Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 13, 2018 9:40:12 GMT
I just had to say this but 20mph is bullocks!!! Presumably you take the same attitude towards pedestrian safety. The whole point of a 20mph zone is that it reduces the frequency and severity of collisions involving pedestrians and vehicles. From people I know who regularly drive in 20mph zones, conditions on the road are now worse. All side roads should be 20 anyway, and some smaller residential roads too. Main roads however, where traffic can go faster should be allowed to to avoid traffic congestion and the build up of harmful pollution.
From a pedestrian point of view, if you stick to the pavements and cross at the designated junctions when the crossing lights are on the collisions would drop massively. The problem is pedestrians don't always follow this. Somewhere in the past 20yrs people have forgotten to look and feel they can just walk out wherever and whenever they like. There is also an air of impatience now. "I want to cross the road here [lights being 30yards away] and I want to cross now". So they just walk out. Alas sadly in this modern world pedestrians have got in to a rut, and simple educational programmes are no longer effective.
The road/pavement interface will not become a safe place unless either completely segregated or traffic moves at a regular 10mph.
|
|
|
Post by sid on Nov 13, 2018 10:25:03 GMT
I just had to say this but 20mph is bullocks!!! Well what a fascinating thought provoking insight into the situation! I hope you're never knocked down but if you are you might think differently.
|
|
|
Post by snowman on Nov 13, 2018 10:27:58 GMT
I just had to say this but 20mph is bullocks!!! Presumably you take the same attitude towards pedestrian safety. The whole point of a 20mph zone is that it reduces the frequency and severity of collisions involving pedestrians and vehicles. I'm all for pedestrian safety, but there is some evidence to show that 20mph zones increase frequency of accidents, as pedestrians take the view that traffic is slow so taking a chance and crossing away from the lights without really looking becomes acceptable I don't disagree that severity of collisions is less, at lower speeds, but surely the aim should be to avoid collisions occuring, not accept they will happen (and happen more frequently). I have seen a report that suggests nearly all pedestrian collisions happen where traditional raised kerbs have been removed and the distinction between footway and carriageway is less obvious. Certainly seems to apply whenever I see a news report of serious pedestrian accident. Behaviour changes are often ignored when designing schemes, as it is assumed (wrongly) that pedestrians will always use crossings.
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Nov 13, 2018 10:34:10 GMT
Presumably you take the same attitude towards pedestrian safety. The whole point of a 20mph zone is that it reduces the frequency and severity of collisions involving pedestrians and vehicles. From people I know who regularly drive in 20mph zones, conditions on the road are now worse. All side roads should be 20 anyway, and some smaller residential roads too. Main roads however, where traffic can go faster should be allowed to to avoid traffic congestion and the build up of harmful pollution.
From a pedestrian point of view, if you stick to the pavements and cross at the designated junctions when the crossing lights are on the collisions would drop massively. The problem is pedestrians don't always follow this. Somewhere in the past 20yrs people have forgotten to look and feel they can just walk out wherever and whenever they like. There is also an air of impatience now. "I want to cross the road here [lights being 30yards away] and I want to cross now". So they just walk out. Alas sadly in this modern world pedestrians have got in to a rut, and simple educational programmes are no longer effective.
The road/pavement interface will not become a safe place unless either completely segregated or traffic moves at a regular 10mph.
So you're advocating 10 mph zones now? I would also add - what educational programmes? If you look at the sorts of accidents that happen with increasing regularity and then consider all those old Central Office of Information public service information films that were once made you might see a connection. The public are essentially daft and not good at perceiving risks. Therefore they need to be told about them and also what to do if someone else gets into problems. Of course, government scrapped the COI to save money but something tells me nothing's been saved at all. And it's not the nanny state - it's just good sense. I assume kids still get some basic teaching at school about not going with strangers and how to cross the road but I don't know for certain. You are not going to see pedestrian and traffic segregation - it's no longer the fashion in traffic engineering. In fact the opposite has been in the ascendancy for at least 10-15 years. In some places it makes sense to get rid of pointless guardrails provided there are still safe and well located crossing points. The essential problem is the "principle of least effort" that humans instinctively employ. People take the direct route rather than going 3 sides round a square. Look at any large supermarket with a car park - the pedestrian route will be utter rubbish and counter intuitive, especially if there are bus stops or a busy walking route outside. Within weeks of opening all such places end up with hedges / plants trodden down and informal muddy paths created because people take the direct route from the outside path to the shop doorway. Bad design which never, ever seems to change. It's as if architects and planners are incapable of learning from past design errors.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 13, 2018 10:39:43 GMT
From people I know who regularly drive in 20mph zones, conditions on the road are now worse. All side roads should be 20 anyway, and some smaller residential roads too. Main roads however, where traffic can go faster should be allowed to to avoid traffic congestion and the build up of harmful pollution.
