Confusing Speed Limit Signs

[rodneybewes]

The reductions in accidents are a lot more than I actually thought they would be, especially the figures for deaths and serious injuries (and even more so in children).

[mako]

The 20mph extensions are nothing to do with safety and unsurprisingly all about money that the thick councils think it is a money saving policy. however their thinking is completely flawed and full of guesses and biases and little fact or maths. They admit that the costs analysis they do to come up with the savings 'does not represent actual costs' but instead is based on their arbitrary unsupported 'cost benefit reduction of less incidents'. It ignores the fact that the ?143million and ?34.3 billion cost nationwide for insurance and property damage is not a massive saving. insurance companies make a profit. take away all the accidents and they dont exist, jobs are lost- we dont save all the money as a nation, surely that is the bleeding obvious. There is nothing in the calcs for the loss of man hours for the reduced speeds but the total potential work hours of a death are added to the costs. Again all the work hours would only be lost if we were at 100% employment. we are not so it is again a biased used of the numbers.

[mako]

These are the sort of joke publications that the ideas are based on (along with a study H of what happened in a few weeks in Hull) https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/269601/rrcgb-2012-complete.pdf

[rodneybewes]

mako Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> These are the sort of joke publications that the

> ideas are based on (along with a study H of what

> happened in a few weeks in Hull)

> https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploa

> ds/attachment_data/file/269601/rrcgb-2012-complete

> .pdf

Not entirely sure what you mean. Are you saying the Reported Road Casualties Great Britain 2012 Annual Report is a joke publication?

[wulfhound]

Um, mako, the insurance companies profit regardless... nice cuddly bleeding-heart socialists they are not.

Instead, if accident rates are down, insurance premiums come down, and ordinary people have more money to spend on other, nicer things.

Next up: smokers are actually doing us all a favour by creating employment for doctors and nurses who'd otherwise be scrounging benefits on the dole?

[Penguin68]

smokers are actually doing us all a favour by creating employment for doctors and nurses who'd otherwise be scrounging benefits on the dole?

Smokers are actually doing us a favour by dropping dead early and quickly (rather than requiring expensive late life care) - also by not taking up too much pension (if any), so leaving more for the rest of us. Us old non smokers are in fact offering greater employment opportunities to medical and care personnel by lingering on for ever and needing so much support - quick heart attacks and strokes contributed by the smokers are much less demanding on NHS (and DHSS pension) resources.

[BrandNewGuy]

wulfhound Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Next up: smokers are actually doing us all a

> favour by creating employment for doctors and

> nurses who'd otherwise be scrounging benefits on

> the dole?

Well, it reminds me of one of the criticisms of GDP as a measure of economic wellbing that, for example, crime and its consequences have a positive effect on GDP. I remember vaguely a figure quoted for the avergae 'GDP effect' of a murder. I think it's in the millions.

[Blah Blah]

We only spend 10% of GDP on the NHS. Reasonable for something as important as healthcare wouldn't you say? Whereas the 10% GDP we spend on arms?

[mako]

Not entirely sure what you mean. Are you saying the Reported Road Casualties Great Britain 2012 Annual Report is a joke publication?

Yes that is what I am saying. A joke as in distorting data to present a view rather than facts. Obviously it isnt funny.

[mako]

Wulf, as you say the insurance companies are not bleeding heart socialists, they will still make their profits. So therefore I wouldnt expect a massive saving if I were you if accident rates came down. anyway you are ignoring the point. The entire cost would not be saved if there was no accident, but that is the number misleadingly used in the cost saving calculation. to use your smokers comparison it would be like saying if someone stopped smoking it would save the country ?x because of nhs savings, without adding in the loss of tax revenue for example. It may be a saving or not I do not know but I know it wouldnt be accurate to use just one of the figures in the calculation.

