20 mph

[Jeremy]

James Barber Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------.

> No such thing as an accident.

What does that mean?!

[Penguin68]

No such thing as an accident.

This is a zen idea that everything has a cause and a link - such that the effects of random chance are denied. So, if any incident happens, it must have had a cause - this espouses the physics of Newton, whilst modern scientists accept that quantum mechanics requires that events have a probability only, and will happen 'by chance' (and, more to the point, given any fixed starting position, events are still impossible to accurately forecast - whereas Newtonian physics believes that given certain knowledge of a start point, it would be possible to forecast events through to the end of time).

In terms of road transport it is a belief that it will always be possible to apportion blame, anything bad that happens must be someone's fault.

So we see in James someone wedded to a blame culture - which in many ways is quite sad.

[Jeremy]

Think James needs to look up the definition of "accident"

Just because you can apportion blame, doesn't make it a deliberate act.

[spider69]

When Cllr Barber came off his bike was that an accident or what?

[JohnL]

Jeremy Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Think James needs to look up the definition of

> "accident"

>

> Just because you can apportion blame, doesn't make

> it a deliberate act.

Sometimes it's the system thats wrong.

Actually isn't the system somewhat to blame

even if it's the Pilot or Ground Crew in

'Air Crash Investigation' :)

[DulwichFox]

There is no such thing as accident; it is fate misnamed.

Napoleon Bonaparte

MMmmhh

DulwichFox

[vandam]

I guess there is a balance to be struck. For example, if we set the limit to 15mph then there would be even fewer accidents, and so on and so forth.

But for me 30mph was about right in getting the balance right between flow of traffic and safety. In a 30mph limit zone you can still drive legally at 20mph should you choose to, despite others getting annoyed.

Being told to drive at 20mph in the entire Borough feels a bit like we are being treated like school kids.

[wulfhound]

James is right. No such thing as an accident.

We choose to drive - for reasons of speed, convenience, comfort, or in the case of goods and trades, for profit.

Yet if you look at the crash stats, the vast majority of the serious injury burden is borne by pedestrians, motorcyclists and cyclists - with much of the rest being either people driving illegally, or getting hit by someone else driving illegally. You have to be seriously, seriously unlucky to badly injure yourself driving legally, in a modern car with ABS and airbags, on Southwark roads.

So it's about who benefits, and who's exposed to risk as a result. The serious injury rate for pedestrians hit by cars doing 20 instead of 30 is reduced by more than 50%, in return for at most a couple of minutes added on journey times.

15mph would add a lot more on to journey times, for not a lot more benefit to the serious injury rate. 10mph/15mph is arguably sensible for use in access-only home zones, but not on roads people use to get somewhere.

[Righty]

All of which is fine - I just wished they enforced the speed limits so that those who actually adhere to the rules don't feel like idiots for doing so.

Is there any plan to enforce this? Without any enforcement (and by that I mean cameras in random/mobile locations) then I fear there is little benefit as those who consistently flout the rules won't ever be caught out (and it is those drivers who clearly pose the greater risk to everyone on the roads).

[Jeremy]

wulfhound Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> James is right. No such thing as an accident.

No he's not! Surely an accident is an unintentional incident. If you want to narrow down the definition to exclude incidents resulting from carelessness or error, then you'll need a different word.

[henryb]

I don't want to put words in James's mouth but I think he meant there is no such thing as a random accident. i.e. every road collision will have a least one root cause with ultimately someone responsible, even if it was unintentional.

[Penguin68]

In general 'no such thing as an accident' implies that all incidents could have been avoided - and thus implicitly that if someone had done (or not done) something differently then the 'accident' would have been avoided. This is (by another route) an attempt to apportion blame to someone for the incident happening. 'No such thing as an accident' has as an absolute corollary 'someone is culpable'.

At one level it is of course possible to argue that every thing that happens has a cause - but for instance to argue (as logically he must) that the deaths in Nepal are not accidental (although clearly with a direct cause) would be weird. If wind brings down a tree onto a car it is possible to argue that had the tree been felled earlier, then the 'accident' would not have happened - or if the driver had not chosen to drive then or there - but to blame the driver for the incident, or indeed council officials for not felling the tree (unless it had been specifically reported as 'dangerous') would be unreal. And yet, 'no such thing as an accident' would require this.

