20mph zones ‘not the answer’ - road safety expert (From York Press)
Get in touch: send your photos, videos, news & views by texting YORK to 80360 or send an email»
20mph zones ‘not the answer’ - road safety expert
10:11am Friday 31st August 2012 in News
By Nadia Jefferson-Brown, nadia.jefferson-brown@thepress.co.uk
Mike Natt: Former police accident investigator
A LEADING North Yorkshire road safety expert has questioned the decision to impose a blanket 20mph speed limit across York.
Former police accident investigator Mike Natt said factors other than speed should be considered when assessing how to prevent road casualties and deaths as City of York Council presses ahead with plans to make York a 20mph city.
By the end of 2014, the 20mph limit is likely to be in place across much of the city, starting with South Bank. Some major roads into York and some outlying villages will remain 30mph.
Coun Dave Merrett , the council’s cabinet member for transport, planning and sustainability, said the limit – to be enforced in the same way as 30mph –was a bid to reduce accident numbers. But it also aimed to make York more pleasant for walkers and cyclists, which may also help tackle the city’s transport problems, he said.
York city councillor Anna Semlyen, a 20’s Plenty For Us campaigner, said a 20mph limit was right for York because it was easier to react to a potential hazard at slower speeds, making it safer for walkers, cyclists and people of all ages, including the most vulnerable, as well as cutting pollution and congestion.
But Mr Natt, an independent collisions investigator who served for nearly 30 years in North Yorkshire Police’s traffic department, filing reports on hundreds of fatal accidents, said in a piece written for The Press today that pedestrians sticking to the Green Cross Code would save more lives than “20’s Plenty”.
He said he would like to see more railings installed to prevent people walking on to roads rather than a city-wide speed zone.
Statistically, people were less likely to be killed if hit by a vehicle travelling at 20mph than by one at 30mph, but “this does not tell the whole story”, said Mr Natt.
At speeds above 40mph the pedestrian passes on to or over the roof of the vehicle, he said.
At lower speeds, in the 20mph to 30mph range, the pedestrian is rolled on to the bonnet, then knocked forwards and away as the vehicles brakes.
Mr Natt said: “At speeds of 12mph or less, however, the pedestrian is pushed forwards down on to the road ahead of the vehicle, which then runs over them, causing serious injury or even death. Children, due to their height, are even more at risk.”
Each collision is different, with factors such as location and whether an adult or child was involved affecting the outcome.
Former council leader Steve Galloway said a blanket 20mph speed limit across the city would be expensive and undo the work to tackle speeding carried out by the previous Liberal Democrat council, which introduced 20mph limits at potential accident locations, including outside all of York’s schools.
He said: “I, and the party, continue to oppose a city-wide 20mph limit.
“We favour the policy of having the most appropriate speed limit bearing in mind individual characteristics of individual roads, based on the fact that it would be very expensive to implement, with figures of £600,000 quoted.
“The money would be better spent continuing the council’s previous successful work reducing the number of people killed and injured on York’s roads, not only to ensure the correct speed limit was applied, but the money would be invested in engineering works to ensure roads were safer and where appropriate to enforce existing speed limits.”
Comments(90)
NoNewsIsGoodNews
says...
3:58pm Fri 31 Aug 12
Seriously though, I cannot believe that in these times of major cuts and double dipping, that this proposal is getting the time of day.
Anna Semlyen should hang her head in shame with the amount of time and money already wasted on this.
meme
says...
3:59pm Fri 31 Aug 12
Waste the money on something that may be of benefit lots of people not something that a few noisy campaigners want
Have a look at the poll Its pretty obvious what readers want!!
Woody G Mellor
says...
4:07pm Fri 31 Aug 12
Don't do it. It's a very naughty idea and I don't encourage it whatsoever.
bolero
says...
4:29pm Fri 31 Aug 12
These crossings were instituted at no little cost so please use them. The proposed spend of £600,000 on a 20mph speed limit zones is scandalous to say the least. It is laughable to suggest that the new limit will be enforced in the same way as the 30mph limit. Who enforces that? Nobody because there are not the resources to do so. Drop the stupid idea and stop wasting our money.
Stevie D
says...
4:44pm Fri 31 Aug 12
There is no penalty for jay-walking – in fact, there is no such offence in the UK. Unless explicitly forbidden (eg on motorways or where there are signs to say so) pedestrians are allowed to walk on the road anywhere, although obviously they must not do so in a way that is dangerous, eg crossing in moving traffic. The 'red man' light at pedestrian crossings is a guide and has no legal power at all.
YSTClinguist
says...
5:09pm Fri 31 Aug 12
Stevie D wrote:You may want to read: http://www.direct.go
@bolero
There is no penalty for jay-walking – in fact, there is no such offence in the UK. Unless explicitly forbidden (eg on motorways or where there are signs to say so) pedestrians are allowed to walk on the road anywhere, although obviously they must not do so in a way that is dangerous, eg crossing in moving traffic. The 'red man' light at pedestrian crossings is a guide and has no legal power at all.
v.uk/en/TravelAndTra
nsport/Highwaycode/D
G_070108 with regards to your, "pedestrians are allowed to walk on the road anywere," as there are a whole slew of points regarding crossing roads that pedestrians really ought to learn by rote.