[mako]

This has nothing to do with safety-it is all about revenue. Short of funds councils still wish to spend our money. They have made a fortune out of making Londoners pay to park, often even outside their own properties, they then made us pay to even drive in our city, and now are looking to make a mint out of speed cameras where they are not needed. There are numerous obvious flaws in their calculations. You cannot simply extrapolate data from the reduction in accidents from previous black spots and outside schools etc that have already been made 20mph areas and apply it to areas where there are no or few accidents and expecft to make the same reductions in incidents. A bit of road that has had no incidents cannot show any improvement. They only include the perceived savings, but not the costs such as lost work hours and will get away with it by using the emotive 'its safer' when really its 'a moneyspinner'. Thst is why it is happening now. that is why they slip in the 'it needs enforcing as signs only reduce speed by an average of 1mph' so there is a call for enforcement i.e. speed cameras. If it was about safety on our roads where is the pledge that revenue from all these cost savings and cameras will go on providing better cycle lanes for example. there is none because they just want our cash.

[rodneybewes]

mako Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Not entirely sure what you mean. Are you saying

> the Reported Road Casualties Great Britain 2012

> Annual Report is a joke publication?

>

> Yes that is what I am saying. A joke as in

> distorting data to present a view rather than

> facts. Obviously it isnt funny.

Well, obviously you can twist stats to fit any agenda but that report looks pretty neutral to me. It's certainly not a joke. At least it backs itself up with hard facts.

[Blah Blah]

Mako does make an interesting point though. A road that previously had no accidents can't be improved by a reduced limit data wise. It could then also be argued that if an accident were to then happen that the road had been made less safe. The only part of data that is irrefutable is the damage and injury done at 30mpr cpmared to 20mpr. Everything else is based on data that doesn't apply to most stretches of road.

[StraferJack]

if the road without accidents becomes a 20mph zone it could be as part of a widespread change to avoid this stated confusion some peolpe have checking if it's a 30 or a 20 zone?

[nunhead_man]

Hmmm - reported collisions do not equal actual collisions

Note the process at http://content.met.police.uk/Article/Collision-forms-and-reports/1400005513174/1400005513174

And

www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/259012/rrcgb-quality-statement.pdf

"Accidents which do not result in a personal injury (i.e. ?damage-only? accidents) are not included."

And again please do not use the word "ACCIDENT" - these are COLLISIONS!!

Blah Blah Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Mako does make an interesting point though. A road

> that previously had no accidents can't be improved

> by a reduced limit data wise.

[mako]

More valuable would be a publication of the 'contributory factors' that police are required to evaluate when there has been an incident. Speed often isnt the main factor or a factor at all and publication of this information would be useful. Does anyone really think that unreported accidents cost the country ?34billion a year? Absolute nonsense imo.

[wulfhound]

This has nothing to do with safety-it is all about revenue. Short of funds councils still wish to spend our money. They have made a fortune out of making Londoners pay to park, often even outside their own properties, they then made us pay to even drive in our city, and now are looking to make a mint out of speed cameras where they are not needed.

Doubtful. Even if there is much enforcement, the rules on what they can do with the money raised are very tight. You can thank Eric "Ending Labour's War On The Motorist" Pickles for that one.

There are numerous obvious flaws in their calculations. You cannot simply extrapolate data from the reduction in accidents from previous black spots and outside schools etc that have already been made 20mph areas and apply it to areas where there are no or few accidents and expecft to make the same reductions in incidents. A bit of road that has had no incidents cannot show any improvement.

Indeed not, but the accident rate is high enough over the borough as a whole that the trends will be unambiguously clear in a couple of years - well in time for the next round of elections. And targetting only the black spots, paradoxically, ends up targeting the roads which appear at first glance to be best suited to fast driving (most of the crashes are in the busiest places i.e. main roads); and leads us back to the patchwork of confusion which OP complains of.

They only include the perceived savings, but not the costs such as lost work hours and will get away with it by using the emotive 'its safer' when really its 'a moneyspinner'. Thst is why it is happening now. that is why they slip in the 'it needs enforcing as signs only reduce speed by an average of 1mph' so there is a call for enforcement i.e. speed cameras. If it was about safety on our roads where is the pledge that revenue from all these cost savings and cameras will go on providing better cycle lanes for example. there is none because they just want our cash.

I don't really buy the lost work hours argument - with the exception of delivery companies - and even then it's more like lost operator profits from having to employ additional staff. To which I'd reply, sod the lot of 'em, they don't get to profit from public space by needlessly endangering the public. I've a bit more sympathy for self employed cabbies, but ultimately businesses don't get to make the law.

