mako

anyone who regularly drives will know that 'sunday drivers' are some of the very worst and least safe drivers yet they often drive slower than average. so 'arsehole' drivers' isnt just a speed debate.

Its very simple otta. Before the change in limits there was less overtaking. changing the limit has resulted in more overtaking. It is therefore a cause of more overtaking. That doesnt take responsibility away from the driver and they may be to blame but why they overtake isnt as relevant as do they overtake in this debate.

Lowlander, that cost benefit may be a cost benefit to the council, which doesnt make it a cost benefit to everyone else. Does anyone think there will be less 'tosspotts' of any gender as a result of a reduction in speed limit. If not its not really relevant.

Rodney, my understanding is the money received from the speed cameras can be spent however the council chooses and doesnt necessarily go to the police to deal with their costs. so it can be revenue positive for the council and cost the police.

Totally agree with you Dulwich Fox. Otta anyone who has been driving in dulwich with the new 20s will i expect disagree with you. Even if the underlying cause is aresholes, the arseholes arent reduced by a change in limit, however they are more likely to try and overtake you at 20 than they would at 30 (as many have already reported) so the change IS caused by the change in limit.

'according to the international comparison chart in the report, Britain has the safest roads in the world.' Rodney it is very much like a tax and yes you can avoid it but you can avoid most taxes if you choose to-dont smoke, dont drink, dont drive, dont fly, dont work, dont save. But like these other things it doesnt mean it is right just because you can avoid it. Enforcement if done by the police also comes at a cost and as there is no cash it means at a loss of something else, the knock on effect meaning something else is also probably less safe.

Lowlander Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Sydenham Hill length 3 miles > > At 30mph - 6 minutes > at 20mph 9 minutes > > Assuming generously that you could drive at those > speeds the entire length, you'll probably waste > more time posting on this thread in frustration at > the new limits than you'd spend driving at 30 3 minutes there and back each day and that is a couple of whole days every year that you could be spending with friends family etc instead extra time stuck on a big wide road doing 20. how far do you take it lowlander? 10mph limit may mean less chance of death. 5mph limit even less chance of death. no cars? As mentioned on the other thread the last year of full records available for rtas (2013) was the lowest recorded number of deaths ever. its politically motivated and has nothing to do with safety.

there are also arguments that with cars travelling slower, pedestrians are more prepared to take risks crossing roads rather than walking to a crossing/waiting for lights etc), increasing accidents.

Its politically driven and will be used to raise cash through enforcement cameras that is a fact. Anyone would think roads were getting more dangerous by the day but the fact is that the most recent full year data was the lowest death rate since records began. only 20% of the deaths of 20 years previous and only 30% of serious injury of 20 years previous. reducing speed will reduce the effect of a crash is fairly irrefutable, but I think innappropriate limits like are being enforced will increase the number of crashes and the net impact will be less safe roads. I have already had 3 incidients of people recklessly overtaking because the speed limit isnt a natural one. And as for the time saving if you travel for 10 miles a day at 20 rather than 30 your journey time will be increased by 10 minutes a day. not a lot to some but thats 70minutes a week, 3640 minutes a year, 145600 minutes in the 40 years i hope to continue driving for. 100 days extra stuck in my car. that to me is significant, even if someone proves it is safer it is at a cost.

Very much agree with flocker. Dont know how old your children are but if under ten the freitzeitpark in Ruhpolding is one of the favourite places our children have ever been. its bizare but great fun and free with a tourist card. If going to that area Koenigsee is beautiful esp if you take the longer boat trip and walk away from a lot of the tourists. Very fresh milk and cheese on the mountain was loved by the kids. Ruhpolding generally also ideal for kids as set up for cycling tennis swimming and ice cream. We have done the last 2 summers there with kids (and skied there in the winter)/

good point kford

'I then walk really really slowly, grinning like a cheshire cat.' This is an antisocial selfish reaction imo-aggravating drivers simply winds them up and makes it less safe for everyone else. and Sazzle, it sounds like a car stopped at the crossing, but was slightly late after being distracted by a cyclist. Hardly one for the police that is it? Its a poorly positioned crossing particularly as there are often many poeple standing outside the edt and its hard to tell if they are about to cross or not. Obviously the right thing is to always stop but you can get stuck as its a bad design.

I actually think a lot of money will have to be spent on speed cameras to make this work. And of course that is what is going to happen, and there you have the reason for it in the first place. As for it being in the manifesto and a 'democratic mandate from the people', they didnt get that from 'the people' of east dulwich or the village where Labour trailed in third both times. It is also obviously unlikely that you agree with all the policies of anyone you vote for as you have to pick the best of what there is, so that doesnt give politicians carte blanche imo to bulldoze opinion just because it was on their manifesto, much of which they have failed to deliver on.

