20 mph!!!

[keekybreeks]

Loz Wrote:

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

> Otta Wrote:

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

> -----

> > Loz Wrote:

> >

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

>

> > -----

> > > keekybreeks Wrote:

> > >

> >

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

>

> >

> > > -----

> > > > it seems that being made to driver slower

> is

> > > really causing issues with the communities

> > > > masculinity and your god given right to

> drive

> > > like a real man

> > >

> > > What an utterly sexist tosspot of an opinion.

> >

> > Probably an element of truth to it though.

>

> Most sexist/racist/whatever tosspot opinions

> usually have an 'element of truth', but it's

> rarely an acceptable excuse for having them.

Is this vitriol is a testosterone fuelled male response to a perceived verbal emasculation?

busted

[mako]

welcome to the forum keekybreeks.

[Loz]

keekybreeks Wrote:

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

> Is this vitriol is a testosterone fuelled male

> response to a perceived verbal emasculation?

>

> busted

Hmmm. New poster today.

Anyone else getting a bit of deja ju here?

[keekybreeks]

deja vu again

[Loz]

Maybe. Or maybe it's just all for nothing.

[uncleglen]

I expect that people getting on in years and driving more slowly will be happy that they are not being tooted up every 5 minutes.

[keekybreeks]

the loss of childs life is justified if I can save 4 minutes on my journey to tesco on the OKR

there , I have done it, reduced the meandering wiki sourced arguments to one line of utter toss

this ends the discusson.

[Loz]

OH MY GOD ... WON'T SOMEBODY THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!

No one should ever leave their house. Ever.

[Lowlander]

Loz Wrote:

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

> Lowlander Wrote:

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

> -----

> > Loz Wrote:

> >

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

>

> > -----

> > > Lowlander Wrote:

> > >

> >

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

>

> >

> > > -----

> > > > 20mph seems to be the equilibrium in terms

> of

> > > cost/benefit.

> > >

> > > You have a source/reference for that?

> >

> > Yes - it's burgeoning adoption by councils UK

> wide

> > and public acceptance (~60% in favour).

> Haven't

> > seen any mainstream arguments for above or

> below

> > 20mph.

>

> Councils are hardly known for using actual

> evidence. "Something must be done, this is

> something, let's do it" is more the usual

> approach. And public acceptance is entirely

> dependent on what question you ask!

>

> So is there any actual scientific evidence or

> stats to back the cost/benefit ratio, comparing it

> to, say 25mph or 15mph?

Err, read the links I posted!

[DaveR]

"I said I have a view of what the data may show but you will see that I make it clear it's a wait and see scenario because we don't know."

=

"So I expect the data to not be convincing in boroughs where accident rates were average. I fully expect there to be no significant change or benefit."

not

[Loz]

Lowlander Wrote:

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

> > So is there any actual scientific evidence or

> > stats to back the cost/benefit ratio, comparing it

> > to, say 25mph or 15mph?

>

> Err, read the links I posted!

Which one/s? I can only see the City of London one, which doesn't cover that question.

[Lowlander]

Loz Wrote:

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

> Lowlander Wrote:

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

> -----

> > > So is there any actual scientific evidence or

> > > stats to back the cost/benefit ratio,

> comparing it

> > > to, say 25mph or 15mph?

> >

> > Err, read the links I posted!

>

> Which one/s? I can only see the City of London

> one, which doesn't cover that question.

You could google "20mph cost benefit analysis"

But I've done that for you, found the link and point you towards pages 57 - 61

http://www.tfl.gov.uk/cdn/static/cms/documents/20-mph-zones-and-road-safety-in-london.pdf

[mako]

the key conclusion being that

'The results suggest that implementing 20 mph zones in high casualty areas is a cost

effective way to reduce road injury, however, costs of implementation outweigh benefits in

low casualty areas.' this makes total sense. many of the worst areas have already been done and there is not justiofcation for a borough wide limit.

[Blah Blah]

That is my view too mako.

[Lowlander]

The report also goes on to say that the cost/benefit model for casualty reduction is not a solid science (as others have said, where do you stop 10mph anyone)?

What you do have is a sort of halfway house with red routes at 30mph and everything else 20mnph. Really easy to understand and much better than a piecemeal approach.

If you're still whinging because you're losing 25 seconds a mile in time or can't drive a car at 20mph, I think you may have bigger things to worry about!

[Loz]

Lowlander Wrote:

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

> Loz Wrote:

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

> > > Err, read the links I posted!

> >

> > Which one/s? I can only see the City of London one, which doesn't cover that question.

>

> You could google "20mph cost benefit analysis"

Well, I could have, but you claimed you had already posted the links.

> But I've done that for you, found the link and point you towards pages 57 - 61

>

> http://www.tfl.gov.uk/

That doesn't answer the question I asked at all. That starts and ends with the assumption of 20mph - it doesn't analyse whether 20mph is the correct speed to use based on any cost/benefit analysis as you claimed.

My original question was, "So is there any actual scientific evidence or stats to back the cost/benefit ratio, comparing it to, say 25mph or 15mph?". By your flailing around, I suspect the answer is 'no' then. So we still don't know whether 15mph even better. Or 10mph? Or 5mph? Or what is an 'acceptable' number of deaths/injuries?

There is no cost/benefit analysis as you claimed, is there?

[Lowlander]

Loz Wrote:

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

> Lowlander Wrote:

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

> -----

> > Loz Wrote:

> >

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

>

> > > > Err, read the links I posted!

> > >

> > > Which one/s? I can only see the City of

> London one, which doesn't cover that question.

> >

> > You could google "20mph cost benefit analysis"

>

> Well, I could have, but you claimed you had

> already posted the links.

>

> > But I've done that for you, found the link and

> point you towards pages 57 - 61

> >

> > http://www.tfl.gov.uk/

>

> That doesn't answer the question I asked at all.

> That starts and ends with the assumption of 20mph

> - it doesn't analyse whether 20mph is the correct

> speed to use based on any cost/benefit analysis as

> you claimed.

>

> My original question was, "So is there any actual

> scientific evidence or stats to back the

> cost/benefit ratio, comparing it to, say 25mph or

> 15mph?". By your flailing around, I suspect the

> answer is 'no' then. So we still don't know

> whether 15mph even better. Or 10mph? Or 5mph? Or

> what is an 'acceptable' number of

> deaths/injuries?

>

> There is no cost/benefit analysis as you claimed,

> is there?

This is my take - the Government say that any local authority can lower speed limits to a minimum of 20mph without consulting them.

They based this on a whole bunch of studies (please learn to use google) that give cost benefit analyses for various speed limits. For your benefit:

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=cost+benefit+analysis+15mph

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=cost+benefit+analysis+25mph

They decided (as have many European countries) that 20mph (or 30km/h) was a decent benchmark. I believe some countries/states do have 15mph limits, so perhaps you should consider yourself lucky.

You could spend a whole load of time and effort getting this all from Google - or even an FOI request to Southwark - or just accept, like many people have, that actually 20mph is a reasonable speed and won't really affect them - apart from reducing road noise and accidents.

So yes - the cost benefit analysis is there.

[Lowlander]

In fact, this useful site shows that even car-loving America has some low limits as low as 10mph in residential areas

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_limits_in_the_United_States

Shall we go there?

[Earl Aelfheah]

This is really a moot point. There will be no enforcement and it will have no impact whatsoever on the dick that comes down my road in his van at around 50.

[Lowlander]

rahrahrah Wrote:

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

> This is really a moot point. There will be no

> enforcement and it will have no impact whatsoever

> on the dick that comes down my road in his van at

> around 50.

True, but the majority of people will slow down somewhat (i.e. to around 25) and injuries will fall.

Small price to pay - council waste far more money on other projects, all this effort into questioning 20mph limits could be better diverted.

[Earl Aelfheah]

I'm actually in favour of 20, but I'd like to see a commitment to actually enforcing it - or better, removing the small number of really dangerous individuals who massively flout the current limit, or generally drive with little or no regard for others safety. The problem is that all we get is speed bumps, signs and paint.

[mako]

I hate speed bumps but at least they do have an effect if you are serious about it being a safety issue. I imagine safe drivers who already are low on the causes of accidents will drive slower and it will have little impact on the dangerous drivers.

