20 limits (split from rodk introduction)

Forum for general chat, news, blogs, humour, jokes etc.

Postby akirk » Mon Aug 10, 2015 4:17 pm


Hi Rod,

welcome - interesting role you have. I hope you are happy to be asked questions...
for example:

A 30mph limit allows speeds above 20mph to be legal, but you should still drive to the conditions, so at school time etc. a much slower speed makes sense - why then do we need 20mph limits - a 30 limit doesn't prevent 20 / a 20 limit does prevent 30 even when safe.

or phrased another way...

why do you believe that the answer to core issues (such as inappropriate speed) is to deal with the symptom (using punishment to enforce) rather than dealing with the root cause - a need for driver training...

for what it is worth - I don't agree with a need for 20mph speed limits, and would much rather see efforts / money spent on driver training which has a much wider benefit - Bristol has moved so much to 20 mph that I will now simply not visit Bristol where once I used to visit for concerts / shops / etc.

Alasdair
akirk
 
Posts: 668
Joined: Thu Oct 30, 2014 11:07 am
Location: Cotswolds

Postby rodk » Mon Aug 10, 2015 4:31 pm


Alasdair

I suspect that what you have asked could apply to any speed limit. There will always be different interpretations as to what is appropriate and that is why they are decided by Traffic Authorities rather than individual drivers.

I am sure there will be other threads on limits which may well be appropriate for you to comment.

Best regards

Rod
rodk
 
Posts: 21
Joined: Mon Aug 10, 2015 8:17 am

Postby revian » Mon Aug 10, 2015 4:59 pm


Hi Rod....

Good to have the opportunity to comment... Though seeing the reply to Alasdair I'm a bit confused as to whether it's looked for or not...

I'm a fan of responsible driving and don't often get near 30 mph in 'side streets' ...

Round me a blanket 20mph has been imposed which doesnt make the slightest difference to those few who drove less well before. (And without any accidents as far as I know) It has imposed 20 mph on roads which are entirely suitable for 30 at any time of day or night.

I'd rather see specific problematic roads (based on evidence) put to 20mph.

It doesn't look to me as if the Traffic Authorities decide alone...but are influenced by pressure groups... Else what is '20s plenty' for? There's just no organised body saying '30s the limit init' :wink:

I'm all for safety (having done further training with Rospa) but driver education is a bigger problem solver.....

Kind regards

Ian
Wirral
revian
 
Posts: 509
Joined: Fri Aug 02, 2013 6:37 pm

Postby dvenman » Mon Aug 10, 2015 7:06 pm


I think we're all agreed here that driver education would have a longer lasting impact than speed limits.

Unfortunately the pressure is for quick fixes, and education won't do that.
dvenman
 
Posts: 51
Joined: Sun Feb 22, 2015 6:12 pm

Postby revian » Mon Aug 10, 2015 7:25 pm


dvenman wrote:I think we're all agreed here that driver education would have a longer lasting impact than speed limits.

Unfortunately the pressure is for quick fixes, and education won't do that.

Surely... A quick fix but no faster than 20mph? :roll:
Wirral
revian
 
Posts: 509
Joined: Fri Aug 02, 2013 6:37 pm

Postby rodk » Mon Aug 10, 2015 9:50 pm


Ian/dvenman

Wirral did a very fragmented and isolated 20mph implementation. Places now doing authority-wide implementations are complementing it with wide community engagement. (I guess a form of education). This is something which increases compliance and ownership of the benefits. Isolated 20mph limit tend to get a "why do I have to slow down in these places" response. They also endorse "speeding up" elsewhere.

Whilst respecting your view that such roads are "entirely suitable for 30 at any time of day or night" that is an individual view. Shouldn't a societal or community view be taken by the authority that has the actual responsibility for setting speed limits? And with every 20mph limit set then the public have had the opportunity to object to the setting on individual roads. Hence your individual view can be taken into account.

20's Plenty is certainly looking to inform and create debate. But our campaigns are local campaigns from within communities.

The claim that driver education is a bigger problem solver is not endorsed by evidence. In fact such organisations as SWOV in their Sustainable Safety approach recognise this and say :-

Misconception 1: man is the cause, therefore education is the solution

Man has a central position in traffic. This means that traffic has to deal with human abilities and limitations. People make errors, even if they are well-trained and motivated: this is a universal human shortcoming crucial for traffic safety which is confirmed by crash analyses. This means that beside defects of the vehicle and roads, the human being is the most important cause of crashes. A commonly heard argument is that, consequently, most effort should be put into education, since infrastructure and vehicle are a lesser contribution to the problem. However, this line of thought fails to allow for the notion that the design or layout of the road environment can contribute to the prevention of errors, or limit the errors' consequences. Particularly man’s surroundings greatly influence human behaviour. Clearly, education also has an important role, but has limited scope. Ultimately, it is
important to know the effectiveness of various types of measures in relation with the human measure and to use this knowledge.