Wulf -Is it that you don't think kids being driven to school unnecessarily, adding to jams & making them less active, is a problem - or you don't think 20 will in any way help with that? I dont know if there is evidence of large numbers being obese as a result of being driven to school, but if this is the case I think it incredibly unlikely that they will stop being lazy as a result of a speed limit change that you think will have little impact on their journey time. 'Oh look fat johnny they have changed the speed limit, shall we walk today?'. Its just not happening. I guess we will have to agree to disagree on your 'proof' of little impact on journey times. I think it seems generally agreed that it will be 15-25 seconds a mile longer on average. I think this accumulated over every journey taken in the borough is a significant amount of time, whilst you do not. On a personal level the main reason I object to any time being added to my journey is I believe these changes are more likely to do harm than good, and are politically motivated not safety motivated, a view supported by the police who didnt want it either.

'Pretty standard H&S really' Wulf I agree with you that this is the standard H&S crap. Not so sure with the 'sod the lot of em', 'fewer mums losing work hours playing Taxi', 'reduced obesity' type comments though. Hey perhaps changing the speed limit is also the answer to global terrorism. Your arguments dont explain why dropping to 20 is right and not 10 or 5 or banning cars.

nunhead_man Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Unreported COLLISIONS > > mako Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Does anyone really think that unreported > accidents > > cost the country ?34billion a year? Absolute > > nonsense imo. sorry nunhead. Do you think unreported collisions really cost the country ?34billion a year?

More valuable would be a publication of the 'contributory factors' that police are required to evaluate when there has been an incident. Speed often isnt the main factor or a factor at all and publication of this information would be useful. Does anyone really think that unreported accidents cost the country ?34billion a year? Absolute nonsense imo.

This has nothing to do with safety-it is all about revenue. Short of funds councils still wish to spend our money. They have made a fortune out of making Londoners pay to park, often even outside their own properties, they then made us pay to even drive in our city, and now are looking to make a mint out of speed cameras where they are not needed. There are numerous obvious flaws in their calculations. You cannot simply extrapolate data from the reduction in accidents from previous black spots and outside schools etc that have already been made 20mph areas and apply it to areas where there are no or few accidents and expecft to make the same reductions in incidents. A bit of road that has had no incidents cannot show any improvement. They only include the perceived savings, but not the costs such as lost work hours and will get away with it by using the emotive 'its safer' when really its 'a moneyspinner'. Thst is why it is happening now. that is why they slip in the 'it needs enforcing as signs only reduce speed by an average of 1mph' so there is a call for enforcement i.e. speed cameras. If it was about safety on our roads where is the pledge that revenue from all these cost savings and cameras will go on providing better cycle lanes for example. there is none because they just want our cash.

Wulf, as you say the insurance companies are not bleeding heart socialists, they will still make their profits. So therefore I wouldnt expect a massive saving if I were you if accident rates came down. anyway you are ignoring the point. The entire cost would not be saved if there was no accident, but that is the number misleadingly used in the cost saving calculation. to use your smokers comparison it would be like saying if someone stopped smoking it would save the country ?x because of nhs savings, without adding in the loss of tax revenue for example. It may be a saving or not I do not know but I know it wouldnt be accurate to use just one of the figures in the calculation.

Not entirely sure what you mean. Are you saying the Reported Road Casualties Great Britain 2012 Annual Report is a joke publication? Yes that is what I am saying. A joke as in distorting data to present a view rather than facts. Obviously it isnt funny.

These are the sort of joke publications that the ideas are based on (along with a study H of what happened in a few weeks in Hull) https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/269601/rrcgb-2012-complete.pdf

The 20mph extensions are nothing to do with safety and unsurprisingly all about money that the thick councils think it is a money saving policy. however their thinking is completely flawed and full of guesses and biases and little fact or maths. They admit that the costs analysis they do to come up with the savings 'does not represent actual costs' but instead is based on their arbitrary unsupported 'cost benefit reduction of less incidents'. It ignores the fact that the ?143million and ?34.3 billion cost nationwide for insurance and property damage is not a massive saving. insurance companies make a profit. take away all the accidents and they dont exist, jobs are lost- we dont save all the money as a nation, surely that is the bleeding obvious. There is nothing in the calcs for the loss of man hours for the reduced speeds but the total potential work hours of a death are added to the costs. Again all the work hours would only be lost if we were at 100% employment. we are not so it is again a biased used of the numbers.

Cyclists may only undertake generally when congested at the moment but when cars are driving at 15-20 this will be much more common and will be dangerous. Please can someone explain that if volatility of speeds comes down from 0-30 to 0-20 how congestion doesnt increase? Surely by definition more cars travelling at the same speed means more congested?

Mr barber may have the numbers of how many have died in southwark that realistically wouldnt have done with a 20 speed limit. Ie if hit by a lorry at 20 still bad, death not a result of speed, speeding car was speeding over 30 so would still speed over 20 etc. take these out and the benefits likely to be zero deaths avoided in a year.

As a cyclist i also dont want cars travelling at same speed as me. at 20 there will be busy traffic all driving at 15-20, many cyclist on the inside doing the same and turning left for cars becomes dangerous as there is much more undertaking. now, cars generally have more room for changing speed to accelerate away from potential dangers. as any good driver will tell you the ability to change speed is as useful as to slow down to avoid incidents.