akirk wrote:you are yet to put forward one example of how a speed limit stops an accident where driver training would not / where a 20mph limit v. a 30mph limit both driven correctly is any safer / where a 20mph limit is dealing with the root cause not just the symptoms...
if you can start to put forward a case for any of those, or all, then it would be interesting to listen...
Alasdair
waremark wrote:akirk wrote:you are yet to put forward one example of how a speed limit stops an accident where driver training would not / where a 20mph limit v. a 30mph limit both driven correctly is any safer / where a 20mph limit is dealing with the root cause not just the symptoms...
if you can start to put forward a case for any of those, or all, then it would be interesting to listen...
Alasdair
Do you really not believe that the reduction of speed limits and the change of culture towards speeds over the limit in the wider population over the last 25 years has played a part in casualty reduction? There are irresponsible drivers, there are normally responsible drivers being careless or in an irresponsible mood, there are poorly trained drivers. Using limits, enforcement and culture to slow such people down must have played a part.
And most of us fall into some of those categories some of the time. The IAM have consistently failed to prove that their training reduces accidents. What evidence do you have that a different training regime could offer a universal panacea?
What I want to see is a bit of balance - a little less lowering of limits in inappropriate places, a little bit more public information safety related advertising, a bit more promotion of safe driving practices other than slower speeds, and a suitable road safety course as part of the national curriculum for early teenagers.
rodk wrote:
I wondered what response that would get. Which is why I plucked it directly from the 01/2013 DfT guidance on setting local speed limits. ie :-As well as being the legal limit, speed limits are a key source of information to road users, particularly as an indicator of the nature and risks posed by that road both to themselves and to all other road users.
That has been in the guidance since 2006. Note that I never said it was the "ONLY source of information...". Anyone who wishes to take issue with this statement would be better contacting DfT and HM Government rather than making personal attacks on myself.
akirk wrote:
There is no evidence presented so far as to how a 20 v a 30 actually demonstrably changes speed / saves lives / etc.
Alasdair
20 mph Zones
20 mph zones are areas where the speed limit has been set at 20 mph and traffic calming measures have been put in place to encourage drivers to stay within the 20 mph limit.
A review 15 of accident data in seventy-two 20 mph zones found that average mean speeds were reduced by 9 mph, from 25 mph to 16 mph in the zones. On average, for every 1 mph speed reduction, there was a 6.2% accident reduction.
All road accidents in the zones fell by 61%, and there was no evidence of accident migration onto surrounding roads. Traffic flows in the zones reduced by 27%. The effects were particularly significant for the most vulnerable road users:
• All pedestrian accidents down by 63%
• All cyclist accidents down by 29%
• Motorcyclist accidents down by 73%
• Child accidents down by 67%
• Child pedestrian accidents down by 70%
• Child cyclist accidents down by 48%
A Transport for London review 16 of over one hundred 20 mph zones in London also found that they were very effective in reducing road injuries to children. In the zones, speeds were reduced by 9 mph and traffic flows by about 15%. Road casualties in the zones were reduced by 45% and fatal or seriously injured casualties by 57%. Again, significant protection was provided to the most vulnerable road users:
• Pedestrian casualties down by 40%, and pedestrians killed or seriously injured (KSI) down by 50%
• Child pedestrian casualties down by 48% and child pedestrians KSI down by 61%
• Cyclist casualties down by 33% and cyclist KSI down by 50%
• Child cyclist casualties down by 59% and child cyclists KSI down by 60%
• Car occupant casualties down by 57% car occupant KSI down by 77%
• Child car occupant casualties down by 51% child KSI down by 47%
20 mph Limits
A more recent approach is the use of 20 mph limits over an area, but without the traffic calming measures. Road signs and markings, and education and publicity are used to encourage drivers to stay within the limit.
Portsmouth City Council is the first local authority in England to implement an extensive area-wide 20 mph Speed Limit scheme (without traffic calming) covering most (94%) of its residential roads which previously had a 30 mph speed limit. The scheme used 20 mph speed limit signs, including repeater signs, and 20 mph speed limit markings on the road. On most of the roads, the average speeds before the scheme 24 mph or were less, mostly because of narrow carriageways and on-street parking, but 20 mph signs were also put on roads with average speeds greater than 24 mph. The scheme was designed to be self-enforcing (avoiding the need for extra Police enforcement).
Overall, the number of roads with speeds of 20 mph or less increased. On roads with average speeds of 24 mph or more before the scheme was introduced, the average speed reduced by 6.3 mph. The average reduction in mean speeds on all roads was 1.3 mph.
Comparing the 3 years before the scheme and the 2 years afterwards, the number of recorded road casualties fell by 22% from 183 per year to 142 per year. During the same period casualty numbers fell nationally by about 14%. However, the number of deaths and serious injuries rose from 19 to 20 per year, although the low numbers mean this was not statistically significant.
The scheme was generally supported by residents, although most wanted to see more enforcement of the 20 mph speed limits. Levels of car travel stayed similar, whilst the level of pedestrian travel, pedal cyclist travel and public transport use increased slightly.
chrisl wrote: None of that detracts from the parallel need for education and training, which I whole-heartedly support, whether by more stringent initial tests, retests and training following conviction or negligence liability, or even regular retesting. However, given that further training at the moment is largely voluntary and a niche interest, I am not persuaded that we can do without enforceable limits.
RobC wrote:Other than the odd inappropriate speed limit I don't see speed limits as the problem. The problem is drivers who are unaware of speed limits/signs and routinely travel at speeds in excess of most not just 20/30 mph limits.
akirk wrote:RobC wrote:Other than the odd inappropriate speed limit I don't see speed limits as the problem. The problem is drivers who are unaware of speed limits/signs and routinely travel at speeds in excess of most not just 20/30 mph limits.
agree - those drivers are an issue...
but there is another issue which is under discussion here - and that is un-necessary restriction / control...
yes, we can argue that no-one is really harmed by a blanket 20mph limit, except:
- it de-skills the driver
- it controls un-necessarily
- it insults those capable of a more intelligent approach
- it removes freedom
- etc.
and that is not the UK I want to live in - these last 15-20 years have been an insidious creep of over-control in this country because those putting the regulations in place don't have the intelligence to do it in more subtle / finer ways... - as I have said before, it is a political obsession with dealing with symptoms rather than the underlying issue
Alasdair
rodk wrote:Hi advance drivers
I am beginning to wonder if we really are talking at cross purposes.
rodk wrote:Whether "advanced" drivers can maintain higher speeds with the same danger levels as normal drivers at lower speeds is not really relevant. When looking out at the speed of traffic parents do not check the passing driver's IAM or ADI qualifications and say "that's OK I don't have to worry about him/her". They recognise that prevailing traffic speed does have an influence on whether they allow their child to walk to school. The 75 year old wanting to continue their twice weekly walk to the shops (that invlolves crossing the road) does not see the foot of the IAM driver hovering over the brake because he realises that an elderly person does not have the same visual looming acuity. And from the 4ft height of an 8 year old that 30mph van may seem terrifying from the side of the pavement.
Return to Advanced Driving Forum
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 14 guests