your previous comments by suggesting so. If the 20mph zones are effective in reducing accidents then we should see a reduction in the combined accident rate for 20mph zones and 30mph areas as a set as 30mph zones are introduced. This would manifest itself as a stable or accident rate in 20mph zones. It isn't and that is indicative of the zones not being effective. The reasons for that could be many and cannot be gleaned from such a limited data set, however it is unquestionable that the zones are not working as expected and it is important that the reason for that is established before they are rolled out widely at significant cost in terms of both financial and negative environmental impact.[/p][/quote]From a purely physics standpoint, it's worrying to see improving safety technology in cars and reduced speed areas resulting in more deaths. Maybe it's an assumption on my behalf (and perhaps others feel the same way) that drivers are driving too fast, leading to driver error. I've seen vehicles in 20mph zones near schools racing along well past the prior speed limit and as we've seen on this site, there are a plethora of stories recounting many, many 'driver errors' (and we're looking at the intentional ones here.) So, you say there are many possible reasons for it, but you are unable to specify. Someone needs to gather data, to sit on our streets with a speed gun, video equipment and a recording pad and see what is going on. You point out that implementing 20mph zones will increase costs. But if they are in place and used correctly would they not save the taxpayers money? Less damage to roads, less insurance claims, less injury/loss of life (although that is a contentious point so far) less pollution.[/p][/quote]It is a fallacy that 20mph zones reduce pollution, most vehicles are not running efficiently at 20mph and produce more exhaust emissons not less. They don't reduce damage, to vehicles, the required road furniture for enforcement causes significantly more damage to vehicles. So a he moment the not benefit is a disputable point about better or (maybe worse) risk to pedestrians. Some benefit.[/p][/quote]You're assuming that in a 30mph zone vehicles are running at 30mph. They're not. They stop and start due to junctions, traffic lights, pedestrians and cyclists. In a 20 mph zone, the speed averaged over the distance driven may well end up being the same as same wait times apply. I back this up using anecdotal evidence of cycling. The other week I had an incident of a van impatiently beeping at me to move for him. I won't go into the details here other than by the time I finished crossing York, I'd passed the van stood in traffic (all 30 mph zone) a number of times and ended up far ahead of the van in a queue of traffic on Holgate Road. The average speed of my journey was well below 16mph. It's the pointless accelerating up to 30mph only to have to stop again, constantly, that causes the pollution as the energy required to get the car up to this speed is greater than getting it up to 20 only to be lost when the car comes to a standstill. You don't have to have road furniture to have a 20mph zone. If it is present then the damage to the vehicle can be minimised by not driving over / around it at speed, almost as if that was the intention of such additions to the road.[/p][/quote]If it is a 20mph zone as opposed to a section of speed limit then you must have enforcement by traffic calming (and all the associated speed humps etc) and the speed limit cannot be enforced by the police. What is being proposed in York is zones just like this so you are wrong, on that point. When you have traffic calming you always get traffic slowing for a speed hump then accelerating because the current designs of speed hump cn only be negotiated at speeds below 20. This constant slowing and accelerating causes raised emissons and increased wear and tear on vehicles along with increased noise levels in residential areas. BioLogic
  • Score: 0

11:29am Thu 16 Aug 12

york_chap says...

I'll slow it down to 20mph when they make jaywalking an offence. Pedestrians seem to be getting more brazen of late - walking out into the road when they can clearly see a vehicle approaching within the speed limit, assuming that the driver will reduce their speed by 50% or 60% to avoid hitting them. These slow amblers then become irate if the approaching vehicle dares to pass within a few inches of them. I've noticed it particularly in York. Reducing the speed limit will make this problem worse and add to pedestrians' sense of invincibility.
I'll slow it down to 20mph when they make jaywalking an offence. Pedestrians seem to be getting more brazen of late - walking out into the road when they can clearly see a vehicle approaching within the speed limit, assuming that the driver will reduce their speed by 50% or 60% to avoid hitting them. These slow amblers then become irate if the approaching vehicle dares to pass within a few inches of them. I've noticed it particularly in York. Reducing the speed limit will make this problem worse and add to pedestrians' sense of invincibility. york_chap
  • Score: 0

1:08pm Thu 16 Aug 12

farmer_robot says...

BioLogic wrote:
farmer_robot wrote:
BioLogic wrote:
YSTClinguist wrote:
BioLogic wrote:
YSTClinguist wrote:
farmer_robot wrote:
http://fullfact.org/







articles/road_safety







_20mph_zones_limits_







casualties-27766 Read this. Says EXACTLY what needs saying about the misinformed gibberish being spouted from the mainstream press about the 20mph zones. Total misinformation all based from some seriously flawed conclusions from a set of ambiguous stats.
Thanks for linking to a site that references the data table (RAS30006) since it wasn't put in this Press article.

It does worry me that there are deaths in 20mph zones, and that they are increasing. Why? Because vehicles are designed with front ends to minimise harm to pedestrians in the event of an accident, and at a speed of 20mph (maximum) it becomes hard to see how so many could be killed by being hit.

