The 20mph campaign/s and arguments...

Posted on
Page
of 13
/ 13
Last Next
  • There seems to be a stern group of people campaigning for 20mph speed limits for the betterment of all road users. They have some very grand contentions which I find hard to see as anything other than delusions. You can read some of these such arguments here on the "liveinhope" facebook page;

    https://www.facebook.com/livein.hope.7?h­c_location=stream

    I once came across one of these such people at a council cycling meeting, she was so passionate that she was nearly in tears. Everyone (including myself) was cringing and ignored her being polite as possible. They seem to believe it is the ultimate solution, the holy grail of transport solutions. Which will be the saviour of all of us. They are very passionate. Seems like a cult. They get their claws around everything like cyclist deaths and exploit if for their campaign regardless of the relevancy.

    I dont want to come across too negative and judgemental here, but I really struggle to get any of their concerns. They are campaigning to put a 20mph limit on part of A435 near me which is a major route into and out of the city, which has busy shopping sections on it. the most popular bus in the city runs along it every 5 minutes. The part of it that they want to cap at 20mph is one of the shopping spots which is congested throughout the day. Speeding is not a problem, most of the time it seems people are stuck crawling and stopping at all the traffic lights or getting stuck behind buses. There is no speeding problem here.

    These campaigns have managed to succeed in many towns which these people are extremely proud of. By succeed I mean enforced, not succeed in creating utopia on our streets. I can only seeing it creating a nightmare. This seems to be echoed in the accounts here https://www.lfgss.com/thread104578.html
    Making things even more difficult and unpleasant for road users, especially the poor drivers stuck in their boxes. For bikes to negate the congestion I imagine it contributing to, they would have to do all kinds of reckless filtering and pavement cycling, or join in the drudgery of a 20mph max speed. No more whizzing away when the traffic eases up, no more cruising down short urban descents at 30mph.

    Just why?

  • 20 mph limits lead to greater traffic throughput.

    A simple google search will give you enough information to explain this in easily understood language.

  • Tell me what you want me to look at. "Google it" is a non-answer.

  • 20mph where though? 20mph limit on a motorway isn't going to allow greater traffic throughput.

  • Tell me what you want me to look at. "Google it" is a non-answer.
    How about helping yourself? I'm not your research assistant.

  • 20mph where though? 20mph limit on a motorway isn't going to allow greater traffic throughput.
    Well spotted.

    The motorway is a good example, however, of how and why slower can be faster - Variable speed limits, when followed, provide for faster throughput, on the basis of minimising the concertinaing of traffic.

    I would expect that 20mph zones are assessed on the basis that it would be beneficial - either in terms of traffic throughput, or safety, or even bloody mindedness.

  • Everyone (including myself) was cringing and ignored her being polite as possible. Seems like a cult. They get their claws around everything like cyclist deaths and exploit if for their campaign regardless of the relevancy.
    **
    I dont want to come across too negative and judgemental here,**

    LOLZ! Classic DFP.

  • How about helping yourself? I'm not your research assistant.

    Well I understand what throughput is but I cannot find anything to show that it will increase when you force them to move more slowly.

  • Quick Google give me this mythbuster pages;

    http://www.20splentyforus.org.uk/Busting­_the_myths.htm

  • I cannot find anything there that reports a positive outcome.

    Just some bollocks "myth" busting.

    Myths such as if you drop the limit to 20 from 30 journeys will take 50% longer, who said it would take exactly 50% longer? It will take longer if traffic cannot go the full 30 when traffic is flowing freely, but it is unrealistic for traffic to be permanently free flowing enough for for the direct speed drop from constant 30 to constant 20. If there really was spots like that and you forced them to go slower, you really would be a cunt.

    They also claim things like it is universally believed that you need expensive speed bumps to enforce 20mph slow down. Says who?

    That people believe pollution will go up because of speeding between speed bumps! OMG The people are mental.

    That site is literally a pile of nonsensical gibberish. Answering BS arguments no one made. Not clearly stating any positive outcomes and benefits.

  • London traffic is already moving at 10mph so I'm not sure what effect it would have other than drop speeds at night perhaps.

  • Just why?

    How about you take the arguments that you ignored when you had the chance to listen and provide an intelligent rebuttal?

  • My mate works in traffic planning. He uses maths and computers and his big brain box to determine whether changing the limit (or traffic light phasing or whatever) will speed up or slow down traffic.