From a pedestrian point of view, if you stick to the pavements and cross at the designated junctions when the crossing lights are on the collisions would drop massively. The problem is pedestrians don't always follow this. Somewhere in the past 20yrs people have forgotten to look and feel they can just walk out wherever and whenever they like. There is also an air of impatience now. "I want to cross the road here [lights being 30yards away] and I want to cross now". So they just walk out. Alas sadly in this modern world pedestrians have got in to a rut, and simple educational programmes are no longer effective.
The road/pavement interface will not become a safe place unless either completely segregated or traffic moves at a regular 10mph.
So you're advocating 10 mph zones now? I would also add - what educational programmes? If you look at the sorts of accidents that happen with increasing regularity and then consider all those old Central Office of Information public service information films that were once made you might see a connection. The public are essentially daft and not good at perceiving risks. Therefore they need to be told about them and also what to do if someone else gets into problems. Of course, government scrapped the COI to save money but something tells me nothing's been saved at all. And it's not the nanny state - it's just good sense. I assume kids still get some basic teaching at school about not going with strangers and how to cross the road but I don't know for certain. You are not going to see pedestrian and traffic segregation - it's no longer the fashion in traffic engineering. In fact the opposite has been in the ascendancy for at least 10-15 years. In some places it makes sense to get rid of pointless guardrails provided there are still safe and well located crossing points. The essential problem is the "principle of least effort" that humans instinctively employ. People take the direct route rather than going 3 sides round a square. Look at any large supermarket with a car park - the pedestrian route will be utter rubbish and counter intuitive, especially if there are bus stops or a busy walking route outside. Within weeks of opening all such places end up with hedges / plants trodden down and informal muddy paths created because people take the direct route from the outside path to the shop doorway. Bad design which never, ever seems to change. It's as if architects and planners are incapable of learning from past design errors. 10mph zones or driverless vehicles that grind to a halt every time a leaf or plastic bag flutters in front ... cynical?
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Nov 13, 2018 10:42:34 GMT
I just had to say this but 20mph is bullocks!!! Well what a fascinating thought provoking insight into the situation! I hope you're never knocked down but if you are you might think differently. Just because a road is 20mph does not automatically make a road safer & being knocked down or not should have no relevance when someone is making an opinion on either side of the argument.
|
|
|
Post by sid on Nov 13, 2018 10:46:41 GMT
Well what a fascinating thought provoking insight into the situation! I hope you're never knocked down but if you are you might think differently. Just because a road is 20mph does not automatically make a road safer & being knocked down or not should have no relevance when someone is making an opinion on either side of the argument. I'm probably stating the obvious here but a pedestrian hit at 20mph is likely to suffer far less injury than one hit at 30mph. Of course somebody can put forward another opinion if they wish but it might add a more credibility to their point if they explained it properly rather than using offensive language.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 13, 2018 10:48:16 GMT
And BBC London's Tow Edwards is now reporting that all roads within the Congestion Charge zone will be 20mph by 2020. At least we know that some roads are getting an increase in speed limit ...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 13, 2018 11:19:21 GMT
But in all these schemes, how will the limits be policed?