I think we can all assume here that the drivers entering those zones are not following the law, and that speeding is the cause of the accidents. Pedestrians lulled into false safety? Only if they believe that drivers won't speed.

So, it appears no matter what speed zone we place in an area, arrogant drivers are going speed and cause deaths, which may lead to a push for legislation towards GPS speed limiting on vehicles in built up zones. When that day comes, the driving community will only have itself to blame (over a trail of dead bodies consisting of kids and OAP's might I add)

All drivers are not like this, but since some of you are doing this, limiting may need to be implemented. The only alternative is banning personal driving in this country, and that's just not feasible. After all, why should the majority lose their privileges because of a minority?
There is intentional misinterpretation going on from both sides here. You cannot assume anything from these stats relating to compliance with the law at all and you make a mockery of your previous comments by suggesting so. If the 20mph zones are effective in reducing accidents then we should see a reduction in the combined accident rate for 20mph zones and 30mph areas as a set as 30mph zones are introduced. This would manifest itself as a stable or accident rate in 20mph zones. It isn't and that is indicative of the zones not being effective. The reasons for that could be many and cannot be gleaned from such a limited data set, however it is unquestionable that the zones are not working as expected and it is important that the reason for that is established before they are rolled out widely at significant cost in terms of both financial and negative environmental impact.
From a purely physics standpoint, it's worrying to see improving safety technology in cars and reduced speed areas resulting in more deaths. Maybe it's an assumption on my behalf (and perhaps others feel the same way) that drivers are driving too fast, leading to driver error. I've seen vehicles in 20mph zones near schools racing along well past the prior speed limit and as we've seen on this site, there are a plethora of stories recounting many, many 'driver errors' (and we're looking at the intentional ones here.)

So, you say there are many possible reasons for it, but you are unable to specify. Someone needs to gather data, to sit on our streets with a speed gun, video equipment and a recording pad and see what is going on. You point out that implementing 20mph zones will increase costs. But if they are in place and used correctly would they not save the taxpayers money? Less damage to roads, less insurance claims, less injury/loss of life (although that is a contentious point so far) less pollution.
It is a fallacy that 20mph zones reduce pollution, most vehicles are not running efficiently at 20mph and produce more exhaust emissons not less. They don't reduce damage, to vehicles, the required road furniture for enforcement causes significantly more damage to vehicles. So a he moment the not benefit is a disputable point about better or (maybe worse) risk to pedestrians. Some benefit.
You're assuming that in a 30mph zone vehicles are running at 30mph. They're not. They stop and start due to junctions, traffic lights, pedestrians and cyclists. In a 20 mph zone, the speed averaged over the distance driven may well end up being the same as same wait times apply. I back this up using anecdotal evidence of cycling. The other week I had an incident of a van impatiently beeping at me to move for him. I won't go into the details here other than by the time I finished crossing York, I'd passed the van stood in traffic (all 30 mph zone) a number of times and ended up far ahead of the van in a queue of traffic on Holgate Road. The average speed of my journey was well below 16mph.

It's the pointless accelerating up to 30mph only to have to stop again, constantly, that causes the pollution as the energy required to get the car up to this speed is greater than getting it up to 20 only to be lost when the car comes to a standstill.

You don't have to have road furniture to have a 20mph zone. If it is present then the damage to the vehicle can be minimised by not driving over / around it at speed, almost as if that was the intention of such additions to the road.
If it is a 20mph zone as opposed to a section of speed limit then you must have enforcement by traffic calming (and all the associated speed humps etc) and the speed limit cannot be enforced by the police. What is being proposed in York is zones just like this so you are wrong, on that point.