What I would ask, is that if you want to understand the reasons why Traffic Authorities are implementing wide-area 20mph limits then you have to understand the wider societal benefits of lower speeds. I hope that my comments can help.

Best wishes
rodk
 
Posts: 21
Joined: Mon Aug 10, 2015 8:17 am

Postby fungus » Mon Aug 10, 2015 10:06 pm


Inappropriate speed is the problem, and education is the answer, not imposing lower speed limits on motorists. A number on a metal lolipop does not indicate a safe speed at any time. Safe speeds will vary from second to second due to traffic density and the nature of hazards present. We need to produce thinking drivers, not drivers who blindly obey a speed limit because the authorities tell us that it is dangerous to exceed it, so it must be safe.

rodk wrote:What I would ask, is that if you want to understand the reasons why Traffic Authorities are implementing wide-area 20mph limits then you have to understand the wider societal benefits of lower speeds. I hope that my comments can help.


And here's the cynic in me. Political expediency.
Nigel ADI
IAM observer
User avatar
fungus
 
Posts: 1739
Joined: Sun Feb 17, 2008 8:16 pm
Location: Dorset

Postby akirk » Mon Aug 10, 2015 10:16 pm


rodk wrote:
Misconception 1: man is the cause, therefore education is the solution

Man has a central position in traffic. This means that traffic has to deal with human abilities and limitations. People make errors, even if they are well-trained and motivated: this is a universal human shortcoming crucial for traffic safety which is confirmed by crash analyses. This means that beside defects of the vehicle and roads, the human being is the most important cause of crashes. A commonly heard argument is that, consequently, most effort should be put into education, since infrastructure and vehicle are a lesser contribution to the problem. However, this line of thought fails to allow for the notion that the design or layout of the road environment can contribute to the prevention of errors, or limit the errors' consequences. Particularly man’s surroundings greatly influence human behaviour. Clearly, education also has an important role, but has limited scope. Ultimately, it is
important to know the effectiveness of various types of measures in relation with the human measure and to use this knowledge.


That is terribly flawed...

people make errors - even if they are well-trained and motivated

not very well trained then! - yes, in many fields this is so - but the simple training of drive slowly in built up areas unless clear once taken onboard is difficult to see the driver falling into error - training is all

This means that beside defects of the vehicle and roads, the human being is the most important cause of crashes. A commonly heard argument is that, consequently, most effort should be put into education, since infrastructure and vehicle are a lesser contribution to the problem. However, this line of thought fails to allow for the notion that the design or layout of the road environment can contribute to the prevention of errors, or limit the errors' consequences.


this is contradictory - beside defects of the roads, road design can help - surely that is the same issue?
if design or layout of roads can help (which it undoubtedly can) then if this is not happening - that is a defect of the roads, nothing to do with the driver per se

can't be bothered to keep critiqueing -it is very flawed

and none of this tackles the point I make elsewhere - the case you quote a 20 mph speed limit was no help - the driver should have been doing lower than that - in that case the child would only not have been involved in the accident by the driver analysing the situation and choosing a slower speed than the limit - i.e. the case you quote proves that only with driver education would the accident have been avoided - it is driver education we need, not a false belief that with slower limits everyone will be safe

Alasdair
akirk
 
Posts: 668
Joined: Thu Oct 30, 2014 11:07 am
Location: Cotswolds

Postby rodk » Mon Aug 10, 2015 10:21 pm


Alastair

Don't worry. I am not going to enter a debate about the effectiveness of SWOV and the credibility of their approach to Road Danger Reduction.

Take it up with them if you don't agree!

Rod
rodk
 
Posts: 21
Joined: Mon Aug 10, 2015 8:17 am

Postby revian » Mon Aug 10, 2015 10:26 pm


Surely it's a bit of overstatement to say that education doesn't work? I'd be the first (well not the first exactly! :wink: ) to say that 'mankind' is flawed. But to say, in effect, education doesn't work? I'm not aware that in driving it's been pressed that much. My feeling is not that it's been tried and found wanting - just not tried.

I'm fully supportive of laws, punishment, community view etc but I'm unconvinced that the 20mph campaign is more than a 'go slower campaign'. I wouldn't have an issue with that in the appropriate circumstances but, to repeat, it just comes across to me negatively.

Of course mine is an individual view - that doesn't make it wrong as an observation or analysis. Pressure groups are not automatically more incisive or objective. I live inside the edge of a 20mph area in which it's obviously pointless. People either drive slowly enough (and most do/always have), a few are too quick (but that's only my view) and there's key roads within it which would be fine with the 30mph limit and no accidents (I didn't mean an enforced drive at 30mph!). Progress is distinctly and, I dare say, ridiculously , slow at almost all of the time. There's no gain in this limit.

