'20mph for West Hove'

[martine]

Annnywaaay...

Has anyone got anything to add to the Original Post?

[fungus]

NO.

[trashbat]

I do: Brighton and environs are already, via both their authorities and the inherent qualities of the place, such an anti-car environment that I question whether a 20mph limit will make anyone's life any worse.

[TripleS]

Gareth, I have no intention of being drawn into an arguement with you. I was asking jont a perfectly reasonable question regarding the potential outcome of accidents at different speeds.

Ah, you see here I beg to differ. I don't think your question was "perfectly reasonable". It was a classic straw man tactic. And I hope you see the hypocrisy in calling my behaviour "politician like" before stating that you won't get drawn any further into a debate that doesn't seem to be going in the direction you hoped

Heh, Steve is relatively new here, and very welcome. He's got plenty of time to make adjustments to his approach (I'm still having to work on that ) but it might be helpful to bear in mind that some folk here do have considerable experience and a great deal of expertise; and that group might include Gareth.

I've been here quite a while too (but without the high level expertise) and I still keep finding my contributions don't always receive quite the response I hoped for. So we pick ourselves up and work round the setbacks, but basically, when it's all reckoned up, we're on the same side. Let's not forget that.

[martine]

[MGF]

...The question is loaded in that it pre-supposes that the accident is inevitable and can only be mitigated by reducing the impact speed....

Accidents are inevitable hence the availability of insurance. Yes, we can avoid accidents but we are human and don't always take the care we should.

The more that the environment presents drivers with opportunities to hurt people, the more that focussing on what the speed limit should be misses the point, because adherence to the limit is such a minor adjunct to what actually matters.

Absolutely - very well put.

Following that logic insurance also misses the point. I believe that if we didn't have insurance we would have far fewer accidents.

20 mph is the obvious limit in any area like to have pedestrians on the road if we are relying mostly on the limit preventing fatalities and serious injuries. Limits will probably continue to fall until there are tangible economic or social costs to them.

[GJD]

if we are relying mostly on the limit preventing fatalities and serious injuries.

Relying mostly on the limit for that is precisely what we should not be doing, because the best that can achieve is the "it's ok to drive into people as long as you do it slow enough that you probably won't kill them" approach, and that approach is not good enough.

[PeterE]

Following that logic insurance also misses the point. I believe that if we didn't have insurance we would have far fewer accidents.

So uninsured drivers have far fewer accidents than insured ones, do they?

And one of the key reasons for insurance is to pay damages to third-party victims of accidents which would be completely beyond the means of those responsible unless they were millionaires. Without insurance, these costs would fall on the State and have to come from general taxation.

[drivingsteve]

Gareth, I have no intention of being drawn into an arguement with you. I was asking jont a perfectly reasonable question regarding the potential outcome of accidents at different speeds.

Ah, you see here I beg to differ. I don't think your question was "perfectly reasonable". It was a classic straw man tactic. And I hope you see the hypocrisy in calling my behaviour "politician like" before stating that you won't get drawn any further into a debate that doesn't seem to be going in the direction you hoped

Heh, Steve is relatively new here, and very welcome. He's got plenty of time to make adjustments to his approach (I'm still having to work on that ) but it might be helpful to bear in mind that some folk here do have considerable experience and a great deal of expertise; and that group might include Gareth.

I've been here quite a while too (but without the high level expertise) and I still keep finding my contributions don't always receive quite the response I hoped for. So we pick ourselves up and work round the setbacks, but basically, when it's all reckoned up, we're on the same side. Let's not forget that.

Dave, thanks for your words of welcome. It's good that many of the people on here are very experienced, as I am myself (certainly in miles driving, if not so much in years). I don't expect people to agree with me, in fact I prefer a bit of a debate with differing views. What I object to is being told I'm talking nonsense, or other derogatory remarks. Like you say, we're all on the same side, and as such we should all value each other's opinions, even if there are differences.

[MGF]

Relying mostly on the limit for that is precisely what we should not be doing, because the best that can achieve is the "it's ok to drive into people as long as you do it slow enough that you probably won't kill them" approach, and that approach is not good enough.

Good enough for whom? The objective is to reduce deaths and serious injuries on the roads. Assuming compliance is achievable, an effective way of achieving this is to reduce maximum speed limits. I have doubts as to whether compliance with 20 mph can be achieved without physical obstructions so a blanket 20 limit in urban areas is probably unjustified.

Following that logic insurance also misses the point. I believe that if we didn't have insurance we would have far fewer accidents.

So uninsured drivers have far fewer accidents than insured ones, do they?

I don't know what the rates are but I suspect many of those willing to commit the offence of not having insurance are likely to be risk takers generally, (no insurance is not an offence most of us want to risk) or subject to prohibitively high premiums, for example, inexperienced drivers or those convicted of drink driving. Not to mention TWCs. In other words, under the current regime, most of these drivers are likely to be high risk for reasons other than not having insurance.

And one of the key reasons for insurance is to pay damages to third-party victims of accidents which would be completely beyond the means of those responsible unless they were millionaires. Without insurance, these costs would fall on the State and have to come from general taxation.

If that were the case then compulsory 3rd party insurance would have a statutory excess to cover claims that only millionaires could afford to pay. (Think how much cheaper our premiums would be if we could have an excess of, for example, £100,000).

I think, generally, people would drive more carefully if they knew that they would have to sell their house, or have significant deductions taken from their earnings, to cover the costs of a claim rather than pass it to their insurer. Hence, the analogy.

I don't see much difference between he State meeting the costs of accidents through increased taxes or the State requiring us to hand over money to private companies to do the same. Compulsory insurance premiums are a form of taxation.