When you have traffic calming you always get traffic slowing for a speed hump then accelerating because the current designs of speed hump cn only be negotiated at speeds below 20. This constant slowing and accelerating causes raised emissons and increased wear and tear on vehicles along with increased noise levels in residential areas.
You don't need to have traffic calming at all. Even if there is no enforcement and no policing whatsoever, a large number of drivers will drive at 20mph or below in a 20 zone. On most residential streets this means that all the traffic behind them has to, for a considerable amount of time. Even if this is all that is achieved, a semi-reduction to 20mph by a proportion of traffic is better than nothing.
[quote][p][bold]BioLogic[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]farmer_robot[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BioLogic[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]YSTClinguist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BioLogic[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]YSTClinguist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]farmer_robot[/bold] wrote: http://fullfact.org/ articles/road_safety _20mph_zones_limits_ casualties-27766 Read this. Says EXACTLY what needs saying about the misinformed gibberish being spouted from the mainstream press about the 20mph zones. Total misinformation all based from some seriously flawed conclusions from a set of ambiguous stats.[/p][/quote]Thanks for linking to a site that references the data table (RAS30006) since it wasn't put in this Press article. It does worry me that there are deaths in 20mph zones, and that they are increasing. Why? Because vehicles are designed with front ends to minimise harm to pedestrians in the event of an accident, and at a speed of 20mph (maximum) it becomes hard to see how so many could be killed by being hit. I think we can all assume here that the drivers entering those zones are not following the law, and that speeding is the cause of the accidents. Pedestrians lulled into false safety? Only if they believe that drivers won't speed. So, it appears no matter what speed zone we place in an area, arrogant drivers are going speed and cause deaths, which may lead to a push for legislation towards GPS speed limiting on vehicles in built up zones. When that day comes, the driving community will only have itself to blame (over a trail of dead bodies consisting of kids and OAP's might I add) All drivers are not like this, but since some of you are doing this, limiting may need to be implemented. The only alternative is banning personal driving in this country, and that's just not feasible. After all, why should the majority lose their privileges because of a minority?[/p][/quote]There is intentional misinterpretation going on from both sides here. You cannot assume anything from these stats relating to compliance with the law at all and you make a mockery of your previous comments by suggesting so. If the 20mph zones are effective in reducing accidents then we should see a reduction in the combined accident rate for 20mph zones and 30mph areas as a set as 30mph zones are introduced. This would manifest itself as a stable or accident rate in 20mph zones. It isn't and that is indicative of the zones not being effective. The reasons for that could be many and cannot be gleaned from such a limited data set, however it is unquestionable that the zones are not working as expected and it is important that the reason for that is established before they are rolled out widely at significant cost in terms of both financial and negative environmental impact.[/p][/quote]From a purely physics standpoint, it's worrying to see improving safety technology in cars and reduced speed areas resulting in more deaths. Maybe it's an assumption on my behalf (and perhaps others feel the same way) that drivers are driving too fast, leading to driver error. I've seen vehicles in 20mph zones near schools racing along well past the prior speed limit and as we've seen on this site, there are a plethora of stories recounting many, many 'driver errors' (and we're looking at the intentional ones here.) So, you say there are many possible reasons for it, but you are unable to specify. Someone needs to gather data, to sit on our streets with a speed gun, video equipment and a recording pad and see what is going on. You point out that implementing 20mph zones will increase costs. But if they are in place and used correctly would they not save the taxpayers money? Less damage to roads, less insurance claims, less injury/loss of life (although that is a contentious point so far) less pollution.[/p][/quote]It is a fallacy that 20mph zones reduce pollution, most vehicles are not running efficiently at 20mph and produce more exhaust emissons not less. They don't reduce damage, to vehicles, the required road furniture for enforcement causes significantly more damage to vehicles. So a he moment the not benefit is a disputable point about better or (maybe worse) risk to pedestrians. Some benefit.[/p][/quote]You're assuming that in a 30mph zone vehicles are running at 30mph. They're not. They stop and start due to junctions, traffic lights, pedestrians and cyclists. In a 20 mph zone, the speed averaged over the distance driven may well end up being the same as same wait times apply. I back this up using anecdotal evidence of cycling. The other week I had an incident of a van impatiently beeping at me to move for him. I won't go into the details here other than by the time I finished crossing York, I'd passed the van stood in traffic (all 30 mph zone) a number of times and ended up far ahead of the van in a queue of traffic on Holgate Road. The average speed of my journey was well below 16mph. It's the pointless accelerating up to 30mph only to have to stop again, constantly, that causes the pollution as the energy required to get the car up to this speed is greater than getting it up to 20 only to be lost when the car comes to a standstill. You don't have to have road furniture to have a 20mph zone. If it is present then the damage to the vehicle can be minimised by not driving over / around it at speed, almost as if that was the intention of such additions to the road.[/p][/quote]If it is a 20mph zone as opposed to a section of speed limit then you must have enforcement by traffic calming (and all the associated speed humps etc) and the speed limit cannot be enforced by the police. What is being proposed in York is zones just like this so you are wrong, on that point. When you have traffic calming you always get traffic slowing for a speed hump then accelerating because the current designs of speed hump cn only be negotiated at speeds below 20. This constant slowing and accelerating causes raised emissons and increased wear and tear on vehicles along with increased noise levels in residential areas.[/p][/quote]You don't need to have traffic calming at all. Even if there is no enforcement and no policing whatsoever, a large number of drivers will drive at 20mph or below in a 20 zone. On most residential streets this means that all the traffic behind them has to, for a considerable amount of time. Even if this is all that is achieved, a semi-reduction to 20mph by a proportion of traffic is better than nothing. farmer_robot
  • Score: 0

1:11pm Thu 16 Aug 12

farmer_robot says...

york_chap wrote:
I'll slow it down to 20mph when they make jaywalking an offence. Pedestrians seem to be getting more brazen of late - walking out into the road when they can clearly see a vehicle approaching within the speed limit, assuming that the driver will reduce their speed by 50% or 60% to avoid hitting them. These slow amblers then become irate if the approaching vehicle dares to pass within a few inches of them. I've noticed it particularly in York. Reducing the speed limit will make this problem worse and add to pedestrians' sense of invincibility.
That's because, under no circumstances at all should a vehicle, having seen pedestrians in the road, pass within inches of them. If you don't understand this then you shouldn't be driving on the roads. I think you've done a good job here of highlighting just the sort of attitude and driving that the suggested 20mph zones are designed to temper.
[quote][p][bold]york_chap[/bold] wrote: I'll slow it down to 20mph when they make jaywalking an offence. Pedestrians seem to be getting more brazen of late - walking out into the road when they can clearly see a vehicle approaching within the speed limit, assuming that the driver will reduce their speed by 50% or 60% to avoid hitting them. These slow amblers then become irate if the approaching vehicle dares to pass within a few inches of them. I've noticed it particularly in York. Reducing the speed limit will make this problem worse and add to pedestrians' sense of invincibility.[/p][/quote]That's because, under no circumstances at all should a vehicle, having seen pedestrians in the road, pass within inches of them. If you don't understand this then you shouldn't be driving on the roads. I think you've done a good job here of highlighting just the sort of attitude and driving that the suggested 20mph zones are designed to temper. farmer_robot
  • Score: 0