And lowlander you either dont drive much or dont value your time. if you live a lifetime of driving at 20 instead of thirty it will be over a year extra of your life not spent with friends family etc (more for high mileage drivers). this is relevant, especially to those of us who dont believe these changes will, or even have the main objective of, improving safety.

[Loz]

Lowlander Wrote:

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

> In fact, this useful site shows that even

> car-loving America has some low limits as low as

> 10mph in residential areas

>

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_limits_in_the_U

> nited_States

>

> Shall we go there?

Floundering more a little, LL. And, I think, avoiding the question. Let's rewind a little...

1) Back a page, you stated, "Generally the consensus seems to be 20 seconds per mile. So the question is are people thinking that time savings outweigh the life savings?"

2) I said, "Where does that line of thinking stop? Is 15mph even better? 10mph? 5mph? What is an 'acceptable' number of deaths/injuries?"

3) You said "20mph seems to be the equilibrium in terms of cost/benefit."

4) I said, show me the evidence. Show me where there are actual scientific evidence or stats to back the cost/benefit ratio, comparing it to, say 25mph or 15mph?

Since then, you have a) said you'd already posted the links (you hadn't), b) told me to google it myself and c) posted links that don't show this at all. Full on floundering.

I assume therefore, you have absolutely no evidence whatsoever that 20mph is the "equilibrium in terms of cost/benefit" as you claim. And no evidence that the number of deaths at 20mph are deemed acceptable, but those at 25mph are not. And that the 'life savings' between 15 mph and 20mph are seen as unworthy of concern, but the 'life savings' between 20mph and 25mph/30mph are.

In other words, you are talking out your bottom.

[Charles Notice]

Unfortunately Spock has died so no logical answer will be available.

Live long and prosper(no doubt Southwark will with new thought up fines)

[Lowlander]

Loz Wrote:

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

> Lowlander Wrote:

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

> -----

> > In fact, this useful site shows that even

> > car-loving America has some low limits as low

> as

> > 10mph in residential areas

> >

> >

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_limits_in_the_U

>

> > nited_States

> >

> > Shall we go there?

>

> Floundering more a little, LL. And, I think,

> avoiding the question. Let's rewind a little...

>

> 1) Back a page, you stated, "Generally the

> consensus seems to be 20 seconds per mile. So the

> question is are people thinking that time savings

> outweigh the life savings?"

>

> 2) I said, "Where does that line of thinking stop?

> Is 15mph even better? 10mph? 5mph? What is an

> 'acceptable' number of deaths/injuries?"

>

> 3) You said "20mph seems to be the equilibrium in

> terms of cost/benefit."

>

> 4) I said, show me the evidence. Show me where

> there are actual scientific evidence or stats to

> back the cost/benefit ratio, comparing it to, say

> 25mph or 15mph?

>

> Since then, you have a) said you'd already posted

> the links (you hadn't), b) told me to google it

> myself and c) posted links that don't show this at

> all. Full on floundering.

>

> I assume therefore, you have absolutely no

> evidence whatsoever that 20mph is the "equilibrium

> in terms of cost/benefit" as you claim. And no

> evidence that the number of deaths at 20mph are

> deemed acceptable, but those at 25mph are not.

> And that the 'life savings' between 15 mph and

> 20mph are seen as unworthy of concern, but the

> 'life savings' between 20mph and 25mph/30mph are.

>

> In other words, you are talking out your bottom.

Your point (2): Realistically? I would say 15mph with universal speed cameras and Finnish penalties (i.e. linked to your salary). Personally? Take everyone who breaks the speed limit, confiscate their worldly goods and hang them.

Your point (4): In the links I've posted. My case is rested and you are entitled to your opinion.

Personally, I would say that a speed limit of 20mph for the proposed injury / lives saved is pretty good. If you think not, well that's up to you and we can only agree to disagree.

As a fully paid up 'motorist' and Southwark council tax payer, I'm delighted with the 20mph limit (and would happily pay more council tax to enforce it).

If you're not...well, I should run for councillor, or mayor, and change things!