Speed limits in Wales

[J D 8]

 It used to be we had 60mph and 30mph limits, then 40's and 50's joined in and now 20's

  Some roads the limit goes up and down like the proverbial yoyo.

There is a stretch near me that was 60 now 20 that has no houses, no street lamps, it is just a main A road, bendy I will say [all double white] but not ever a black spot. Someone needs this mess out.

[RottenRow]

[Paul De Tourtoulon]

I Just spent a while looking at the statistics, as with all numbers you can make them say what you want, pedestrians killed in the UK in 2021, 361 

France 414.

[Nigel R]

Most dangerous time of day, when most fatalities and serious accidents occur, is 4pm - 5pm. Maybe we should just ban rush hour!

 

 

Edited September 28, 2023 by Nigel R

[Dickw]

Regarding emissions and 'revving' at 20 v 30, the following is a light hearted experiment on my way home from 'in London' last night through both 20 and 30 limits.

2 litre diesel automatic so no idea what gear I was in, but cruise control active so it wasn't my right foot doing the thinking 😀
20 mph - engine at about 1000 rpm
30 mph - engine at about 1200 rpm
70 mph - engine at about 1700 rpm

So I am certainly not revving higher to drive at 20, and given that the energy required is related to the speed, I doubt if the 20 limit is causing me any additional emissions even allowing for efficiency.

 

The above proves nothing, just personal experience.

 

Dick

[FlyinFlynn]

On 27/09/2023 at 12:44, Tim Kearsley said:

Yes, but assertions with nothing to back them up are of no value.  I can assert the earth is flat or that Covid vaccinations were just a ploy by the government to control the population.  Without data to back them up.... useless.

 

I disagree with you Tim, an assertion made without anything to back them up is called an opinion, are you saying peoples opinions are of no value? You are in a strange medium to make that claim.

Here is a fine example -

 

On 27/09/2023 at 12:58, Learner said:

Ah! thats why they drive at 50 in a 30 to save money in these difficult times! 

 

Are you saying this post is of no value, it is an opinion with nothing to back it up. I would say it has some comedic value - so not valueless.

 

 

19 hours ago, Nigel R said:

Flyinflinn. If you can produce a copy of the epidemiological report you prepared before covid had infected more than a few thousand people, based off your own assumptions, using the available data of the day, and demonstrate it to be significantly more accurate than the models that imperial were producing at the time, I'll start listening to you.

 

That's ok Nigel, you don't need to listen to me. I didn't write an epidemiological report, I didn't need to, I have the benefit of hindsight and historical fact. Almost everyday there is a new peer reviewed study or pre-print released chronicling the disgraceful errors, omissions and outright lies that were perpetrated during that time in the name of 'toeing the line' (otherwise known as safeguarding my grant), I can't be bothered trolling through them all to itemise them here, do your own searching---- or not, I don't care.  I do however believe that there will come a time when no one will be able to deny the disgraceful actions of some invested actors in the whole sorry mess that was covid. 

 

The models that Imperial college produced were exactly what they were asked for, a WORST CASE scenario. Politicians don't deal in average outcomes, they want to know, and plan for, the worst case, they are not concerned with unintended consequences, they happen down stream and will be someone elses problem, they are much more concerned with  thousands of dead people being laid at their door in an election year.  Imperial college used worst case scenarios to produce their reports and passed them on as a scenario and not a prediction, totally oblivious to the consequences of that information reaching the wider public and scaring them, abetted by unscrupulous and downright incompetent politicians and civil servants. Tell me I am wrong.

 

 

 

Edited September 28, 2023 by Martin Harris - Moderator
Disguised bad language removed. IF YOU CAN’T WRITE IT DO NOT ATTEMPT TO DISGUISE IT.

[Tim Kearsley]

Most people base an opinion on facts.  Some people can be bothered to produce evidence to validate that opinion.  Others, like one of the US presidential candidates, simply spout nonsense.

[Cuban8]

44 minutes ago, Dickw said:

Regarding emissions and 'revving' at 20 v 30, the following is a light hearted experiment on my way home from 'in London' last night through both 20 and 30 limits.

2 litre diesel automatic so no idea what gear I was in, but cruise control active so it wasn't my right foot doing the thinking 😀
20 mph - engine at about 1000 rpm
30 mph - engine at about 1200 rpm
70 mph - engine at about 1700 rpm

So I am certainly not revving higher to drive at 20, and given that the energy required is related to the speed, I doubt if the 20 limit is causing me any additional emissions even allowing for efficiency.