BobDees
says...
5:50pm Fri 31 Aug 12
"Statistically, people were less likely to be killed if hit by a vehicle travelling at 20mph than by one at 30mph".
We can try to segregate pedestrians from cars but people, especially children, will still behave unpredictably in traffic. The bottom line is this: if, heaven forbid, a member of your family were hit by a car would you rather it was traveling at 20 or 30mph?
Woody G Mellor
says...
6:04pm Fri 31 Aug 12
BobDees wrote:I'd prefer it if no member of my family was hit by a car at all. It would be nice to stop all the flights in the world to prevent any members of my family from boarding the one that crashes.
One phrase stands out in this article:
"Statistically, people were less likely to be killed if hit by a vehicle travelling at 20mph than by one at 30mph".
We can try to segregate pedestrians from cars but people, especially children, will still behave unpredictably in traffic. The bottom line is this: if, heaven forbid, a member of your family were hit by a car would you rather it was traveling at 20 or 30mph?
Do you see where I'm taking this?
Buzz Light-year
says...
6:25pm Fri 31 Aug 12
He said he would like to see more railings installed to prevent people walking on to roads rather than a city-wide speed zone.
Ridiculous idea.
dementia
says...
6:32pm Fri 31 Aug 12
Having a blanket limit at all hours of day and night brings the 20 into disrepute ,as will the blanket limit. Can we not ask for responsible driving.
Scarlet Pimpernel
says...
6:49pm Fri 31 Aug 12
Woody G Mellor wrote:Stooge !
A message to all those people planning to paint over the road markings and the 20mph signs under cover of darkness. Don't do it. It's a very naughty idea and I don't encourage it whatsoever.
nearlyman
says...
7:10pm Fri 31 Aug 12
.Listen to what the expert says for a change tree huggers ....you never know, he might just know a litle bit more about it than you !
Viper_7
says...
7:11pm Fri 31 Aug 12
Sure, fatalities may well be reduced with reduced speeds, but the accidents will still happen. As mentioned in the article as well, people are not all the same shape and size, and react different at different speeds, and indeed different vehicle types.
Twenty is plenty outside schools etc, but a blanket 20mph zone, I don't think so.
greenmonkey
says...
7:41pm Fri 31 Aug 12
Buzz Light-year wrote:Glad we agree on some things - these pedestrian 'sheep pens' that were installed in the 70s and 80s are ugly and their only saving grace is providing somewhere to lock a bike to (bike parking would be better)Worse still they have been a contributory factor in fatal cycle accidents in London where a left turning HGV has caught a cyclist - with a barrier you have nowhere to escape to if you made the mistake of going on the inside of such a vehicle at a junction. If the pavement is too narrow it should be widened (eg Coppergate), if needed by one way/ setting back stop lines etc
Well I oppose this legislation which seeks to de-skill drivers but I don't agree with Mr Natt when he says this:
He said he would like to see more railings installed to prevent people walking on to roads rather than a city-wide speed zone.
Ridiculous idea.
greenmonkey
says...
7:43pm Fri 31 Aug 12
Buzz Light-year wrote:Glad we agree on some things - these pedestrian 'sheep pens' that were installed in the 70s and 80s are ugly and their only saving grace is providing somewhere to lock a bike to (bike parking would be better)Worse still they have been a contributory factor in fatal cycle accidents in London where a left turning HGV has caught a cyclist - with a barrier you have nowhere to escape to if you made the mistake of going on the inside of such a vehicle at a junction. If the pavement is too narrow it should be widened (eg Coppergate), if needed by one way/ setting back stop lines etc
Well I oppose this legislation which seeks to de-skill drivers but I don't agree with Mr Natt when he says this:
He said he would like to see more railings installed to prevent people walking on to roads rather than a city-wide speed zone.
Ridiculous idea.
greenmonkey
says...
7:48pm Fri 31 Aug 12
This pathetic comment ignores the fact that at 20mph you are far more likely to stop before hitting the pedestrian at all - a 12mph impact is more likely when braking from 30mph than from 20mph!
pedalling paul
says...
8:00pm Fri 31 Aug 12
greenmonkey wrote:Yes, I also fail to understand his claim that being hit by a car at 40 mph and flung into the air, is more survivable than being hit at 20 mph.
Mr Natt said: “At speeds of 12mph or less, however, the pedestrian is pushed forwards down on to the road ahead of the vehicle, which then runs over them, causing serious injury or even death. Children, due to their height, are even more at risk.”
This pathetic comment ignores the fact that at 20mph you are far more likely to stop before hitting the pedestrian at all - a 12mph impact is more likely when braking from 30mph than from 20mph!
To see an English newspaper's view of the Dutch "Woonerf" or "Living Street" visit http://www.telegraph
.co.uk/motoring/road
-safety/9086705/Why-
woonerfs-will-change
-how-we-drive.html
pedalling paul
says...
8:00pm Fri 31 Aug 12
greenmonkey wrote:Yes, I also fail to understand his claim that being hit by a car at 40 mph and flung into the air, is more survivable than being hit at 20 mph.
Mr Natt said: “At speeds of 12mph or less, however, the pedestrian is pushed forwards down on to the road ahead of the vehicle, which then runs over them, causing serious injury or even death. Children, due to their height, are even more at risk.”
This pathetic comment ignores the fact that at 20mph you are far more likely to stop before hitting the pedestrian at all - a 12mph impact is more likely when braking from 30mph than from 20mph!
To see an English newspaper's view of the Dutch "Woonerf" or "Living Street" visit http://www.telegraph
.co.uk/motoring/road
-safety/9086705/Why-
woonerfs-will-change
-how-we-drive.html
pedalling paul
says...
8:01pm Fri 31 Aug 12
greenmonkey wrote:Yes, I also fail to understand his claim that being hit by a car at 40 mph and flung into the air, is more survivable than being hit at 20 mph.
Mr Natt said: “At speeds of 12mph or less, however, the pedestrian is pushed forwards down on to the road ahead of the vehicle, which then runs over them, causing serious injury or even death. Children, due to their height, are even more at risk.”
This pathetic comment ignores the fact that at 20mph you are far more likely to stop before hitting the pedestrian at all - a 12mph impact is more likely when braking from 30mph than from 20mph!
To see an English newspaper's view of the Dutch "Woonerf" or "Living Street" visit http://www.telegraph
.co.uk/motoring/road
-safety/9086705/Why-
woonerfs-will-change
-how-we-drive.html
uriahh
says...
8:27pm Fri 31 Aug 12
Think also how a general, full time 20 mph limit will be administered with what margin of allowed error and on what basis you could then charge anyone! Most cars don't reliably indicate such low speeds reliably. At such speeds you may just be accelerating up, even responsibly from a start up, and you could reach just over the margin allowed above this speed almost without realising it just by a dab on the accelerator or a very brief glance to check on other traffic or road signs,. Do you charge someone on the basis of an instantaneous speed recording, or an average speed over some measured distance and what distance; and measured by what means? Do we want, and can we afford, the forest of new speed cameras or traffic wardens/police needed? I'd bet these latter costs are nowhere in any budget!
Look at the accident statistics and determine how many children are seriously injured or even killed, but who are ignorant of the Green Cross Code and other common sense safety instructions; or who are out alone unaccompanied and uncontrolled; or even acting irresponsibly on the streets/roads. Increasing rules and regulations and more draconian laws will not protect them.
uriahh
says...
8:38pm Fri 31 Aug 12
pedalling paul wrote:At higher speeds the impact below your centre of gravity will either rotate you sufficiently and quickly enough to miss or roll over the car beyond the radiator reducing impact and injury, and/or will lessen the risk of the car running over you when you've been knocked off-balance!
greenmonkey wrote:Yes, I also fail to understand his claim that being hit by a car at 40 mph and flung into the air, is more survivable than being hit at 20 mph.
Mr Natt said: “At speeds of 12mph or less, however, the pedestrian is pushed forwards down on to the road ahead of the vehicle, which then runs over them, causing serious injury or even death. Children, due to their height, are even more at risk.”
This pathetic comment ignores the fact that at 20mph you are far more likely to stop before hitting the pedestrian at all - a 12mph impact is more likely when braking from 30mph than from 20mph!
To see an English newspaper's view of the Dutch "Woonerf" or "Living Street" visit http://www.telegraph
.co.uk/motoring/road
-safety/9086705/Why-
woonerfs-will-change
-how-we-drive.html
Buzz Light-year
says...
8:58pm Fri 31 Aug 12
No!
Jaywalking laws would be no different to blanket 20mph limits.
Make it illegal to walk in the road and create instant victims, eventual targets.
Create the idea for drivers that people on the road are criminals and they'll lower their view of that person.
Less value = less regard. A pedestrian on the road becomes a pedestrian in the way. And so on.
You can see bus drivers dishing out their own version of justice for that every day at the junction of Piccadilly and Coppergate.
How much worse would it be if they thought they were actually backed up by a law?
Legislate away freedom, people stop thinking for themselves.
The opposite of jaywalking should apply - the pedestrian should be the main object of a drivers attention.
If the user of a tons heavy block of metal understands the fragility of a bag of mostly water then there's going to be some more respect.
Why would we change the law to a flawed US model from an ancient English one?
Pedestrians, cyclists and horse riders use the highway by right of way. Motorists do so under licence.
It's not politics or agenda, it's common sense.
gjh
says...
9:45pm Fri 31 Aug 12
nowthen
says...
10:10pm Fri 31 Aug 12
ICarealot
says...
10:28pm Fri 31 Aug 12
The evidence for far outweights the outcrys of those against. Some of these comments smack of ignorance and selfishness!
ICarealot
says...
10:36pm Fri 31 Aug 12
nowthen wrote:Children will still have to be kept safe and taught road safety. Yes we all have to be responsible for ourselves and our children. This along with 20's Plenty helps prevent deaths and makes an accident when it does happen less serious as it is SPEED THAT KILLS!!!!!!
20 mph zones are not going to change the behaviour of reckless road users. people will still be killed and injured by reckless road users no matter what the speed limit. I've always believed that I'm responsible for my safety when using the public highway and instilled the same belief into my children when they were young. The nanny state isn't going to stop a child running into the road in front of an idiot flouting the speed limit but responsible parents can teach their offspring the green cross code and constantly reinforce it. It's symptomatic of the nanny state that many posters on here think that you can legislate safety in lieu of common sense and personal responsibility.
NoNewsIsGoodNews
says...
10:41pm Fri 31 Aug 12
ICarealot wrote:What evidence? please produce it or guide us to a link where we can read it.
20's Plenty has been well researched, has been in place in Europe for some time, is taking off in the USA and all over the UK.
The evidence for far outweights the outcrys of those against. Some of these comments smack of ignorance and selfishness!
Brooks Forbutox
says...
10:44pm Fri 31 Aug 12
Paul_M
says...
10:45pm Fri 31 Aug 12
There is wealth of evidence to support the case that pedestrian collisions with vehicles are fatal in about 5% of cases at 20, 45% at 30, and 95% at 40mph. there is also scientific evidence that collision risk (as opposed to severity) falls 6% with every 1mph drop in speeds.
His comments about going over the roof or under the bumper are voodoo science - the fatality stats are clear on this and quite how the body bounces doesn't change that.
And as for hemming pedestrians in with railings, does Mr Natt not know that railings rae being removed all over the country precisely because they are so dangerous to pedestrians?
And it is not just about accident frequency or severity either - fast traffic is intimidating to people on foot or bicycle, and close to their homes or schools or shops, EVERYONE is on foot, whatever form of transport got them to that place initially. 20mph zones are quite simply much pleasanter places to be.
Paul_M
says...
10:49pm Fri 31 Aug 12
NoNewsIsGoodNews wrote:They have a website, with information and links to other sites. I suggest you look at it.
ICarealot wrote:What evidence? please produce it or guide us to a link where we can read it.
20's Plenty has been well researched, has been in place in Europe for some time, is taking off in the USA and all over the UK.
The evidence for far outweights the outcrys of those against. Some of these comments smack of ignorance and selfishness!
http://www.20splenty
forus.org.uk/
Brooks Forbutox
says...
10:49pm Fri 31 Aug 12
Magicman!
says...
1:47am Sat 1 Sep 12
pedestrians sticking to the Green Cross Code would save more lives than “20’s Plenty”.
He said he would like to see more railings installed to prevent people walking on to roads rather than a city-wide speed zone
A voice of reason in an world gone mad! I knocked somebody over once at a busy central junction because I was coming along on a green light, saw somebody who looked too close to the pavement edge for my liking so I slowed a bit and gave a honk of my horn, and they didn't even look and just stepped out. I was down to 10mph so managed to stay upright but had I been going any faster her stupid actions would have caused me serious injury too. She wasn't deaf as she heard me ask if she was OK, but she didn't say sorry or anything her friend had to do that. The fact is there was a red man showing, and had she pulled the same stunt in America she'd have been prosecuted for Jaywalking - and I seriously think a similar law should be introduced here.
Also bear in mind the guy making the concerns is a former Police person, and yet does not advocate enforced speed reductions - despite claims by many people across the country that the police reduce speeds just to catch people out by speed cameras and make money. The fact is speed does NOT kill on its own, it is bad driving that kills - and you can drive badly at 5mph and cause much more damage than a professional driver going at 105mph.
From a cycling perspective, reducing the motoring speed limit will likely make things worse, as drivers will overtake a cyclist and give a certain amount of "wobble room" depending on the speed differential between motor vehicle and bicycle. When the differential is very little, ie by the car going at 20mph and the bike at 13mph, the car will leave less room when overtaking and will be overtaking at a slower pace which means the car will be beside the bicycle for longer which increases the risk of the cyclist wobbling and there being a collision. In addition the physical enforcement of 20mph, if buildouts and chicanes are used, will encourage less responsible drivers to race cyclists to the narrower parts of a road, whilst allowing minimal overtaking room so as to get the 'rally line', which is just an accident waiting to happen.
ouseswimmer
says...
7:45am Sat 1 Sep 12
NoNewsIsGoodNews
says...
8:48am Sat 1 Sep 12
Paul_M wrote:Sorry but posting a link to the 20's plenty website is a complete fail.
NoNewsIsGoodNews wrote:They have a website, with information and links to other sites. I suggest you look at it.
ICarealot wrote:What evidence? please produce it or guide us to a link where we can read it.
20's Plenty has been well researched, has been in place in Europe for some time, is taking off in the USA and all over the UK.
The evidence for far outweights the outcrys of those against. Some of these comments smack of ignorance and selfishness!
http://www.20splenty
forus.org.uk/
Independent research please, not some dodgy website that constantly crashes and is in full support of the crazy scheme.
pedalling paul
says...
9:35am Sat 1 Sep 12
yorkshirelad
says...
10:49am Sat 1 Sep 12
I very much doubt you'll find many professional road safety experts would agree with that.
Sillybillies
says...
12:46pm Sat 1 Sep 12
Buzz Light-year says...
8:58pm Fri 31 Aug 12
Pedestrians, cyclists and horse riders use the highway by right of way. Motorists do so under licence.
Still peddling that rubbish I see, justify it.
bluephoenix
says...
1:33pm Sat 1 Sep 12
Buzz Light-year
says...
2:35pm Sat 1 Sep 12
Sillybillies wrote:I already did.
Buzz Light-year says... 8:58pm Fri 31 Aug 12 Pedestrians, cyclists and horse riders use the highway by right of way. Motorists do so under licence.Still peddling that rubbish I see, justify it.
ICarealot
says...
2:58pm Sat 1 Sep 12
rg.uk
in your browser - there is no problem with the website which is an excellent source of info for anyone in doubt that 20sPlenty is not the way to go across the UK.
MJNATT
says...
3:01pm Sat 1 Sep 12
the purpose was to highlight the vast amount of mis-information being given out. A 20 mph zone is not an accident free utopia that some would have us believe.
Reference to the 'Dutch" experience, have you ever been to Amsterdam. I found the safest place was on the road, mind the trams though. Pavements were littered with cycles in heaps and cycle lanes which separate road and pavement full of cyclists charging about in both directions without lights and brakes.
Can I also clarify: - I am not against a 20 zone - outside a school (at school times) excellent idea. Nor do I advocate barriers throughout any more than I advocate 20 throughout. In the appropriate place and I again use as an example outside a school entrance to stop children dashing directly to the road.
Finally to those who comment on how a pedestrian acts when struck - have you ever seen or dealt with such an event. Lets no think the strike is the end, after being struck pedestrians then have to hit the road and thats where many serious and fatalinjuries occur - even at speeds under 20 mph.
Sillybillies
says...
3:06pm Sat 1 Sep 12
12:46pm Sat 1 Sep 12
Buzz Light-year says...
8:58pm Fri 31 Aug 12
Pedestrians, cyclists and horse riders use the highway by right of way. Motorists do so under licence.
Still peddling that rubbish I see, justify it.
So you can't. Let me say it again, it is a load of highly dangerous nonsense with no legal basis. The fact that vehicle drivers require a driving licence is irrelevant by the way, if that's getting you confused.
Sillybillies
says...
3:08pm Sat 1 Sep 12
Reference to the 'Dutch" experience, have you ever been to Amsterdam. I found the safest place was on the road, mind the trams though. Pavements were littered with cycles in heaps and cycle lanes which separate road and pavement full of cyclists charging about in both directions without lights and brakes.
A bit like York then, but without the trams!
Buzz Light-year
says...
3:34pm Sat 1 Sep 12
Sillybillies says...
12:46pm Sat 1 Sep 12
Buzz Light-year says...
8:58pm Fri 31 Aug 12
Pedestrians, cyclists and horse riders use the highway by right of way. Motorists do so under licence.
Still peddling that rubbish I see, justify it.
So you can't. Let me say it again, it is a load of highly dangerous nonsense with no legal basis. The fact that vehicle drivers require a driving licence is irrelevant by the way, if that's getting you confused.Proof you are a fool and a wind-up merchant.
It's a basic tenet of road use.
yorkshirelad
says...
4:32pm Sat 1 Sep 12
I'm afraid Mike's acerbic comments on Amsterdam ('I found the safest place was on the road'...probably meaning that, shock, horror, he encountered bikes in Amsterdams cycle lanes)...show where he is coming from.
Many people come back from Amsterdam with tales of how amazing all the bikes are, multi-story bike parks etc, how all the cars stop at roundabouts to give way to cyclists and pedestrians...but some come back traumatised by it all - just too different.
In Amsterdam the community is generally united that it's a good thing - yes - even retired Police Officers support sensible transport solutions there...
yorkshirelad
says...
4:35pm Sat 1 Sep 12
But when my children walk or cycle to school, they don't just do that outside the school. Now, we need 'through roads and there 30mph seems reasonable...but widespread 20mph roads in side streets seems a sensible reasonable idea to me.
yorkshirelad
says...
4:39pm Sat 1 Sep 12
We can't all live in cul-de-sacs but it's pretty obvious that they can be more pleasant from the traffic point of view due to lower speeds.
yorkshirelad
says...
4:45pm Sat 1 Sep 12
http://www.bmj.com/c
ontent/339/bmj.b4469
.full
Sillybillies
says...
4:58pm Sat 1 Sep 12
Buzz Light-year says...
8:58pm Fri 31 Aug 12
Pedestrians, cyclists and horse riders use the highway by right of way. Motorists do so under licence.
It's a basic tenet of road use.
No it isn't, I say again justify this ludicrous and dangerous statement.
Buzz Light-year
says...
7:36pm Sat 1 Sep 12
Sillybillies wrote:How is it dangerous exactly?
Buzz Light-year says... 8:58pm Fri 31 Aug 12 Pedestrians, cyclists and horse riders use the highway by right of way. Motorists do so under licence. It's a basic tenet of road use.No it isn't, I say again justify this ludicrous and dangerous statement.
Sillybillies
says...
7:48pm Sat 1 Sep 12
Buzz Light-year
says...
8:17pm Sat 1 Sep 12
Mullarkian
says...
8:40pm Sat 1 Sep 12
greenmonkey
says...
11:50pm Sat 1 Sep 12
Have you ever been on a bike?? The danger from passing vehicles is far greater the higher the speed differential and the speed of passing should make no difference to the amount of space you leave as a driver (check the Highway code) Travelling more slowly means the driver has less reason to be impatient
the cyclist more time to become aware of the vehicle approaching behind and take that into account when approaching obstacles such as potholes drains and parked cars. Lower speeds (as happen in most locations during peak times anyway) make for smoother driving and less sudden braking, cutting wear and tear on your car.
Magicman!
says...
12:22am Sun 2 Sep 12
... Okay I'm done. Alright then... York to Middlesbrough via Bilsdale TWICE, York to Manchester via Emley moor TWICE (once via woodhead pass and the other via saddleworth moor), York to Blackburn via Ilkley, York to hull so many times I now do it as a time trial, york to Scarborouh TWICE, York to Crowle (north Lincs) TWICE, York to Barnsley THRICE, Blackburn to Bolton, Sheffield to Manchester via the Snake Pass, Penistone to Manchester via the Woodhead Pass.... the list goes on.
When you are on roads where opposing traffic is at minimal levels, cars going at a greater speed allow much more room when overtaking - most going on the other side of the road to do so. But when there's a queue of traffic almost going at the same speed as me, it is all too common for drivers to, for want of a better expression, 'sneak' past only 5-10mph faster than me and without their offside wheels going over the white line. In an urban environment it gets a little fuzzy around the edges as you tend to get more irresponsible drivers who try to overtake too fast and too close, but in general the same principle applies.
nearlyman
says...
9:44am Sun 2 Sep 12
torrens
says...
11:49am Sun 2 Sep 12
Oh and I do a little cycling too, for example York-Ullswater-York (250miles) non-stop ONCE, York-Whitby-York in one day SEVERAL times. Calais-Spanish border in 9 days (FOUR times) but maybe this doesn't count eh Magicman as it's all abroad?
I could go on but modesty forbids...
oh and I've got 2 cars and a large motorcycle too. So I actually pay 3 lots of "road tax" before anyone starts!
Buzz Light-year
says...
1:40pm Sun 2 Sep 12
When I'm on a bike and cars pass me slowly or hesitantly it makes me more nervous than when they pass me decisively. And I'm a very confident rider.
I don't understand how greenmonkey fails to see how being alongside each other for a prolonged period is more dangerous than a quick pass.
If I'm doing 15, 16 or 17 and a car is limited to 20, you can bet your boots the driver won't wait behind me.
Cars already pass me impatiently and cut in when there's only a car length to the queue!
So they would make a lingering 3 or 4 mph faster pass or they will have to break the 20mph limit.
torrens
says...
1:42pm Sun 2 Sep 12
Sillybillies
says...
2:25pm Sun 2 Sep 12
But Mr Natt, an independent collisions investigator who served for nearly 30 years in North Yorkshire Police’s traffic department ...
North Yorkshire Police, says it all.
wildnorthlands
says...
4:13pm Sun 2 Sep 12
As a police investigator, he evidently worked under his full name Michael Natt. And he still works under this name as an independent investigator, defending drivers. He provided a report which allowed a driver to admit driving which caused the death of a 67-year-old cyclist, but to deny that his driving was either 'dangerous' or even 'careless', so he was only prosecuted for causing death while driving without insurance. http://www.yorkpress
.co.uk/news/9275439.
Driver_admits_killin
g_cyclist/?ref=rss
As a police officer he also helped exonerate the driver of a coach which killed a 72-year-old amputee cyclist, who evidently 'veered' into the coach driver's path without looking behind or indicating: http://www.yorkpress
.co.uk/archive/2000/
02/24/York+Archive/7
958799.Coach_tragedy
_cyclist_s_deadly_tu
rn/
I'll let you draw your own conclusions.
Sillybillies
says...
5:03pm Sun 2 Sep 12
ICarealot
says...
7:35pm Sun 2 Sep 12
Viper_7
says...
8:24pm Sun 2 Sep 12
Buzz Light-year wrote:Also... how do we police cyclists travelling faster than 20mph?
I think I can see Magicman!'s point.
When I'm on a bike and cars pass me slowly or hesitantly it makes me more nervous than when they pass me decisively. And I'm a very confident rider.
I don't understand how greenmonkey fails to see how being alongside each other for a prolonged period is more dangerous than a quick pass.
If I'm doing 15, 16 or 17 and a car is limited to 20, you can bet your boots the driver won't wait behind me.
Cars already pass me impatiently and cut in when there's only a car length to the queue!
So they would make a lingering 3 or 4 mph faster pass or they will have to break the 20mph limit.
30mph is a bit of a push for most, but even modest cyclists can easily exceed 20...but they do not require a speedo by law, but are still governed by the speed limit. Will be bikes passing cars!
Agree having both vehicles and push bikes travelling at similar speeds will create longer "contact" times between bike and car.
Cyclestrian
says...
9:32pm Sun 2 Sep 12
When I cycle, I much prefer slower passes to quicker overtakes. Relative speeds are similar so any collision is going to hurt less.
Under UK law, road speed limits only apply to motor traffic so in theory a bicycle gives you the green card to break limits.
nowthen
says...
7:24am Mon 3 Sep 12
ICarealot wrote:The only thing that 20's plenty will help is the bank balance of those zealots who are trying to ram it down our throats.I repeat , a 20mph zone does not prevent : boy racers , people on mobiles , women checking their makeup in the mirror and the just plain gormless. Poor road skills or lack of them or a complete disregard for the highway code are what cause accidents, not speed. By the way , there's no need to shout.
nowthen wrote:Children will still have to be kept safe and taught road safety. Yes we all have to be responsible for ourselves and our children. This along with 20's Plenty helps prevent deaths and makes an accident when it does happen less serious as it is SPEED THAT KILLS!!!!!!
20 mph zones are not going to change the behaviour of reckless road users. people will still be killed and injured by reckless road users no matter what the speed limit. I've always believed that I'm responsible for my safety when using the public highway and instilled the same belief into my children when they were young. The nanny state isn't going to stop a child running into the road in front of an idiot flouting the speed limit but responsible parents can teach their offspring the green cross code and constantly reinforce it. It's symptomatic of the nanny state that many posters on here think that you can legislate safety in lieu of common sense and personal responsibility.
torrens
says...
9:14am Mon 3 Sep 12
Unfortunately, back in the real world, I think we have no option but to legislate specifically for the gormless!
A numpty driver proceeding at 20mph has less than half the destructive potential than at 30mph, all other factors being equal.
I'm all in favour of widespread 20 zones; it might mean that average joe motorist's speed becomes 30 or so on a clear city centre road unlike like the 40 or so I presently see on our existing 30 limit roads.
torrens
says...
10:29am Mon 3 Sep 12
torrens wrote:whoops, I should've written ...there would be precious little...
If we all drove responsibly, diligently and with care and consideration for all other road users at all times then they'd be precious little need for speed limits. Unfortunately, back in the real world, I think we have no option but to legislate specifically for the gormless! A numpty driver proceeding at 20mph has less than half the destructive potential than at 30mph, all other factors being equal. I'm all in favour of widespread 20 zones; it might mean that average joe motorist's speed becomes 30 or so on a clear city centre road unlike like the 40 or so I presently see on our existing 30 limit roads.
I can't work out how to edit my previous post...
lezyork1966
says...
10:52am Mon 3 Sep 12
there going one by one.... got to ask yourself why....
lezyork1966
says...
10:52am Mon 3 Sep 12
there going one by one.... got to ask yourself why....
Von_Dutch
says...
11:25am Mon 3 Sep 12
bolero
says...
12:59pm Mon 3 Sep 12
bolero
says...
1:09pm Mon 3 Sep 12
bolero
says...
1:10pm Mon 3 Sep 12
Sillybillies
says...
1:44pm Mon 3 Sep 12
mrcharly
says...
2:32pm Mon 3 Sep 12
As noted by someone else already, railings have been cited as the main causes of serious injury when a cyclist or pedestrian is caught between them and a vehicle.
This 'road safety' expert is an idiot.
Digeorge
says...
2:48pm Mon 3 Sep 12
strangebuttrue?
says...
6:15pm Mon 3 Sep 12
mrcharly wrote:I fail to see how someone with the experience the gentleman has can be described as an idiot except by someone who is so blinkered in their thinking, as most of these minority campaigners are, that they cannot see or accept facts.
So, the solution to people being run down in urban areas is to install railings in the city centre? What a load of twaddle.
As noted by someone else already, railings have been cited as the main causes of serious injury when a cyclist or pedestrian is caught between them and a vehicle.
This 'road safety' expert is an idiot.
strangebuttrue?
says...
6:21pm Mon 3 Sep 12
mrcharly wrote:I fail to see how someone with the experience the gentleman has can be described as an idiot except by someone who is so blinkered in their thinking, as most of these minority campaigners are, that they cannot see or accept facts.
So, the solution to people being run down in urban areas is to install railings in the city centre? What a load of twaddle.
As noted by someone else already, railings have been cited as the main causes of serious injury when a cyclist or pedestrian is caught between them and a vehicle.
This 'road safety' expert is an idiot.
ICarealot
says...
10:47pm Mon 3 Sep 12
over 8 million people now live under local authorities which agree with the life saving and quality of life raising 20mph speed limit where people live
sonorbloke
says...
7:59am Tue 4 Sep 12
wildnorthlands wrote:If it's all the same to you I'd rather rely on the opinions of those who actually read the full reports and made their decisions accordingly rather than your accusations of skullduggery and dark forces at work.
So who is this Mike Natt, whose opinions (namely that peds should get out of the way rather than that drivers should slow down) are quoted here so authoritatively? As a police investigator, he evidently worked under his full name Michael Natt. And he still works under this name as an independent investigator, defending drivers. He provided a report which allowed a driver to admit driving which caused the death of a 67-year-old cyclist, but to deny that his driving was either 'dangerous' or even 'careless', so he was only prosecuted for causing death while driving without insurance. http://www.yorkpress .co.uk/news/9275439. Driver_admits_killin g_cyclist/?ref=rss As a police officer he also helped exonerate the driver of a coach which killed a 72-year-old amputee cyclist, who evidently 'veered' into the coach driver's path without looking behind or indicating: http://www.yorkpress .co.uk/archive/2000/ 02/24/York+Archive/7 958799.Coach_tragedy _cyclist_s_deadly_tu rn/ I'll let you draw your own conclusions.
It isn't at all obvious whether the driver in the first instance did anything wrong or not (in terms of hitting the cyclist, he shouldn't have been driving anyway but that isn't what an investigator into an accident would look at). The police/CPS obviously didn't disagree too strongly with the report and the court decided he hadn't been driving carelessly, having heard/seen all the evidence.
In the second instance it's clear from independent witnesses on the coach that the cyclist didn't look and rode into it's path so I'm not sure why you have any beef with that.
sonorbloke
says...
8:02am Tue 4 Sep 12
ICarealot wrote:Where's the study that shows evidence of all 8 million people thinking that a 20mph limit is a good thing?
"Minority campaigners" ... over 8 million people now live under local authorities which agree with the life saving and quality of life raising 20mph speed limit where people live
nowthen
says...
8:24am Tue 4 Sep 12
ICarealot wrote:I live under " an authority " which agrees with that twaddle , but I don't ! and neither do 75% of York residents ! By the way do you get paid for supporting 20's plenty ?
"Minority campaigners" ...
over 8 million people now live under local authorities which agree with the life saving and quality of life raising 20mph speed limit where people live
Brooks Forbutox
says...
8:35am Tue 4 Sep 12
nize.com/2012/09/the
-state-of-copenhagen
-congestion-part_3.h
tml
Considering they can still enter the job with just GCSEs (rather than A-levels or a degree), individuals' thinking thinking may not be the most incisive.
As to the spat between Buzz Lightyear and Sillybillies, of course motorists are only on the road by licence. If the police revoke your licence, you can't drive; if the state revokes all driving licences (for instance in a national emergency, such as the coming fuel crisis) then no-one can drive. Only a curfew can affect the rights of the cyclists and pedestrian to the highway.
Sillybillies
says...
11:01am Tue 4 Sep 12
As to the spat between Buzz Lightyear and Sillybillies, of course motorists are only on the road by licence.
That's not what he said or in dispute
Buzz Light-year says...
8:58pm Fri 31 Aug 12
Pedestrians, cyclists and horse riders use the highway by right of way. Motorists do so under licence.
It's a basic tenet of road use.
Which is something quite different. "Right of way" doesn't come into it and is a dangerous delusion.
Theapplesarecoming
says...
5:06am Wed 5 Sep 12
Magicman!
says...
12:37am Thu 6 Sep 12
nowthen wrote:If only there was an automated camera system that could detect and penalise those who drive and ride in a careless manner. Even just having a camera strapped to a lamp post a couple of days each week with a few police cars monitoring the camera output and then stopping anybody doing something stupid would go some way to reduce irresponsible use of the road without needing to put a blanket 20mph limit everywhere.
ICarealot wrote:The only thing that 20's plenty will help is the bank balance of those zealots who are trying to ram it down our throats.I repeat , a 20mph zone does not prevent : boy racers , people on mobiles , women checking their makeup in the mirror and the just plain gormless. Poor road skills or lack of them or a complete disregard for the highway code are what cause accidents, not speed. By the way , there's no need to shout.
nowthen wrote:Children will still have to be kept safe and taught road safety. Yes we all have to be responsible for ourselves and our children. This along with 20's Plenty helps prevent deaths and makes an accident when it does happen less serious as it is SPEED THAT KILLS!!!!!!
20 mph zones are not going to change the behaviour of reckless road users. people will still be killed and injured by reckless road users no matter what the speed limit. I've always believed that I'm responsible for my safety when using the public highway and instilled the same belief into my children when they were young. The nanny state isn't going to stop a child running into the road in front of an idiot flouting the speed limit but responsible parents can teach their offspring the green cross code and constantly reinforce it. It's symptomatic of the nanny state that many posters on here think that you can legislate safety in lieu of common sense and personal responsibility.
yorkborn66
says...
6:12pm Thu 6 Sep 12
The 30 mph is perfect on the majority of our roads, small side roads and small residential roads I would agree 30 mph would maybe too much.
And this is my point because the minority of road users are totally defunct of any form of common understanding of the Highway Code, driving and ridding responsibly giving thought and regard to other road users including pedestrians.
Not to mention the pedestrians that thinks nothing of stepping out into the road without looking usually with their iPod giving their ears a good bashing.
30 mph is the maximum speed limit but I doubt many of us would drive down a narrow residential side street at this speed. Nanny state trying to punish the majority again.
strangebuttrue?
says...
9:22pm Thu 6 Sep 12
ICarealot wrote:How many of those 8 million were given a chance to say yes or no to the 20 MPH limit or did it come about, as is the case in York, through a tiny bunch of narrow minded people who have plenty of time on their hands to campaign for these things? No one asked me. Looks as though you will be able to quote me in your count in the future but you don’t know if I agree with it you just quote silly numbers as is the case with these minority campaigners.
"Minority campaigners" ...
over 8 million people now live under local authorities which agree with the life saving and quality of life raising 20mph speed limit where people live
Woody Mellor says...
3:45pm Fri 31 Aug 12