    As said above, the variable limits on the M25 have improved traffic flow, making a 30 limit 20 has the potential to do the same. Not everywhere, of course, which is why my mate's job exists. Councils ask him what will happen if they change the limit, he tells them, they make a decision, they don't just do what your crying lady suggests without looking at it properly.

    A 20 limit is a good idea in some places, a bad idea in others. The systems are in place to sort out which is which, so don't worry.

  • It's not just about traffic flow though is it? Oh wait, of course it is.

  • More 20 mph zones in London would prevent 100 killed or seriously injured casualties each year

    http://www.lshtm.ac.uk/pressoffice/press­_releases/2009/trafficspeedzones.html

  • These people are insane;

    10 Ways That 20 mph Limits Benefit Motorists
    Far from being anti-motorist, 20 mph limits give
    drivers many advantages. That’s why 72% of
    drivers believe 20’s Plenty on residential streets1
    Where the feck did they find this?
    .
    Drivers will save money, be healthier (how?)and greener when authorities adopt
    community-wide default 20 mph limits without humps. Some roads will have higher speeds
    where merited. Average trips take less than 40 seconds extra. Driver benefits include:-
    1 Fewer injured car users. Overall there were 22% fewer casualties in Portsmouth:
    drivers had 23% fewer and passengers 31% fewer after 2 years of wide area 20 mph limits2
    .
    Elderly drivers had 50% fewer injuries and 40% fewer injured passengers. (If these people are this much worse at driving maybe they should stop)
    2 Fuel use, CO2 and costs fall 12%3
    . German 30km/h (18.6 mph) zones led to car drivers
    changing gear 12% less often (why is less gear changes better?), braking 14% less often and using 12% less fuel.
    3 **Less Congestion. At 20 mph more cars occupy the same road space due shorter gaps
    between them relative to 30 mph, easing traffic ‘flow’. ** (This makes no sense at all, if there are larger gaps between cars then it is not congested! Cars automatically end up closer when things get congested and speed slows down, does not mean a forced lower speed limit will help anything)

    Junctions are more efficient as drivers
    can merge into shorter gaps. (maybe, but traffic does this anyway)

    Less risk encourages sustainable travel and public transport. (WTF does this mean?)

    **4 Easier parking. Fewer unnecessary car trips frees up road space and parking.
    ** (so a 20mph will lower the amount of cars on the road because of what I can only assume is due to greater inconvenience of driving, so remaining traffic can enjoy easier parking. And this is a SELLING point to drivers?)

    5 Cleaner air quality especially benefits motorists. They breathe in-car air which is three
    times more polluted than at the pavement4 (so according to the earlier point, increasing the density of cars by making the go slower, will reduce the amount of air pollution?)
    . Standing traffic, which produces unnecessary
    fumes, reduces as traffic flow becomes smoother (tell us how a lower limit will make traffic flow smoother and less stoppy?). **Less fuel is burnt due to less acceleration *** (the 20splentyforus folk argued that this was a myth when it suited the point they were trying to make)*
    and the transfer of some trips away from cars towards walking, cycling and public transport. (this transfer is connected to the lower limit in what way?)
    6 Motoring costs drop. As crashes fall in severity and frequency (because crashing in residential and shopping areas at speeds up to but not exceeding 30mph is a major expense for the average driver), so do legal and repair
    bills. This will be reflected in motor insurance premiums dropping (Like fuck they will)in 20 mph limit post codes.
    7 Repair bills fall. Vehicles maintain value from fewer crashes, (possibly the most tenuous argument I have heard in my life) less brake and tyre wear. (who is worried about wearing out their car at speeds 20-30mph?)
    8 Stress reduces as drivers have more time to see and react to hazards. Fewer road rage
    incidents occur due to more considerate driving styles (*and how will they be making drivers more considerate and less angry? *), including less dangerous overtaking
    and it is easier to pull out. With casualties down by 22% some drivers will suffer less
    emotional trauma and anxiety from their part in liability for crashes. (Another super tenuous one) Noise also reduces.
    9 Less parents’ taxi duty. Road danger reduction brings safer independent child travel,
    improves their life skills, and frees up parents for more productive activities than driving. (maybe these kids will end up with speeding fines if they attempt to ride their bikes down a hill)
    10 Society benefits. Fewer road victims frees up facilities for other health needs. Fewer
    work days are lost. Widow, disability benefit and care savings. Active travel cuts obesity and
    heart disease.
    (what encourage this active travel? driving inconvenience? Will these active travellers pay attention to the 20mph limit on their bikes?)Inequalities reduce as less children die. (wtf does this mean?) Quality of life rises. (how?) Fewer potholes. (I disagree, heavy vehicles like HGV's and Buses destroy the road surfacing, this will not be improved by a lower top speed, neither will the effect of expanding ice cracking the road)

    Lunacy.