It is wholly lazy to argue that because some accidents could have been avoided (were not the outcome of chance events) that the set of 'accidents' (implying something that happens by unhappy chance) is an empty one.

[Jeremy]

henryb Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I don't want to put words in James's mouth but I

> think he meant there is no such thing as a random

> accident. i.e. every road collision will have a

> least one root cause with ultimately someone

> responsible, even if it was unintentional.

That would have been a much more reasonable statement, but still a bit harsh I think. Black ice, punctures, mechanical failure, hidden potholes... things happen.

[henryb]

Mechanical failures are the responsibility of car manufacturers, pot holes - the council and so on. Root cause analysis is how investigate aeroplane and train crashes - which might be why they are so safe.

[Jeremy]

So every possible eventuality is the direct result of human action or inaction. Righto.

[henryb]

Yes exactly - except acts of God obviously.

[Penguin68]

Yes exactly - except acts of God obviously. so, no such things as accidents except, well, accidents. Root cause analysis does, occasionally, come up with chance occurrences - such as heart attacks etc. It is a system designed to uncover what caused an 'accident' - so that avoidable elements can in future be avoided, but it does not require that all elements should be classifiable as avoidable. Of course actions have causes, but 'no such thing as an accident' implies (requires to imply) that the cause can never be a matter of chance or happenstance. In many cases random chance is called to account when proper analysis would show underlying fault, but not in every case, and as an analysis requirement. Sh1t (acts of god) does happen.

[Jeremy]

Gonna step out of this one... I think we've agreed that the original statement of "no such thing as an accident" is incorrect.

[henryb]

Penguin68 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Yes exactly - except acts of God obviously. so, no

> such things as accidents except, well, accidents.

> Root cause analysis does, occasionally, come up

> with chance occurrences - such as heart attacks

> etc. It is a system designed to uncover what

> caused an 'accident' - so that avoidable elements

> can in future be avoided, but it does not require

> that all elements should be classifiable as

> avoidable. Of course actions have causes, but 'no

> such thing as an accident' implies (requires to

> imply) that the cause can never be a matter of

> chance or happenstance. In many cases random

> chance is called to account when proper analysis

> would show underlying fault, but not in every

> case, and as an analysis requirement. Sh1t (acts

> of god) does happen.

Well yes but my guess it is actually incredibly rare that a road collision is the result of random unforeseeable event with no human agent. Nearly all of them are someone's fault even if it is just someone not paying attention. Which I guess was the point.

[JohnL]

henryb Wrote:

> Well yes but my guess it is actually incredibly

> rare that a road collision is the result of random

> unforeseeable event with no human agent. Nearly

> all of them are someone's fault even if it is just

> someone not paying attention. Which I guess was

> the point.

I'd got for road accidents being similar to plane

accidents - and they normally say it was a combination

of a number of things

The Procedure on the ground (maintenance)

The maintenance guy

The Pilot

The Plane design

An animal (bird)

The procedure in the Air

Air traffic procedure

Air traffic guys

and probably a few more - very rarely does it seem to be

just one thing - more a combination - that's why don't think

'knock for knock' is so bad !!

[the-e-dealer]

I dont understand I get 17mpg at 30 and 35-40mpg at 60mph so how can 20 be better fuel wise?

[DulwichFox]

I currently drive a 1.6 Ltr Ford with Auto Gearbox.

At 20 MPH my revs are higher because my gear box drops a cog.

So over a set distance I am burning more fuel for a longer period of time and creating more pollution.

DulwichFox

[henryb]

the-e-dealer Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I dont understand I get 17mpg at 30 and 35-40mpg

> at 60mph so how can 20 be better fuel wise?

Because most of the fuel you use driving in London is used accelerating because you stop and start so much. Accelerating to 20 mph takes less fuel than accelerating to 30 mph. The mpg at 20 is less than at 30 but not by that much and it is cancelled out by the effect of less acceleration. Well that's the theory - it would be hard to prove it either way as there would too much noise in any test.

[Jeremy]

It all depends doesn't it... on a nice long, wide road, driving at 30mph in 4th gear should be pretty efficient. While on short roads, accelerating up to 30 only to stop again 5 seconds later is pointless and probably wastes fuel (I imagine).

[henryb]

Quite. I did read somewhere speed bumps are bad for fuel consumption because of continuous acceleration/deceleration. Ideally they should designed so a constant reasonable speed can be maintained.