1:37pm Thu 16 Aug 12

Zonedout says...

may have already been said but statistics can be misleading. Surely the increase in accidents in a 20 zone could well be down to the increase in the number of such zones and says nothing about the severity of those accidents. Given a choice of being hit by a car doing 30 and one doing 20 the choice is obvious
may have already been said but statistics can be misleading. Surely the increase in accidents in a 20 zone could well be down to the increase in the number of such zones and says nothing about the severity of those accidents. Given a choice of being hit by a car doing 30 and one doing 20 the choice is obvious Zonedout
  • Score: 0

1:39pm Thu 16 Aug 12

chunkyyorkie says...

While there are human beings on the planet we’ll always have something were not happy about! To err is to be human…….. Nobody’s perfect….. let them who have not sinned cast the first stone…..and all that.

Drivers who go through red lights, drivers who speed, drivers on mobile phones, buses that block roads, buses that stop anywhere they want, cyclists with no lights, cyclists on the pavements, pedestrians who walk on the road outside pedestrian hour and ignore the footpaths, speed humps that only upset very small cars and don’t affect bigger cars or busses at all, careless mobility scooter users, drivers who ignore green cycle areas at junctions and drive in bike lanes, people who park on yellow lines or across other peoples driveways, shoplifters, litterlouts, racists, hit and run cowards, noisy neighbours, nosy neighbours, jobsworths, corporate bullies, muggers, ignorance, York Councillors, most politicians and stupid decision makers, inconsiderate and disrespectful people, negativity, stupidity blah blah blah grumble, grumble grumble ………ahh that covers a few for now!
We are all humans, can’t do much about our shortcoming we all have them.
While there are human beings on the planet we’ll always have something were not happy about! To err is to be human…….. Nobody’s perfect….. let them who have not sinned cast the first stone…..and all that. Drivers who go through red lights, drivers who speed, drivers on mobile phones, buses that block roads, buses that stop anywhere they want, cyclists with no lights, cyclists on the pavements, pedestrians who walk on the road outside pedestrian hour and ignore the footpaths, speed humps that only upset very small cars and don’t affect bigger cars or busses at all, careless mobility scooter users, drivers who ignore green cycle areas at junctions and drive in bike lanes, people who park on yellow lines or across other peoples driveways, shoplifters, litterlouts, racists, hit and run cowards, noisy neighbours, nosy neighbours, jobsworths, corporate bullies, muggers, ignorance, York Councillors, most politicians and stupid decision makers, inconsiderate and disrespectful people, negativity, stupidity blah blah blah grumble, grumble grumble ………ahh that covers a few for now! We are all humans, can’t do much about our shortcoming we all have them. chunkyyorkie
  • Score: 0

3:24pm Thu 16 Aug 12

zaccwm says...

I hope that should they choose the course of doing this they also introduce compulsory registration of pedal cycles since as some have already indicated they also are responsible for a number of the accidents and speed in the current 30mph zones. I do not think 20 blanket is the right course. Some such as Water Lane and TadcasterRoad should actually increase to 40 mph. Our city is one of the most congested I know and much of this is down to council policy. Were it not for the train line we would have left long ago. We rarely make major purchases in York now because it has been impossible to get a care round in the city for years now. When I used to drive regularly for work some days I would have to park a mile from home, walk home and then collect the car later. When will the council get the message that it is not car drivers, cyclists or pedestrian (who bring income to the city as residents, workers or visitors) that are at fault but their schemes bringing obstructions to views, congestion increasing stress and impatience and drunk and disorderly behaviour on race days, weekends etc. Clamp down on those riding without lights (crush their bikes) and riding on pavements causing pedestrians and motorists to take avoiding action. Safe cycling is good, but all should be trained and subject to the same penalties as other vehicle users.