 

The above proves nothing, just personal experience.

 

Dick

On the way back home from some business this morning my route takes me along a quiet country road so I thought I'd try an experiment. Ford Fiesta 1.25.

20mph - third gear - 1500rpm - mpg figure showing 50-60mpg when speed steadied.

30mph - third gear - 1900 rpm - mpg figure as above

30mph - fourth gear - 1200 rpm - difficult to get a steady mpg figure, varying between 30-70mpg

 

Stopping distance after heavy braking I'd estimate was 20% shorter at 20mph than at 30mph.

 

20mph is fine in certain areas such as near schools, care homes etc - but simply doesn't make sense in most other places where 30mph (when it's enforced) has worked perfectly well for years.

[Paul De Tourtoulon]

Probably the only downside to the slow speed limit is some will lose concentration and window-shop while driving, if they aren't already texting,,,

[Dickw]

16 minutes ago, Paul De Tourtoulon said:

Probably the only downside to the slow speed limit is some will lose concentration and window-shop while driving, if they aren't already texting,,,

No chance of losing concentration in London's 20mph zones - pedestrians and cyclists now seem to assume you will stop in time whatever they do.

20mph zone means maximum alertness 😀

No complaints from me though - it all seems to work OK, and we all get to where we are heading.

 

Dick

[Martin Harris - Moderator]

My take on this is that where you’re in a situation such as a large city and average traffic speeds are low, yes, there are flow benefits in avoiding short bursts of speed. 
 

However, as I understand the Welsh example, lengthy expanses of roads without particular hazards such as parked cars in narrow roads, schools, playgrounds, awkward junctions etc. have become subject to a reduced speed limit without consideration of the circumstances.  In these cases, I could understand that due vigilance may be affected by boredom setting in. I’m not saying it’s any excuse but human nature is fallible. 

[PatMc]

With a universal 20mph limit speed bumps may prove to be unneccesary. If so perhaps they could be removed then recycled as pothole fillers.

🤩🤩🤩

 

Edited September 28, 2023 by PatMc

[Frank Skilbeck]

19 hours ago, Cuban8 said:

On the way back home from some business this morning my route takes me along a quiet country road so I thought I'd try an experiment. Ford Fiesta 1.25.

20mph - third gear - 1500rpm - mpg figure showing 50-60mpg when speed steadied.

30mph - third gear - 1900 rpm - mpg figure as above

30mph - fourth gear - 1200 rpm - difficult to get a steady mpg figure, varying between 30-70mpg

 

Stopping distance after heavy braking I'd estimate was 20% shorter at 20mph than at 30mph.

 

20mph is fine in certain areas such as near schools, care homes etc - but simply doesn't make sense in most other places where 30mph (when it's enforced) has worked perfectly well for years.

Your stopping distances are interesting, the cars kinetic energy is proportional to the speed squared so at 30mph you have over twice the kinetic energy to absorb so only a 20% reduction suggests the brakes are more effective at higher speeds. The RAC notes the stopping distance should be about 50% https://www.rac.co.uk/drive/advice/learning-to-drive/stopping-distances/

Edited September 29, 2023 by Frank Skilbeck

[Cuban8]

1 hour ago, Frank Skilbeck said:

Your stopping distances are interesting, the cars kinetic energy is proportional to the speed squared so at 30mph you have over twice the kinetic energy to absorb so only a 20% reduction suggests the brakes are more effective at higher speeds. The RAC notes the stopping distance should be about 50% https://www.rac.co.uk/drive/advice/learning-to-drive/stopping-distances/

Very much a rough estimate on the stopping distances, but I had the opportunity to try it several times so I doubt if more scientific methods would be that far off from my figures. So many variables, road surface conditions, weather, tyres, whether ABS activated etc, driver reaction time. No way that I was taking almost double the distance to stop at 30 compared to 20mph. Simply looking out of the window at a reference mark at the side of the road after the emergency stop made that obvious. I guess that experiments performed under controlled and known conditions, may well differ from real world experiences.

From a safety of pedestrians angle, reducing traffic speed (or enforcing existing  limits) is only part of the story. Road layouts along with  driver and pedestrian behaviour are equally important, and may well achieve a better result than simply saying that slower everywhere is always better.

Edited September 29, 2023 by Cuban8

[Nigel R]

22 hours ago, Tim Kearsley said:

Most people base an opinion on facts

 

Oh if only they did.

[Cuban8]

Some facts for you here https://freemanharris.co.uk/pedestrians-and-road-traffic-accidents-rta/

 

Not such a one sided argument as many will have one believe, perhaps?

[Nigel R]

C8, correct me if I'm wrong - that's a lawyer's website stating that it is possible to claim against pedestrians due to their careless/negligent behaviour causing an accident ("walking without due care and attention?"👮‍♂️).

 

Pedestrians are often at fault - I don't think anyone on the thread has or would disagree with that?

 

[Don Fry]

47 minutes ago, Nigel R said:

C8, correct me if I'm wrong - that's a lawyer's website stating that it is possible to claim against pedestrians due to their careless/negligent behaviour causing an accident ("walking without due care and attention?"👮‍♂️).

 

Pedestrians are often at fault - I don't think anyone on the thread has or would disagree with that?

 

Yes you can, someone throws a banana skin on the pavement, you slide on it, and suffer damage or injury, you can try to make a case that it was foreseeable and careless. Trouble is, prove it, and bear it mind (cynic I’m afraid), most folk go to lying toad mode. Also, one problem, car drivers, being in charge of a tool capable of great harm, are required to have a bit more care. So the balance is against the driver. 
Try driving in France, here there is a presumption, hit a cyclist with a car, cars at fault unless you can show otherwise. Just bear in mind, travelling up a one way street the wrong way is not considered a reason to say you were not at fault if you hit the biker. 
So the peasant on foot is bullied by both groups. And bikers en mass is a sight to put fear in the heart. 
I am a cynic I know, but i’ve had to live  life with the motto, no lowest common denominator for human behaviour. Then you have good bits, and don’t get disappointed.

Edited September 29, 2023 by Don Fry

[Cuban8]

The figures given are stated as being derived from incidents where  the police attended and contributing factors were recorded. 

One of my work colleagues knocked a child down on a pelican crossing but was totally exonerated of blame because of cctv footage showing the injured party running straight out of a shop and onto the crossing into traffic against the green lights.

 

[Erfolg]

From personal experience , I do believe that researchers are every bit as driven by self interest as any other group. Most recognise that  any study funded, invariably will be influenced by the commissioning body, without any pressure. All know which side their bread is buttered, it does not need to be a Tabaco or drug company.

 

 Another aspect of life is that we all accept some risk, be it mowing the lawn, or something more obviously risky. Our life style depends on risk, or we would still be in a cave, most having died in their late twenties or early thirties.

 

Perhaps i wonder how many more deaths there would be if 20 mph was adhered to by emergency services?

 

Possibly the biggest elephant in the room is the economic cost, in that some productivity will be lost. The reduction in GDP will result in some public service reduction, or higher taxes, or claiming  that UK government are not providing sufficient funding etc.

 

The 20 mph limit will come with some unexpected cost.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited September 29, 2023 by Erfolg

[FlyinFlynn]

On 28/09/2023 at 12:40, Tim Kearsley said:

Most people base an opinion on facts.  Some people can be bothered to produce evidence to validate that opinion.  Others, like one of the US presidential candidates, simply spout nonsense.

Once again you are spouting an opinion not based on evidence, you are partaking in exactly the kind of activity you are claiming is worthless. Perhaps you should try a little harder to substantiate your 'facts' if you don't want to look like a hypocrite.

[Martin Harris - Moderator]

Time to move on.  Scoring points doesn’t make an interesting topic. 

[FlyinFlynn]

10 hours ago, Cuban8 said:

Some facts for you here https://freemanharris.co.uk/pedestrians-and-road-traffic-accidents-rta/

 

Not such a one sided argument as many will have one believe, perhaps?

The 'new' highway code rules brought in in 2022 places much more burden on the driver of the vehicle than was present when those court cases were adjudicated, it is now pretty much a case of the vehicle driver being presumed guilty unless they can prove otherwise.

[FlyinFlynn]

6 minutes ago, Martin Harris - Moderator said:

Time to move on.  Scoring points doesn’t make an interesting topic. 

Sure....

[dave windymiller]

My kawa H2 (750 two stroke triple engine without reeds) struggles at a steady 30 without having to slip the clutch.  Not sure how it will fare at a constant 20!

 

Gonna try it anyway next year so watch out Machyllenth  🙂