I don't take this issue lightly. I'm one of those on this forum who have had to deal with the aftermath of driving which has killed those involved and devasted families. It's not been in the 20-30 mph region. Recovering the streets for play would be more understandable but we've moved a long way from that in every sense. A few examples of that, which there are, don't fit that many other scenarios I guess.
Wirral
revian
 
Posts: 509
Joined: Fri Aug 02, 2013 6:37 pm

Postby akirk » Mon Aug 10, 2015 10:47 pm


rodk wrote:Alastair

Don't worry. I am not going to enter a debate about the effectiveness of SWOV and the credibility of their approach to Road Danger Reduction.

Take it up with them if you don't agree!

Rod


Why would I?
I was critiquing it on the basis that you were using it to validate your view - why did you quote them then? If you quote them to validate your view, presumably you have the same view? In which case I am critiquing your view...

Alasdair
akirk
 
Posts: 668
Joined: Thu Oct 30, 2014 11:07 am
Location: Cotswolds

Postby skodatezzer » Mon Aug 10, 2015 10:51 pm


Do you drive, RodK? have you had any further driver training beyond the DSA test?
IAM National Observer. Chair, E. Surrey IAM.
skodatezzer
 
Posts: 224
Joined: Wed Mar 24, 2010 10:04 pm
Location: East Surrey

Postby true blue » Tue Aug 11, 2015 12:22 am


I'm a big fan of the '20 when lights flash' zones outside schools etc. - a sensible response to a time-varying hazard.

A blanket 20 is a very blunt tool, and while appropriate in some situations (e.g. roads where, due to on-street parking, the clear width is small) is not something I see any need for in 90+% of Cambridge's recently proposed 20 zones.

Unfortunately, speed limits in urban areas are NOT set by experts (e.g. highways engineers), but layperson councillors with no specialist knowledge whatsoever. There is no consistency between different cities, no nationally enforced set of standard guidelines and therefore ultimately no responsibility for the decisions made by these ignorant people.

I'm all for speed limits being reviewed in light of new circumstances (e.g. new residential developments leading to increased traffic flow), but when was the last time someone saw a limit revised upwards? Cars are on the whole safer and better maintained than a generation ago, traffic flow has changed little in many semi-rural areas, yet speed limits across the country are dropping. WHY?! Likewise, when the occasional out-of-town retail park gives up the ghost, why isn't the once-sensible 30 limit in the vicinity raised back up to 40/50/60?

Any argument that driver education is ineffective is complete nonsense. Otherwise we wouldn't have the DSA test. The sooner people accept that a driving license is a privilege and not a God-given right, and that standards can and should be maintained and raised, the better. Would a 10-year retest really be problematic?
true blue
 
Posts: 138
Joined: Fri Aug 02, 2013 11:51 am
Location: Cambridge

Postby waremark » Tue Aug 11, 2015 12:44 am


Why do councillors think that blanket 20 limits on through routes will be popular (as politicians they would not impose them if they did not think that)? I never meet anyone who supports them and would like to know how many people do and their reasons.

Of course, I drive very slowly on narrow residential streets and unlike others here have no objection to enforcement of low limits in such locations (which of course does not happen). Also apparently unlike others, while I support efforts to improve education I don't have confidence that a realistically achievable amount of driver education is particularly effective at improving safety. Most drivers are capable of driving safely when they choose to do so.
waremark
 
Posts: 2440
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 5:18 pm

Postby TripleS » Tue Aug 11, 2015 7:34 am


waremark wrote:Why do councillors think that blanket 20 limits on through routes will be popular (as politicians they would not impose them if they did not think that)? I never meet anyone who supports them and would like to know how many people do and their reasons.

Of course, I drive very slowly on narrow residential streets and unlike others here have no objection to enforcement of low limits in such locations (which of course does not happen). Also apparently unlike others, while I support efforts to improve education I don't have confidence that a realistically achievable amount of driver education is particularly effective at improving safety. Most drivers are capable of driving safely when they choose to do so.


As far as I'm concerned, most normal drivers drive fairly safely most of the time. OK, they (and indeed the rest of us, the elite etc.!) are far from perfect, but overall I'd say road users are doing pretty well, and it's time they had some credit for that, and be encouraged to maintain attention to the subject and make further improvements when they can.

Quite frankly I'm totally fed up of the ever increasing regime of more rules and constraints, more monitoring and control, more checking up on people, and punishments for minor transgressions that don't matter a hoot. What this leads to is less and less thinking by road users, and consequently more need for laws and rules etc., and so the stupid merry-go-round continues. It's an utterly dsmal approach.

Right, I'm off in search of something more calming. 8)

Best wishes all,
Dave.
TripleS
 
Posts: 6025
Joined: Thu Oct 13, 2005 9:47 pm
Location: Briggswath, Whitby

Next

Return to General Car Chat Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests