Blah Blah

Indeed Gardenman. I think Greece reched that tipping point of the haves and have nots some time ago. And most Western governments operate a system which is about not getting to that tipping point, rather than tackling poverty and unemployment. Corruption is commonplace in all economies, including our own. We have a political party in power for example, funded by the very institutions (ie the banks) who created the recent financial catastrophe. When government and corporations are in bed like that together, there's very little the people can do but take to the streets and withdraw labour. If they happen to live in a 'democracy' (whatever that actually means anymore) they can also elect radical parties into power. The outcome will be most likely that Greece is allowed to renegotiate repayment terms. The last thing the EU wants is a collapsed economy on it's doorstep, and bang in the centre of the mediterranean.

BN, on a clear road the journey time will be much more than 20 seconds a mile. So at night it's going to add considerably more time to journeys. Tfl's own figures for the last ten years show that traffic in the congestion zone has only decreased by 10.2% with no increase in journey times since 2007.

Your maths are a bit out there BN. 100 miles at 30mpr takes 3hrs 20mins. 100 miles at 20mph takes 5 hours. That's an extra 1hr and 40 mins.

Bawdy-nan, the congestion charge was supposed to reduce congestion. Not only is congestion still there, excess congestion was simply displaced to outside the zone. People are far more attached to their vehicles than you might think. Some of the evidence you refer to is anecdotal. The truth is that Southwark doesn't know if and by how many, accidents will reduce until the scheme has been in place for a measure of time. Traffic calming measures already exist in areas where young people are most likely to be at risk, like outside schools, residential areas etc. The only strong evidence is that of the seriousness of injury vs speed, because that can be tested, in a controlled environment. What can't be tested though is how a given driver will behave in a given situation.

Mako does make a very good point about people who drive for a living and the extra cost to industry. Taxis will cost more. Anyone who drives as part of their job will be spending more time on the road and accross the day that could add up to hours extra.

Pickle makes a good point though. There is nothing and no-one to enforce these speed limits. And wreckless overtaking will be the result. Hard enough getting all drivers to stick to 30mph.

Check the spec on your phone Sue. If it's a smartphone and you can get an 8gb or 16gb media card in there, that is going to hold a lot of mp3s for you. The other thing you could do is use your laptop, and use some DJ software like virtualDJ on there. It has an automix feature too so you can just list the tracks you want to play and it will mix them for you. I think virtualDJ lite is free as well. You can then store all your tracks on an external drive if you don't want to clog up the hard drive.

Pursuasive data there Bawdy-nan, I have to admit. But I still feel the compromise was in making residential roads 20mph and keeping main roads at 30, although during peak times many of them move slower than that. That in turn, as someone has pointed out above, was the incentive to stay off the residential roads, whereas now? There's nothing wrong with spending money where it makes sense to. So accident spots, junctions, outside schools etc. One of the worst design features has been the sinusoidal road humps, which are ineffective at slowing many vehicles and tend to crumble at the edges, requiring regular and costly maintenance. I'm sure some of my feelings on the subject come from the fatigue of constant moves to change the rules of our roads. Whatever happened to 'drive according to the conditions' for example? There was another thread recently regarding a lady who was knocked down at the junction of ED Grove and LL. It has made me look at that junction since and there's no doubt that the crossing installed to make pedestrian crossing safer on LL has made the traffic turning right off LL less cautious when those lights are on red. So road planners don't get things right all of the time.

The vast majority of drivers never hit anything, but we never seem to consider that. I stand by my earlier points that emphasis is in the wrong place. Unless something is done to imrpove the standards of driving by those drivers who fall short, no amount of speed limit tinkering is going to address the real cause of the problem.

We'll have to agree to disagree Wulfhound. Henry, that would make sense as it is residential roads that primarily have been made 20mpr. What we are discussing here though is main roads being reduced to 20mpr.

But Wulfhound, there are many times of the day when there are no jams, like night for example. Most accidents do not happen at 4am in the morning and by your own admission, at peak times the average speed is below 20mpr, so no need for lower limits at all. Traffic already travels slower at busier times, and most accidents happen at slow speed, during manouvres. To force someone to crawl accross the borough in the dead of night at 20mpr, is just riduculous. And to your 'drunk' analogy, I diasgree. No-one is to blame but the drunk. He has to take responsibility for the choice he made. The stupidity is found in the people who make these decisions in thinking we are all too stupid to behave in a reasonable manner.

I think we all pretty much agree on this. Arms and oil. That's all there is to it.

It's not about oil as such, it's about arms sales. We are one of the world's biggest producers and sellers of arms (in the top four no less) and Saudi is our biggest customer. This homage to the king's death is about business, and business doesn't care about human rights.

But accidents are up in 20mph zones, so the data doesn't support the theory. Only the data on consequences (namely serious injury and fatalities) supports the theory, and yes, that is a reason for doing something in areas where that is an issue (so accident black spots) but to take action on roads where no-one is ever injured is just overkill from the increasingly bureacratic nanny state we live in. Rural roads are some of the worst for serious injury from accidents/ collisions, and for obvious reasons. But it always comes back to us townies being treated like we can't be trusted to drive/ cycle/ cross the road in a reasonable manner. So we have to throw common sense out of the window, stick road signs and restrictions up everywhere, instead of tackling the real issue, which is changing the attitudes of those that use the road, and improving the driving skills of motorists.

First of all numhead man, I am not a speed freak. I cycle mainly and am fully aware of the problems of congested roads and inconsiderate road users. BUT speed is not a factor in most accidents (or collisions if you want to be semantic about it), that's well documented. Error of judgement or wrecklessness is the main cause of collisions. Speed only has a bearing on the consequence. So my argument is this. If councils, government etc really are concerned with reduicing accidents, then tinkering with speed limits is illogical. It does nothing to make poor road users into better road users. In fact I'd argue that it will only serve to increase the impatience of the already wreckless driver, add to the frustration of the already frustrated driver etc.

So that BBC article says accidents down by 1% on 30mph roads but up by 24% on 20mph roads. Clearly that in itself shows that speed and road safety don't always go hand in hand. And speed isn't a factor in most accidents anyway. Errors of judgement by drivers are the main cause of accidents. Motorways are the safest roads to travel on statistically, and they also happen to have the highest speed limits. Most accidents tend to happen during manouvres, like changing lane, turning corners/ right, etc - actions that require drivers to be slowing in speed, and likewise, most accidents result in no personal injury to anyone. We have completely lost perspective of the issue, and think that a few road signs and reduced limits will somehow cure errors of judgement and wreckless driving. And given that we have a crazy amount of CCTV dedicated to traffic lanes too. We don't care about real crime, but we must clamp down on anyone who even farts in a car in a bus lane! It's a truly bonkers obsession and one that no other country in the world shares.

I can cycle faster than 20mpr as indeed do many cyclists. But how can we observe any limits when we are not required to carry a speedometre? I swear some of these things are dreamt up just to validate the jobs of some council departments.

It's a bonkers policy that will make the roads more dangerous for some users, and is completely unenforceable. You also burn more petrol at 20mph than you do at 30mpr, so will do nothing for ambient pollution as well.

Very useful post Legal B.

Gee Loz, give it a rest. Splitting hairs or what! I'm a bloke but I get exactly what LegalB is saying. Why is so hard to acknowledge that women face different challenges to men? In all of this attempt to challenge widely accepted data, you are completely losing sight of the real issue, that rape is predominently a female experience, and predominently perpetuated by men. How we work to change attitudes and behaviour with regards to that should be what we are talking about. How do we make some men behave better than they do, so that they don't take a drunken women to a hotel room, and then call their 'mate' to join in on the way.

Good article David. Again it comes back to perspective. IS is not about to invade Europe any time soon.

I can see that point Otta. But I tend to think it's splitting hairs when it comes to a human willingness to adopt a cause to give validation to their own poor behaviour. That was the point really. I accept that religion is a more powerful cause when it comes to recruiting the world's psychopaths though. They were talking about the reponse of cartoonists (including that one) on the Andrew Marr show. I think that one is a good way of asking the question, why is it ok to offend some groups, and not others. Parkdrive. The title IS unfortunate but I can't see anyone in this debate saying anything to the contrary. What has followed is mostly a debate questioning the skewed portrayal of Islamic terrorism and its roots by the media. Issues like war and western imperialism have been touched upon as well. I thinks it's a very intelligent debate in parts and it's a shame you can't get past your anger at the op and his/her title to see that.

lol ernesto. You might be right.

I totally agree with that being the problem with religion grabot. But is there is hope because there are moderate forms of religion. Most people are private about their religious beliefs. Most people regect the outdated asects of religious belief too. And whilst many muslims will have a view on something like the Iraq war for example, most muslims would never see picking up a gun and overthrowing a government, to impose a totalitarian form of their religion, as a good thing either. We are being influenced by stereotypes here. Stereotypes created in parts of the world that are struggling to develop economies that can engage with the global market, or even create a vibrant internal market in many cases. Places where there is no formal education outside of a local warlord, or tribal orator, or where education is poor, or children have to work instead of going to school etc. Pakistan for example has a huge problem with street kids. Children who have no parents and are left to fend for themselves. There is no abundant welfare state, social services, etc. In that climate, you are going to struggle to create self assured and secure adults. They are perfect fodder for extremist movements. I guess my point is that in a stable and developed economy, religion is less of a problem than it is in a destabilised economy. I don't think religion can isolated from other things.

Couldn't think of an original post Davis, so had to duplicate your post on the other thread? I agree El Pibe on the Syrian aspect. But remember, the muslim brotherhood for example, emerged in Egypt in 1928, and if we are talking about regional activism, it has always been part of the region. There is a struggle in the Islamic world between reformists (moderates) who want to do business with the West and orthodox fundamentalists. That undercurrent has been bubbling for a hundred years! What usually happens is the government quoshes the fundamentalist movement, but I understand the Syrian government are asking for help now. I see it all as an offshoot of the Arab spring, and this time it seems to have growing numbers in support, and to be gaining ground in several countries at the same time. It's a wonder the region didn't fall into anarchy before tbh.