'20mph for West Hove'

[Kimosabe]

Any thoughts about the validity/ invalidity of reducing the limit to 20mph?

A questionnaire/ survey just dropped through my letterbox. The title of it is '20 for safe streets'. Being as when driving, i'm generally told to get more of a move on when safe to do so, isn't this a total contradiction of everything the IAM and RoSPA have taught me? Is 30mph only for unsafe streets? Do I get an exemption certificate for my efforts to do all I can to become a better driver? Children don't play on the streets as they did when I was a kid and as far as I can recall, i've never had anyone run out infront of me on a residential road in 27 years of driving, so why do "international research" outcomes suddenly apply to West Hove?

I don't know how they're going to manage the replies to agree/disagree to 20mph limits in the 'please tell us why in the box below', so I requested to see the completely unreferenced research before answering.

"National and International research clearly shows that a 20mph speed limit leads to a reduction in road collisions and the severity of casualties, improves the quality of local neighbourhoods and encourages more walking and cycling for local trips."

Is this the 'big society' thing at work? If so, lovely. I'd like to see more people strolling to the shops in the pouring rain instead of driving, outside of the hazy daydream of yesteryear which ensues when I visualise it.

Without providing this unreferenced information, they are relying on people either asking for it or people giving an emotive opinion about it without seeing it.

PS: "Is your gender identity the same as the gender you were assigned at birth?" Important stuff this.

Yours Sincerely,

Miffed of West Hove

[lordgrover]

Similar for me here: pistonheads topic.

It would be interesting to see the specific sources of this "National and International research clearly shows that a 20mph speed limit leads to a reduction in road collisions and the severity of casualties, improves the quality of local neighbourhoods and encourages more walking and cycling for local trips."

I suspect it's worthies making it up without any clear evidence or control studies.

[Ralge]

Similar for me here: pistonheads topic.

It would be interesting to see the specific sources of this "National and International research clearly shows that a 20mph speed limit leads to a reduction in road collisions and the severity of casualties, improves the quality of local neighbourhoods and encourages more walking and cycling for local trips."

I suspect it's worthies making it up without any clear evidence or control studies.

I haven't read the full report but knowing that these 20 zones were introduced in London, I googled it and found: "http://www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downloads/20-mph-zones-and-road-safety-in-london.pdf" and "http://www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downloads/Reviewof20mphZonesinLondonBoroughsFullReport.pdf"

[Kimosabe]

http://www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downloads/ ... london.pdf

So how does this work again? LSHTM conduct research for TfL and TfL don't necessarily accept the research methods, data collection methods, analysis of data, stated outcomes... and then LSHTM say it's probably a load of tosh anyway but TfL go ahead with it.....

Page 3:
"This work was undertaken by the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine
who received funding from Transport for London. The views expressed are those of
the authors and not necessarily those of Transport for London."

and then there's always the bit on page 5 wot says:

"Background
Previous research in the UK and internationally has shown that traffic calming
schemes can reduce the rates of collisions and casualties. However, the magnitude
of reductions reported has varied greatly, and little of the evidence comes from
studies that have adequately controlled for other factors likely to have reduced
collision or casualty rates, or for the possibility of ‘regression to the mean’, whereby
relatively high rates before implementation might be followed by more moderate
rates after implementation. It is also unclear how far this evidence is transferable
to London’s particular transport environment."

See that's the sort of thing that needs to be made clear so plebs such as wot I is don't get confuddled.

[lordgrover]

I'll read properly later, but for now I skipped to:

Further research is needed on other effects of 20 mph zones (including changes in walking and cycling rates). This research should also focus on the potential different effects of 20 mph zones and other measures on different population and road user groups.

[Kimosabe]

http://www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downloads/20-mph-zones-and-road-safety-in-london.pdf

So how does this work again? LSHTM conduct research for TfL and TfL don't necessarily accept the research methods, data collection methods, analysis of data, stated outcomes... and then LSHTM say it's probably a load of tosh anyway but TfL go ahead with it.....

Page 3:
"This work was undertaken by the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine
who received funding from Transport for London. The views expressed are those of
the authors and not necessarily those of Transport for London."

and then there's always the bit on page 5 wot says:

"Background
Previous research in the UK and internationally has shown that traffic calming
schemes can reduce the rates of collisions and casualties. However, the magnitude
of reductions reported has varied greatly, and little of the evidence comes from
studies that have adequately controlled for other factors likely to have reduced
collision or casualty rates, or for the possibility of ‘regression to the mean’, whereby
relatively high rates before implementation might be followed by more moderate
rates after implementation. It is also unclear how far this evidence is transferable
to London’s particular transport environment."

See that's the sort of thing that needs to be made clear so plebs such as wot I is don't get confuddled.

I'd also like to see green, amber and red bands on the approach to junctions and crossings so that drivers and other road users can judge whether or not it's safe to continue and if they misjudge it , there'll always be the onboard radar brake override function built into every car to do the work for them. Why not make cars out of recycled wooly jumpers? I fell over while wearing one once and it didn't hurt a bit, though I did spill my pint, so that proves that wooly cars would be safer for road-bimbling pedestrians

>/end sarcasm

[revian]

'20 for safe streets'

I suspect the title means that it's not really asking to be contradicted...it's not a survey but the wedge being prepared.

I think there are roads where 20 might be suitable but the blanket use of it isn't warranted. 5mph with a man front waving a flag would safer...but negate the point of travelling in any vehicle.

Watch out for 'speed bumps'. Ignored by boy racers and some knock the life out of your suspension at any speed! If your mother has severe arthritis it'll knock her around also.

[Kimosabe]

Here are the references provided to me by Brighton and Hove Council. I'm not against selective areas being made 20mph zones (and yes I also question the arbitrary nature of 20 over 15mph) but this reads like the Iraq dossier stating that there was conclusive evidence that Saddam Hussein definitely had WMDs. It seems to negate areas where speeds of above 20mph has caused zero incidents over the last 30 years and suggests that if the whole country drive at 20mph that we'd all live longer. I wonder what our nebulous 'Green' council have to say about the safety of cyclists vs the increased pollution of the planet due to slow moving traffic? 'Attrition' by any other name...

"A wide range of evidence and studies can be accessed freely on the internet or direct from the authors/monitoring organisations to support the nationally and internationally acknowledged fact that reducing speed limits can and does reduce both the number and severity of road traffic accidents:"

Finch, D. J., Kompfer, P., Lockwood, C. R. and Maycock, G. (1994), Project Report 58, Speed, Speed Limits and Accidents, Crowthorne: TRL

Grundy C, Steinbach R, Edwards P, Wilkinson P and Green J. (2008) 20 mph Zones and Road Safety in London: A report to the London Road Safety Unit. London: London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine

Grundy, C., et al. (2009) Effect of 20 mph traffic speed zones on road injuries in London, 1986–2006: controlled interrupted time series analysis. British Medical Journal 339: b4469.

Interim Evaluation of 20mph Speed Limits in Portsmouth. Atkins 2010 http://www2.dft.gov.uk/pgr/roadsafety/s ... ortsmouth/

Warrington Borough Council – 20mph Speed Limit Pilots Evaluation Report (can be downloaded from a google search of this title) showed annual injury collision reduction of 9.

Graz in Austria adopted a 30-km/h (20mph) limit throughout most of the city in 1992. After the two-year trial period, the lower speed limit achieved a 12% reduction in collisions with slight injuries and a 24% reduction in collisions with serious injuries. The reductions were most significant at junctions and crossings.

This evidence is supported by:

ROSPA (Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents)

The Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents estimates that a pedestrian has a ninety per cent chance of surviving being hit by a car at 20 mph, falling to a fifty per cent chance at 30 mph and to ten per cent at 40 mph

http://www.rospa.com/roadsafety/advicea ... zones.aspx and http://www.rospa.com/about/currentcampa ... -zones.pdf

DfT (Department for Transport)

The Department for Transport (DfT) indicate that a reduction of 6% of casualties can be achieved for each 1 mph reduction in average speed. This data have been gathered from locations throughout the country where 20 mph speed limits have been introduced

https://www.gov.uk/government/publicati ... eed-limits

WHO (World health Organisation)

http://www.who.int/violence_injury_prev ... eed_en.pdf and

http://whqlibdoc.who.int/publications/2 ... 562609.pdf

United Nations

http://www.un.org/ar/roadsafety/pdf/roa ... report.pdf

North West Public Health Observatory

http://www.nwpho.org.uk/rtcs_nw/reports ... ntheNW.pdf

NICE (National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence)

http://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/index.j ... ch/?reload

[7db]

I had previously thought that 20s weren't enforced, but recently read TVP enforcing them as part of speeding week.

[TR4ffic]

Thanks for all that, Kimosabe, but I'll need a spare couple of days to read through all that lot...

It basically boils down to the fact that all the reports and statistics are fairly pointless - they're just a means to justify the end. It is obvious that a reduction in speed will, on balance, lead to a reduction in injuries and fatalities – just as setting a 5mph limit and having the bloke waving a red flag walking in front would (you would assume) eradicate injuries and fatalities all together.

But IMO they miss two important points,

In the collisions used for the stats, what was the speed of the vehicle at the point just before the incident developed? If there was no adherence to the limit then the 30mph limit is not the problem.

What was the pedestrian doing to be on the road and involved in the collision in the first place? What was their responsibility in the events that unfolded?

Wouldn’t enforcement of the 30mph limit, more pedestrian crossings and a jaywalking law be more appropriate? ...and, as has been said, if there have been no incidents on a particular road in the last x number of decades, what is the driver for the 20mph limit? In all of this, you hear very little mention of Road Safety education/training for children in schools…

Are drivers and vehicles just seen as the Devil incarnate and the easy, headline grabbing target?

[Ancient]

What was the pedestrian doing to be on the road and involved in the collision in the first place? What was their responsibility in the events that unfolded?

Wouldn’t enforcement of the 30mph limit, more pedestrian crossings and a jaywalking law be more appropriate? ...and, as has been said, if there have been no incidents on a particular road in the last x number of decades, what is the driver for the 20mph limit? In all of this, you hear very little mention of Road Safety education/training for children in schools…

Are drivers and vehicles just seen as the Devil incarnate and the easy, headline grabbing target?

The pedestrians would normally have been going about their lawful business. Certainly they were not driving a tonne plus of metal, so bring little risk to the equation (unless carrying some other deadly weapon of course - I hardly think it likely that any significant number of drivers causing injury to pedestrians were acting in self defence though).

Enforcement of the 30mph limit would very likely produce results in terms of punishing those who exceed them. More pedestrian crossings would emphasise that pedestrians exist in the area and 'might' cause drivers to drive more responsibly; I suspect however that this (expensive) option would simply cause drivers to self-justify in the event of a collision with a pedestrian "What were they doing there? They should have been on the crossing". As for jay-walking laws, an emphatic NO! The roads (especially around residential areas do not belong to drivers of motor vehicles and the suggestion from an AD that they should is IMO seriously disturbing.

[lordgrover]

Surely though, in the majority of incidents either the driver(s) and/or pedestrian(s) are 'at fault' and has little to do with exceeding a 30 limit? Driver and pedestrian training would be a better solution than an arbitrary speed reduction which in all likelihood will be ignored but most careless drivers and police anyway.

[GJD]

Are drivers and vehicles just seen as the Devil incarnate

From what I hear of Brighton & Hove, yes I think they are .

The pedestrians would normally have been going about their lawful business.

That might have been what the drivers were doing too. Few people get in their car with the intention of driving into a pedestrian and few people go out for a walk with the intention of getting run over. When it happens, I think it's legitimate to question which of the parties (perhaps both) did something stupid.

More pedestrian crossings would emphasise that pedestrians exist in the area and 'might' cause drivers to drive more responsibly; I suspect however that this (expensive) option would simply cause drivers to self-justify in the event of a collision with a pedestrian "What were they doing there? They should have been on the crossing". As for jay-walking laws, an emphatic NO! The roads (especially around residential areas do not belong to drivers of motor vehicles and the suggestion from an AD that they should is IMO seriously disturbing.

I agree. I think a mistaken belief in a greater entitlement to the road space is a big problem.

I've never encountered one for real and I've no idea if it would be suitable for West Hove, but in principle I very much like the shared space concept when lots of people want to walk and cycle and drive in the same place. I worry that trying to manage them with rules like speed limits or pedestrian crossings or cycle lanes can promote attitudes of "them & us" conflict and reinforce misconceptions about who is entitled to which bits of space.

[nigelc]

When I was in infant school (a very long time ago) we used to get visited by "Bertie the belisha beacon" to talk about road safety and how to cross the road. Later there was a big push with "Green Cross Code Man" complete with TV adverts. I haven't seen Green Cross Code mentioned on TV for years, maybe I don't watch the right sort of programmes. I think there is too little emphasis on pedestrians taking responsibility for their own safety these days.

Recently I had a pedestrian walking along the pavement suddenly veer on to the road in front of me to cross without looking. He was on a mobile. Maybe pedestrians should be banned from using mobiles while on the move in the same way as other road users

[revian]

Surely though, in the majority of incidents either the driver(s) and/or pedestrian(s) are 'at fault' and has little to do with exceeding a 30 limit? Driver and pedestrian training would be a better solution than an arbitrary speed reduction which in all likelihood will be ignored but most careless drivers and police anyway.

I'm sure that's right.... But society is becoming so risk-averse that laws multiply to try to eliminate it instead of pursuing the mature taking-responsibility-for-yourself and others line.

The fact that something is difficult or impossible to 'police' isn't really aired - the politician has done his/her duty and come up with a policy... Knee fully jerked...problem dealt with!