Richmond have already owned up to the fact that they cannot police everywhere and will effectively be turning a blind eye to "unproblematic" roads or areas, ergo no enforcement, ergo "speeding" continues. I suspect similar will also apply here.
|
|
|
Post by capitalomnibus on Nov 13, 2018 11:55:45 GMT
Presumably you take the same attitude towards pedestrian safety. The whole point of a 20mph zone is that it reduces the frequency and severity of collisions involving pedestrians and vehicles. From people I know who regularly drive in 20mph zones, conditions on the road are now worse. All side roads should be 20 anyway, and some smaller residential roads too. Main roads however, where traffic can go faster should be allowed to to avoid traffic congestion and the build up of harmful pollution.
From a pedestrian point of view, if you stick to the pavements and cross at the designated junctions when the crossing lights are on the collisions would drop massively. The problem is pedestrians don't always follow this. Somewhere in the past 20yrs people have forgotten to look and feel they can just walk out wherever and whenever they like. There is also an air of impatience now. "I want to cross the road here [lights being 30yards away] and I want to cross now". So they just walk out. Alas sadly in this modern world pedestrians have got in to a rut, and simple educational programmes are no longer effective.
The road/pavement interface will not become a safe place unless either completely segregated or traffic moves at a regular 10mph.
Many of these 20 zones are not thought through and do not make any sense other than a punishing method to motorists. A road like Forest Road E17 which has been made 20 is a joke by LBWF. Cars would emit more pollution at 20 than 30 as they would be in second gear or some in first. If someone is hit at 20 doesn't mean they would survive as that incorrect advert a few years ago made out that it was ok to hit someone at 20. The roads have been made worse by the removal at barrier railings at key junctions and blind spots where people may have crossed.
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Nov 13, 2018 12:08:14 GMT
What next? Let's make more use of the green Land along the M25 for walkers and make the M25 20mph aswell. The A5 Edgware Road is a major road out of London and one that people need to be sensible when crossing and walking alongside. If that means waking another 30 metres to the crossing then it must be done. I totally accept that 20mph causes less harm then 30 but that can give people a false sense of security.
|
|
|
Post by capitalomnibus on Nov 13, 2018 12:17:29 GMT
Just because a road is 20mph does not automatically make a road safer & being knocked down or not should have no relevance when someone is making an opinion on either side of the argument. I'm probably stating the obvious here but a pedestrian hit at 20mph is likely to suffer far less injury than one hit at 30mph. Of course somebody can put forward another opinion if they wish but it might add a more credibility to their point if they explained it properly rather than using offensive language. I am sure many people hit at 20 still do not survive. There are so many implications on it. It is as stupid as when the government was telling people to go and buy diesel cars. I do not believe it at all. Being hit at any speed is a tragedy.
|
|
|
Post by sid on Nov 13, 2018 13:01:26 GMT
I'm probably stating the obvious here but a pedestrian hit at 20mph is likely to suffer far less injury than one hit at 30mph. Of course somebody can put forward another opinion if they wish but it might add a more credibility to their point if they explained it properly rather than using offensive language. I am sure many people hit at 20 still do not survive. There are so many implications on it. It is as stupid as when the government was telling people to go and buy diesel cars. I do not believe it at all. Being hit at any speed is a tragedy. Well yes obviously it's better to not be hit at all, I agree with you about diesel cars but that's a completely different subject.
|
|
|
Post by wirewiper on Nov 13, 2018 13:08:40 GMT
I'm probably stating the obvious here but a pedestrian hit at 20mph is likely to suffer far less injury than one hit at 30mph. Of course somebody can put forward another opinion if they wish but it might add a more credibility to their point if they explained it properly rather than using offensive language. I am sure many people hit at 20 still do not survive. There are so many implications on it. It is as stupid as when the government was telling people to go and buy diesel cars. I do not believe it at all. Being hit at any speed is a tragedy. Being hit at 20mph does not guarantee survival - off the top of my head, I recall the figures for pedestrian deaths as being 1/10 hit at 20mph, 5/10 hit at 30mph and 9/10 hit at 40mph. What's not stated is that reaction and braking distances are also lower at lower speeds - so if traffic is moving slower some collisions won't happen at all. I know 20mph zones are generally unpopular on this forum, but they won't be going away anytime soon.
|
|