'20mph for West Hove'

[Mr Cholmondeley-Warner]

We already know she was stupid, and annoying, so what mileage could there be in finding that out? You need to plan farther ahead

[drivingsteve]

I've never had a problem with the concept of 20mph limits in heavily built up areas.

It's a little naive to say speed doesn't kill: lack of observation does. It's also idealistic to suggest that further driver training rather than lower speed limits offers a better means of increasing road safety.

Nobody likes to be held up unduly on a journey, especially people who feel they have sufficient ability to judge what speed is appropriate for themselves. It is however a basic fundamental fact that lowering your speed provides more time and more space in which to react. Without getting too bogged down with technicalities it's therefore reasonable to equate lower speeds with improved safety.

How far should we go though? Decrease speeds further to 15mph or maybe even 10mph? Probably not. However, passing pedestrians at close quarters at 30mph in densely built up areas is probably not a good idea. I suspect that the sensible balance between safety for pedestrians and convenience for drivers probably exists somewhere between 20 and 30mph.

Unfortunately legislation needs to be aimed at the lower end of the driver competence range. The threshold of acceptability could always be increased though. More difficult driving tests that are more in line with advanced driving standards, perhaps?

[martine]

...It's a little naive to say speed doesn't kill: lack of observation does. It's also idealistic to suggest that further driver training rather than lower speed limits offers a better means of increasing road safety.

Nobody likes to be held up unduly on a journey, especially people who feel they have sufficient ability to judge what speed is appropriate for themselves. It is however a basic fundamental fact that lowering your speed provides more time and more space in which to react. Without getting too bogged down with technicalities it's therefore reasonable to equate lower speeds with improved safety...

I don't agree...inappropriate speed limits do little good for road safety and in some cases can make things worse. They can lead to tailgating, dangerous overtakes or distraction - it might be tempting for even more drivers to read that text when following someone doing 20.

Bristol is implementing widespread 20 limits and I'm on the council consultation committee. I have no problem with purely residential backwaters being 20 - but I had real fears of a 'blanket 20 right across Bristol' as it was originally described. Thankfully there are going to be lots of 'exceptions' where the limit will remain at 30 or 40 - to keep the traffic flowing. The very central part of the city IS going to be solid 20 and it's imminent (next month) but the next phase (south central Bristol) has many roads not included.

[fungus]

...It's a little naive to say speed doesn't kill: lack of observation does. It's also idealistic to suggest that further driver training rather than lower speed limits offers a better means of increasing road safety.

Nobody likes to be held up unduly on a journey, especially people who feel they have sufficient ability to judge what speed is appropriate for themselves. It is however a basic fundamental fact that lowering your speed provides more time and more space in which to react. Without getting too bogged down with technicalities it's therefore reasonable to equate lower speeds with improved safety...

I don't agree...inappropriate speed limits do little good for road safety and in some cases can make things worse. They can lead to tailgating, dangerous overtakes or distraction - it might be tempting for even more drivers to read that text when following someone doing 20.

Bristol is implementing widespread 20 limits and I'm on the council consultation committee. I have no problem with purely residential backwaters being 20 - but I had real fears of a 'blanket 20 right across Bristol' as it was originally described. Thankfully there are going to be lots of 'exceptions' where the limit will remain at 30 or 40 - to keep the traffic flowing. The very central part of the city IS going to be solid 20 and it's imminent (next month) but the next phase (south central Bristol) has many roads not included.

Inappropriate speed limits lead to a general disrespect of speed limits whether sensibly set or not.

[drivingsteve]

...It's a little naive to say speed doesn't kill: lack of observation does. It's also idealistic to suggest that further driver training rather than lower speed limits offers a better means of increasing road safety.

Nobody likes to be held up unduly on a journey, especially people who feel they have sufficient ability to judge what speed is appropriate for themselves. It is however a basic fundamental fact that lowering your speed provides more time and more space in which to react. Without getting too bogged down with technicalities it's therefore reasonable to equate lower speeds with improved safety...

I don't agree...inappropriate speed limits do little good for road safety and in some cases can make things worse.

Inappropriate speed limits lead to a general disrespect of speed limits whether sensibly set or not.

I agree innappropriate speed limits are a bad idea for several reasons. I'm not supporting the introduction of innappropriate limits, just the selective use of 20mph zones in heavily built up areas.

[martine]

I agree innappropriate speed limits are a bad idea for several reasons. I'm not supporting the introduction of innappropriate limits, just the selective use of 20mph zones in heavily built up areas.

I was taking issue with your earlier generalisation:

...it's therefore reasonable to equate lower speeds with improved safety...