In theory this will help those with viable alternative ways of getting from A to B to do so, make travel times more predictable overall. Slower roads = more kids allowed to walk and cycle to school, more non lycra types cycling to work = less school run jams, fewer mums losing work hours playing Taxi, reduced obesity costs on the NHS etc.?

More valuable would be a publication of the 'contributory factors' that police are required to evaluate when there has been an incident. Speed often isnt the main factor or a factor at all and publication of this information would be useful.

It's not about cause, it's about severity. Speed will always be a factor in the amount of damage done, even if most of the time it's not a causative factor. Whether or not speed was a factor, whether or not it's even the driver's fault at all, not relevant. Pretty standard H&S really - create an environment which is tolerant of mistakes.

If it was about safety on our roads where is the pledge that revenue from all these cost savings and cameras will go on providing better cycle lanes for example.

They're spending ???? on cycling at the moment, but most of it isn't on cycle lanes - few borough roads are wide enough to put in decent, consistent cycle lanes without further aggravating the parking situation and/or losing bus lanes. That appears to be why the planned Cycle Superhighway along Lordship Lane got canned & they're now looking at back-street routes.

[nunhead_man]

Unreported COLLISIONS

mako Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Does anyone really think that unreported accidents

> cost the country ?34billion a year? Absolute

> nonsense imo.

[Zebedee Tring]

I haven't read through all of this thread, so perhaps someone could tell me:

(1) Is the Borough wide 20mph limit (a) an advisory limit or (b) one which is actually legally enforceable?

(2) If (1)(b) is the case, what is the legal basis of the 20mph limit - i.e. has it gone through the full statutory procedure imposing a 20 mph limit?

[mako]

nunhead_man Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Unreported COLLISIONS

>

> mako Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Does anyone really think that unreported

> accidents

> > cost the country ?34billion a year? Absolute

> > nonsense imo.

sorry nunhead. Do you think unreported collisions really cost the country ?34billion a year?

[mako]

'Pretty standard H&S really'

Wulf I agree with you that this is the standard H&S crap.

Not so sure with the 'sod the lot of em', 'fewer mums losing work hours playing Taxi', 'reduced obesity' type comments though. Hey perhaps changing the speed limit is also the answer to global terrorism. Your arguments dont explain why dropping to 20 is right and not 10 or 5 or banning cars.

[first mate]

ZT, that is a really good question? Would James Barber, or Renata Hamvas, or any other Councillor, know?

[Zebedee Tring]

First mate, I've asked James Barber for his comments on his "East Dulwich councillor - how can I help?" thread.

[wulfhound]

Not so sure with the 'sod the lot of em', 'fewer mums losing work hours playing Taxi', 'reduced obesity' type comments though.

Is it that you don't think kids being driven to school unnecessarily, adding to jams & making them less active, is a problem - or you don't think 20 will in any way help with that?

Hey perhaps changing the speed limit is also the answer to global terrorism. Your arguments dont explain why dropping to 20 is right and not 10 or 5 or banning cars.

I've explained repeatedly, but here goes again. 20mph, when applied to Borough roads (non red routes) in an inner London area, has minimal impact on most journey times, for a seemingly large reduction in the severity of injury to pedestrians, cyclists and motorcyclists involved in collisions with cars. You're never more than a couple of miles from a Red Route, even driving the length of the borough at 1am will only take three or four minutes longer than before.

10mph has a far greater impact on journey times, and it appears that 20 reduces injuries to a degree such that 10 can't do very much more. Below 15 or so, most of the nastiest incidents involve heavy vehicles of one sort or another, and speed limits don't really help much. There is perhaps an argument for 10mph in home zones & other small side roads where nobody's trying to get anywhere (& so journey time cost is irreleant), but elsewhere the tradeoffs aren't in favour of anything much below 20.

[first mate]

For those that have them, what are Sat navs reporting as speed limit on the new 20mph roads? Thanks ZT for asking if these new 20mph stretches are binding in law or advisory. It is taking councillors a long time to respond to questions about new speed limits and restricted parking.