As for £24k for a 20mph permanent project manager they are having a laugh. This is obviously an income generation scheme or it would be a 2-3 month project to introduce it and that would be £4-6k one off cost. A project manager post is generally short term and temporary contract.
I hope that should they choose the course of doing this they also introduce compulsory registration of pedal cycles since as some have already indicated they also are responsible for a number of the accidents and speed in the current 30mph zones. I do not think 20 blanket is the right course. Some such as Water Lane and TadcasterRoad should actually increase to 40 mph. Our city is one of the most congested I know and much of this is down to council policy. Were it not for the train line we would have left long ago. We rarely make major purchases in York now because it has been impossible to get a care round in the city for years now. When I used to drive regularly for work some days I would have to park a mile from home, walk home and then collect the car later. When will the council get the message that it is not car drivers, cyclists or pedestrian (who bring income to the city as residents, workers or visitors) that are at fault but their schemes bringing obstructions to views, congestion increasing stress and impatience and drunk and disorderly behaviour on race days, weekends etc. Clamp down on those riding without lights (crush their bikes) and riding on pavements causing pedestrians and motorists to take avoiding action. Safe cycling is good, but all should be trained and subject to the same penalties as other vehicle users. As for £24k for a 20mph permanent project manager they are having a laugh. This is obviously an income generation scheme or it would be a 2-3 month project to introduce it and that would be £4-6k one off cost. A project manager post is generally short term and temporary contract. zaccwm
  • Score: 0

7:43pm Thu 16 Aug 12

Mullarkian says...

Seems to be a lot of people on here with nothing to do allday.
Seems to be a lot of people on here with nothing to do allday. Mullarkian
  • Score: 0

5:09am Fri 17 Aug 12

York1900 says...

YSTClinguist wrote:
farmer_robot wrote:
http://fullfact.org/


articles/road_safety


_20mph_zones_limits_


casualties-27766 Read this. Says EXACTLY what needs saying about the misinformed gibberish being spouted from the mainstream press about the 20mph zones. Total misinformation all based from some seriously flawed conclusions from a set of ambiguous stats.
Thanks for linking to a site that references the data table (RAS30006) since it wasn't put in this Press article.

It does worry me that there are deaths in 20mph zones, and that they are increasing. Why? Because vehicles are designed with front ends to minimise harm to pedestrians in the event of an accident, and at a speed of 20mph (maximum) it becomes hard to see how so many could be killed by being hit.

I think we can all assume here that the drivers entering those zones are not following the law, and that speeding is the cause of the accidents. Pedestrians lulled into false safety? Only if they believe that drivers won't speed.

So, it appears no matter what speed zone we place in an area, arrogant drivers are going speed and cause deaths, which may lead to a push for legislation towards GPS speed limiting on vehicles in built up zones. When that day comes, the driving community will only have itself to blame (over a trail of dead bodies consisting of kids and OAP's might I add)

All drivers are not like this, but since some of you are doing this, limiting may need to be implemented. The only alternative is banning personal driving in this country, and that's just not feasible. After all, why should the majority lose their privileges because of a minority?
could have speed sensors on the roads that activate stingers in the road so speeding vehicle are sorted out there and then save a lot of time in posting out fix penalty notices and the driver as 4 tyres to buy it would only take a couple of times for those speeders to get the message
[quote][p][bold]YSTClinguist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]farmer_robot[/bold] wrote: http://fullfact.org/ articles/road_safety _20mph_zones_limits_ casualties-27766 Read this. Says EXACTLY what needs saying about the misinformed gibberish being spouted from the mainstream press about the 20mph zones. Total misinformation all based from some seriously flawed conclusions from a set of ambiguous stats.[/p][/quote]Thanks for linking to a site that references the data table (RAS30006) since it wasn't put in this Press article. It does worry me that there are deaths in 20mph zones, and that they are increasing. Why? Because vehicles are designed with front ends to minimise harm to pedestrians in the event of an accident, and at a speed of 20mph (maximum) it becomes hard to see how so many could be killed by being hit. I think we can all assume here that the drivers entering those zones are not following the law, and that speeding is the cause of the accidents. Pedestrians lulled into false safety? Only if they believe that drivers won't speed. So, it appears no matter what speed zone we place in an area, arrogant drivers are going speed and cause deaths, which may lead to a push for legislation towards GPS speed limiting on vehicles in built up zones. When that day comes, the driving community will only have itself to blame (over a trail of dead bodies consisting of kids and OAP's might I add) All drivers are not like this, but since some of you are doing this, limiting may need to be implemented. The only alternative is banning personal driving in this country, and that's just not feasible. After all, why should the majority lose their privileges because of a minority?[/p][/quote]could have speed sensors on the roads that activate stingers in the road so speeding vehicle are sorted out there and then save a lot of time in posting out fix penalty notices and the driver as 4 tyres to buy it would only take a couple of times for those speeders to get the message York1900
  • Score: 0

6:02am Fri 17 Aug 12

York1900 says...

If drivers did all the following

did not park in bus stops

let buses out from bus stops

did not pull up in the yellow box at junctions

kept to the speed limits

let people cross the road

traffic would flow better it only takes one or two of the above not to be done and it cause the traffic to grind to a stop in York

Show respect for other road users
what difference is there in been 3 yards more up the road most times none you only hit the end of the next queue and have to wait any way
If drivers did all the following did not park in bus stops let buses out from bus stops did not pull up in the yellow box at junctions kept to the speed limits let people cross the road traffic would flow better it only takes one or two of the above not to be done and it cause the traffic to grind to a stop in York Show respect for other road users what difference is there in been 3 yards more up the road most times none you only hit the end of the next queue and have to wait any way York1900
  • Score: 0

12:17pm Fri 17 Aug 12

peter123456 says...