As I don't believe that is always the case...but we do seem to have agreement on selective use of 20s in residential areas and heavily built-up city centres.

Of course BRAKE would disagree

[drivingsteve]

I agree innappropriate speed limits are a bad idea for several reasons. I'm not supporting the introduction of innappropriate limits, just the selective use of 20mph zones in heavily built up areas.

I was taking issue with your earlier generalisation:

...it's therefore reasonable to equate lower speeds with improved safety...

As I don't believe that is always the case...but we do seem to have agreement on selective use of 20s in residential areas and heavily built-up city centres.

Of course BRAKE would disagree

I don't think it's an unfair generalisation. The benefits in terms of avoiding an accident may be subjective, but I don't think many would argue that when an accident happens, the greater the speed involved, the worse it is.

I would only support the introduction of 20mph zones in densely built up areas, not as a blanket replacement for 30mph limits.

[jont]

I don't think it's an unfair generalisation. The benefits in terms of avoiding an accident may be subjective, but I don't think many would argue that when an accident happens, the greater the speed involved, the worse it is.

Indeed, much better we encourage drivers to disengage, blindly follow a number on a stick and run over children at 20mph than pay attention and slow down from 30mph to an appropriate speed and avoid the accident

[MGF]

I wish we could do the contrary effectively, but do drivers need encouraging to disengage? I think many drivers are not sufficiently engaged with the driving process regardless of the limits.

[drivingsteve]

I don't think it's an unfair generalisation. The benefits in terms of avoiding an accident may be subjective, but I don't think many would argue that when an accident happens, the greater the speed involved, the worse it is.

Indeed, much better we encourage drivers to disengage, blindly follow a number on a stick and run over children at 20mph than pay attention and slow down from 30mph to an appropriate speed and avoid the accident

Seems like a strange remark to make. Are you suggesting that driving within the law, and remaining engaged and paying attention are mutually exclusive traits?

Are you also trying to argue that an accident at 30mph is NOT likely to be worse than one at 20mph?

[jont]

I don't think it's an unfair generalisation. The benefits in terms of avoiding an accident may be subjective, but I don't think many would argue that when an accident happens, the greater the speed involved, the worse it is.

Indeed, much better we encourage drivers to disengage, blindly follow a number on a stick and run over children at 20mph than pay attention and slow down from 30mph to an appropriate speed and avoid the accident

Seems like a strange remark to make. Are you suggesting that driving within the law, and remaining engaged and paying attention are mutually exclusive traits?

Are you also trying to argue that an accident at 30mph is NOT likely to be worse than one at 20mph?

I'm arguing that having drivers capable of deciding for themselves what a suitable maximum speed for a given situation is is preferable to having drivers believing they are safe so long as they blindly comply with a number on a stick (which seems to be the recurring message put out by existing campaigns for lower limits).

[Gareth]

Are you suggesting that driving within the law, and remaining engaged and paying attention are mutually exclusive traits?

If the driving task gets boring enough they may become mutually exclusive. The tendency towards lower limits that result in a disconnect with how the normal careful and competent driver would assess a safe speed is likely to increase the sense of boredom.

Are you also trying to argue that an accident at 30mph is NOT likely to be worse than one at 20mph?

Mindless 20 versus engaged observant 30? Which driver would you prefer to see?

[drivingsteve]

Are you also trying to argue that an accident at 30mph is NOT likely to be worse than one at 20mph?

I'm arguing that having drivers capable of deciding for themselves what a suitable maximum speed for a given situation is is preferable to having drivers believing they are safe so long as they blindly comply with a number on a stick (which seems to be the recurring message put out by existing campaigns for lower limits).

So in answer to my question, would you say an accident at 30mph is likely to be worse than an accident at 20mph?

Are you suggesting that driving within the law, and remaining engaged and paying attention are mutually exclusive traits?

If the driving task gets boring enough they may become mutually exclusive. The tendency towards lower limits that result in a disconnect with how the normal careful and competent driver would assess a safe speed is likely to increase the sense of boredom.

A competent driver should be able to retain concentration at a range of speeds, including those that he feels are unjustifiable low.

[jont]

A competent driver should be able to retain concentration at a range of speeds, including those that he feels are unjustifiable low.

Do you think it's competent drivers that are having crashes?

[drivingsteve]

A competent driver should be able to retain concentration at a range of speeds, including those that he feels are unjustifiable low.

Do you think it's competent drivers that are having crashes?

Let's address the question that you've avoided several times first, then I'll respond to that:

Do you think an accident at 30mph is likely to be worse than one at 20mph? Yes or no?