  • My mate works in traffic planning. He uses maths and computers and his big brain box to determine whether changing the limit (or traffic light phasing or whatever) will speed up or slow down traffic.

    As said above, the variable limits on the M25 have improved traffic flow, making a 30 limit 20 has the potential to do the same. Not everywhere, of course, which is why my mate's job exists. Councils ask him what will happen if they change the limit, he tells them, they make a decision, they don't just do what your crying lady suggests without looking at it properly.

    A 20 limit is a good idea in some places, a bad idea in others. The systems are in place to sort out which is which, so don't worry.

    Thanks for a reasonable reply. I appreciate the work of your friend properly assessing if there will be a benefit. I fear councils jumping the gun due to campaign pressures and perceived benefit due to the "cult" brainwashing.

  • Can you point out the flaws in the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine research? Are you seriously claiming they are all "brainwashed"?

  • These people are insane;

    Lunacy.
    Your argument appears to be "I don't understand this, therefore they must be mad".

    Compelling, to be sure.

  • Children in particular are poor at detecting approaching speeds:

    Scientists at the Department of Psychology, Royal Holloway, University of London, have discovered that primary-age schoolchildren cannot accurately see, or judge, the speed of vehicles travelling above 25mph. In fact, six- to 11-year-olds might sometimes not be able to tell that a vehicle is approaching owing to a trick of the mind that also affects adults, although it is far more pronounced in children.
    As Professor John Wann, a 55-year-old driver, cyclist and motorcyclist who led the research, explains: “It’s not a matter of children not paying attention but a problem related to low-level visual detection mechanisms. Even when children are paying very close attention they may fail to detect a fast-approaching vehicle.”

    “It seems clear-cut,” says Prof Wann. “Driving in excess of 20mph in a residential or school area not only increases the potential severity of any impact with a pedestrian, but also increases the risk that a child will injudiciously cross in front of your car.”

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/road­-safety/8644983/Why-20mph-limits-help-sa­ve-lives.html

    When you think about it, it's basic human biology. Humans were created (or designed) to withstand impact speeds that equal the impact of running as fast as possible into a tree or rock. Above 20mph the risks increase tremendously. 20mph zones save lives, the evidence is indisputable. To demonstrate this. I can drive into you at 20mph, then 35mph, you can tell us which hurts more.

  • Are you seriously claiming they are all "brainwashed"?

    Depends on your definition of brainwashed. Large collectives of people and very strongly believe that certain things are absolutely true, be very emotional about it and take very bold actions based upon these beliefs.

    Whether this is a suicide pact in a "real brainwashed cult" , bizarre diets in a health fad or poor choices in public policy.

    The character of 20limit people I have observed, seems very delusional and cult like. They have all accepted a belief which consumes their being inside their community and are blind to the things outside.

    My mind is open, keen to hear about the work of people like Hefty's mate.

  • Why do you think the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine researchers are "deluded" or "brainwashed"? Can you highlight the flaws in their work for me?

  • Children in particular are poor at detecting approaching speeds:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/road­-safety/8644983/Why-20mph-limits-help-sa­ve-lives.html

    When you think about it, it's basic human biology. Humans were created (or designed) to withstand impact speeds that equal the impact of running as fast as possible into a tree or rock. Above 20mph the risks increase tremendously. 20mph zones save lives, the evidence is indisputable. To demonstrate this. I can drive into you at 20mph, then 35mph, you can tell us which hurts more.

    Sure I agree about slowing down nearby a primary school, but these measures are already in place. Where a school ends up being on a main road, I think it is just to bad. You cannot put a permanent speed limit there just for that. Provide ample crossings and expect teachers and the school to do its job by not letting little kids out crossing the main road by themselves.

    The 20limit campaigners want to limit entire city centres, and my Local high street which is a busy A road which has the most popular bus routes in the city going along it.

  • Why do you think the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine researchers are "deluded" or "brainwashed"? Can you highlight the flaws in their work for me?

    Sorry, I didn't get your reference to London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine?

  • My mind is open
    And yet you formulate particularly strong opinion, though admittedly know none of the facts?

  • Post a reply
    • Bold
    • Italics
    • Link
    • Image
    • List
    • Quote
    • code
    • Preview
About

The 20mph campaign/s and arguments...

Posted by Avatar for DFP @DFP

Actions