John Cossham wrote:
Oh dear oh dear, here's a case of someone looking at some data and not interpreting it correctly.

Although the ACTUAL NUMBERS of accidents on 20mph roads has gone up, what hasn't been taken into consideration is that nationally, the number of roads with these speed limits has increased many times over... for instance, the whole of Newcastle has now got a 20mph limit.

This means that any accidents in these streets used to be recorded under the 30mph roads, and are now recorded under the 20mph roads. So, yes, the raw data says there are more accidents in 20mph roads.... and that's because there are more of them than when last surveyed.

What we need is a accidents and injuries PER MILE of road or PER MILE OF VEHICLE USE. This would make far more sense than using half the data.

I hope that the York air quality and accident data is monitored carefully and looked at by competent statisticians so that we can see if having 20mph limits does reduce pollution and injuries. If not, the speed limits can be put back up in a few years time.
You do not need to collect air pollution data to know that the slower vehicles go the more pollution they cause, this is fact. I also believe that 20mph zones are not enforceable by the police or the council. But 20mph limits are.
[quote][p][bold]John Cossham[/bold] wrote: Oh dear oh dear, here's a case of someone looking at some data and not interpreting it correctly. Although the ACTUAL NUMBERS of accidents on 20mph roads has gone up, what hasn't been taken into consideration is that nationally, the number of roads with these speed limits has increased many times over... for instance, the whole of Newcastle has now got a 20mph limit. This means that any accidents in these streets used to be recorded under the 30mph roads, and are now recorded under the 20mph roads. So, yes, the raw data says there are more accidents in 20mph roads.... and that's because there are more of them than when last surveyed. What we need is a accidents and injuries PER MILE of road or PER MILE OF VEHICLE USE. This would make far more sense than using half the data. I hope that the York air quality and accident data is monitored carefully and looked at by competent statisticians so that we can see if having 20mph limits does reduce pollution and injuries. If not, the speed limits can be put back up in a few years time.[/p][/quote]You do not need to collect air pollution data to know that the slower vehicles go the more pollution they cause, this is fact. I also believe that 20mph zones are not enforceable by the police or the council. But 20mph limits are. peter123456
  • Score: 0

12:29pm Fri 17 Aug 12

Mr Udigawa says...

peter123456 wrote:
John Cossham wrote: Oh dear oh dear, here's a case of someone looking at some data and not interpreting it correctly. Although the ACTUAL NUMBERS of accidents on 20mph roads has gone up, what hasn't been taken into consideration is that nationally, the number of roads with these speed limits has increased many times over... for instance, the whole of Newcastle has now got a 20mph limit. This means that any accidents in these streets used to be recorded under the 30mph roads, and are now recorded under the 20mph roads. So, yes, the raw data says there are more accidents in 20mph roads.... and that's because there are more of them than when last surveyed. What we need is a accidents and injuries PER MILE of road or PER MILE OF VEHICLE USE. This would make far more sense than using half the data. I hope that the York air quality and accident data is monitored carefully and looked at by competent statisticians so that we can see if having 20mph limits does reduce pollution and injuries. If not, the speed limits can be put back up in a few years time.
You do not need to collect air pollution data to know that the slower vehicles go the more pollution they cause, this is fact. I also believe that 20mph zones are not enforceable by the police or the council. But 20mph limits are.
So by your logic a car travelling at 80 causes less pollution than one travelling at 40? Really, is that a fact?
I think one of the plus points of a 20mph limit would be that traffic would in theory flow better as there would be less of the "accelerating up to 30 just to reach the back of the next queue quicker, mentality"
Let's give it a go, as John Cossham says, if proved wrong, the limit can be returned to 30.
[quote][p][bold]peter123456[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]John Cossham[/bold] wrote: Oh dear oh dear, here's a case of someone looking at some data and not interpreting it correctly. Although the ACTUAL NUMBERS of accidents on 20mph roads has gone up, what hasn't been taken into consideration is that nationally, the number of roads with these speed limits has increased many times over... for instance, the whole of Newcastle has now got a 20mph limit. This means that any accidents in these streets used to be recorded under the 30mph roads, and are now recorded under the 20mph roads. So, yes, the raw data says there are more accidents in 20mph roads.... and that's because there are more of them than when last surveyed. What we need is a accidents and injuries PER MILE of road or PER MILE OF VEHICLE USE. This would make far more sense than using half the data. I hope that the York air quality and accident data is monitored carefully and looked at by competent statisticians so that we can see if having 20mph limits does reduce pollution and injuries. If not, the speed limits can be put back up in a few years time.[/p][/quote]You do not need to collect air pollution data to know that the slower vehicles go the more pollution they cause, this is fact. I also believe that 20mph zones are not enforceable by the police or the council. But 20mph limits are.[/p][/quote]So by your logic a car travelling at 80 causes less pollution than one travelling at 40? Really, is that a fact? I think one of the plus points of a 20mph limit would be that traffic would in theory flow better as there would be less of the "accelerating up to 30 just to reach the back of the next queue quicker, mentality" Let's give it a go, as John Cossham says, if proved wrong, the limit can be returned to 30. Mr Udigawa
  • Score: 0

6:34pm Fri 17 Aug 12

Magicman! says...

^ "the limit can be returned to 30"... do you really think that would happen? When the Labour government a few years ago gave all councils permission to investigate and alter speed limits on roads in their area, Derbyshire reduced all rural roads to 50mph, and others that were 50 down to 40 - the permission given was to allow speeds to be changed in either direction, but they only went down. And once they've gone down anybody wishing to raise them again would have quite a battle on their hands.

The main concern is physical enforcement of 20mph limits. The police do not enforce 20mph limits and so to get drivers to go a that speed requires more signage (normally the bright yellow-backed signs) in conjunction with chicanes and speed humps. Speed humps add discomfort to vehicle occupants regardless of vehicle type, in addition to extra noise and vibrations for householders, in addition to extra pollution of both noise and air caused by vehicles slowing for the humps and then accelerating away afterwards. Chicanes and build outs are better on suspension and on surrounding buildings due to less vibration, but the pollution issue is still the same, and it makes roads more dangerous for cyclists as car drivers will race a cyclist to the build-out even if they cannot get past due to oncoming traffic.
^ "the limit can be returned to 30"... do you really think that would happen? When the Labour government a few years ago gave all councils permission to investigate and alter speed limits on roads in their area, Derbyshire reduced all rural roads to 50mph, and others that were 50 down to 40 - the permission given was to allow speeds to be changed in either direction, but they only went down. And once they've gone down anybody wishing to raise them again would have quite a battle on their hands. The main concern is physical enforcement of 20mph limits. The police do not enforce 20mph limits and so to get drivers to go a that speed requires more signage (normally the bright yellow-backed signs) in conjunction with chicanes and speed humps. Speed humps add discomfort to vehicle occupants regardless of vehicle type, in addition to extra noise and vibrations for householders, in addition to extra pollution of both noise and air caused by vehicles slowing for the humps and then accelerating away afterwards. Chicanes and build outs are better on suspension and on surrounding buildings due to less vibration, but the pollution issue is still the same, and it makes roads more dangerous for cyclists as car drivers will race a cyclist to the build-out even if they cannot get past due to oncoming traffic. Magicman!
  • Score: 0

9:19pm Fri 17 Aug 12

John Cossham says...

Magicman! wrote:
^ "the limit can be returned to 30"... do you really think that would happen? When the Labour government a few years ago gave all councils permission to investigate and alter speed limits on roads in their area, Derbyshire reduced all rural roads to 50mph, and others that were 50 down to 40 - the permission given was to allow speeds to be changed in either direction, but they only went down. And once they've gone down anybody wishing to raise them again would have quite a battle on their hands.

The main concern is physical enforcement of 20mph limits. The police do not enforce 20mph limits and so to get drivers to go a that speed requires more signage (normally the bright yellow-backed signs) in conjunction with chicanes and speed humps. Speed humps add discomfort to vehicle occupants regardless of vehicle type, in addition to extra noise and vibrations for householders, in addition to extra pollution of both noise and air caused by vehicles slowing for the humps and then accelerating away afterwards. Chicanes and build outs are better on suspension and on surrounding buildings due to less vibration, but the pollution issue is still the same, and it makes roads more dangerous for cyclists as car drivers will race a cyclist to the build-out even if they cannot get past due to oncoming traffic.
The reason that speed limits are being reduced is because of the very many people who are killed on our roads each year; lower speeds mean fewer accidents and a reduction in severity of injuries when there is a collision.

It is unlikely that speed limits will be increased as this would mean worse accidents and more accidents.

The 20mph zones will not, as far as I understand, be 'enforced' with more speed humps and chicanes, etc. The speed limit will be put in, and the majority of law-abiding and good drivers will obey it, and not zoom up to 30 for a few metres and then brake hard at the next junction. You assume, Magicman, that all drivers brake for humps and accelerate away from them... and it's not true. I've got a few friends who are gentle drivers who go slow enough (already) in built-up areas to not need to have the hard-braking and rapid accelerating style of driving. It's much nicer being driven by them than by someone who's doing the kangerooing style of driving.

There may be a few idiots who disobey the limit, and they may very well be caught out when the Police do an occasional campaign to enforce speed limits, like they do occasionally with cyclists on pavements and without lights.

I like it when they set up their speed cameras on Hull Road and stop the occasional speeder, and put points on their licence. I would vote for this to happen more often, and at night when the speeding problem is worse.

I'm a cyclist and I haven't experienced many drivers 'racing' to pass a chicane before me; conversely, most drivers are very patient and good, and if I'm arriving at a nip first, they wait behind me and go through all of 3 seconds behind me. Maybe you, Magicman, are the occasional bad driver who races cyclists and has the bad driving style with rapid acceleration and hard braking? In which case, just relax a bit. You'll have a better driving experience if you keep a steady low speed in residential areas, and as a cyclist, I'd appreciate it too.
[quote][p][bold]Magicman![/bold] wrote: ^ "the limit can be returned to 30"... do you really think that would happen? When the Labour government a few years ago gave all councils permission to investigate and alter speed limits on roads in their area, Derbyshire reduced all rural roads to 50mph, and others that were 50 down to 40 - the permission given was to allow speeds to be changed in either direction, but they only went down. And once they've gone down anybody wishing to raise them again would have quite a battle on their hands. The main concern is physical enforcement of 20mph limits. The police do not enforce 20mph limits and so to get drivers to go a that speed requires more signage (normally the bright yellow-backed signs) in conjunction with chicanes and speed humps. Speed humps add discomfort to vehicle occupants regardless of vehicle type, in addition to extra noise and vibrations for householders, in addition to extra pollution of both noise and air caused by vehicles slowing for the humps and then accelerating away afterwards. Chicanes and build outs are better on suspension and on surrounding buildings due to less vibration, but the pollution issue is still the same, and it makes roads more dangerous for cyclists as car drivers will race a cyclist to the build-out even if they cannot get past due to oncoming traffic.[/p][/quote]The reason that speed limits are being reduced is because of the very many people who are killed on our roads each year; lower speeds mean fewer accidents and a reduction in severity of injuries when there is a collision. It is unlikely that speed limits will be increased as this would mean worse accidents and more accidents. The 20mph zones will not, as far as I understand, be 'enforced' with more speed humps and chicanes, etc. The speed limit will be put in, and the majority of law-abiding and good drivers will obey it, and not zoom up to 30 for a few metres and then brake hard at the next junction. You assume, Magicman, that all drivers brake for humps and accelerate away from them... and it's not true. I've got a few friends who are gentle drivers who go slow enough (already) in built-up areas to not need to have the hard-braking and rapid accelerating style of driving. It's much nicer being driven by them than by someone who's doing the kangerooing style of driving. There may be a few idiots who disobey the limit, and they may very well be caught out when the Police do an occasional campaign to enforce speed limits, like they do occasionally with cyclists on pavements and without lights. I like it when they set up their speed cameras on Hull Road and stop the occasional speeder, and put points on their licence. I would vote for this to happen more often, and at night when the speeding problem is worse. I'm a cyclist and I haven't experienced many drivers 'racing' to pass a chicane before me; conversely, most drivers are very patient and good, and if I'm arriving at a nip first, they wait behind me and go through all of 3 seconds behind me. Maybe you, Magicman, are the occasional bad driver who races cyclists and has the bad driving style with rapid acceleration and hard braking? In which case, just relax a bit. You'll have a better driving experience if you keep a steady low speed in residential areas, and as a cyclist, I'd appreciate it too. John Cossham
  • Score: 0

2:50am Wed 22 Aug 12

crazydiamond1 says...

Mr Udigawa wrote:
Overproof wrote:
I think the data is pretty clear, there is a HIGHER RISK, in other words, pedestrians are more likely to be involved in an accident in a 20 zone. Both pedestrians and motorists possibly pay less attention in these areas resulting in a greater chance of an accident.
Perhaps we could look into increasing speed limits in residential areas, I imagine if speed limits were raised from 20mph to 60mph we would see a 0% accident rate because all the pedestrians woudl have to be really careful and pay attention......
yes and people wouldnt be able to let there children out to play at all cause it would be way too dangerous ,i remember when i was a kid we all played out on the street we did go carts down it ,even toddlers came out ,people came out to chat more ,cars drove really slow like 5 to 8 miles an hour ,fully expecting children about,till they got to a main road , it was just something you had to do .children are not playing outside on streets anymore except for the hard core older kids ,its really effecting the way they grow up ,its stopping communities developing ,im on lowther street ,and my children dont even know the other kids on the street hardly any of them know each other,they just cant go out to play ,i think it should be common sense to go really slow in a residential area,,we shouldn't need all these laws whats wrong with people ,10mph is fast in a residential area i think,people should drive fully expecting children ,cats ,dogs chatting people to be out on the street.
[quote][p][bold]Mr Udigawa[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Overproof[/bold] wrote: I think the data is pretty clear, there is a HIGHER RISK, in other words, pedestrians are more likely to be involved in an accident in a 20 zone. Both pedestrians and motorists possibly pay less attention in these areas resulting in a greater chance of an accident.[/p][/quote]Perhaps we could look into increasing speed limits in residential areas, I imagine if speed limits were raised from 20mph to 60mph we would see a 0% accident rate because all the pedestrians woudl have to be really careful and pay attention......[/p][/quote]yes and people wouldnt be able to let there children out to play at all cause it would be way too dangerous ,i remember when i was a kid we all played out on the street we did go carts down it ,even toddlers came out ,people came out to chat more ,cars drove really slow like 5 to 8 miles an hour ,fully expecting children about,till they got to a main road , it was just something you had to do .children are not playing outside on streets anymore except for the hard core older kids ,its really effecting the way they grow up ,its stopping communities developing ,im on lowther street ,and my children dont even know the other kids on the street hardly any of them know each other,they just cant go out to play ,i think it should be common sense to go really slow in a residential area,,we shouldn't need all these laws whats wrong with people ,10mph is fast in a residential area i think,people should drive fully expecting children ,cats ,dogs chatting people to be out on the street. crazydiamond1
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree