Speed Awareness Course

[Phil Pascoe]

Of course safety was mentioned as well for its justification, but he made it very clear it was to help the council attain net zero five years before everyone else. A 20mph won't make much difference - despite what the council thinks the plod won't enforce it often, they have no interest now in enforcing the existing 30mph limit or booking persistently dangerously parked cars despite their having been asked on many occasions.

 

[Agent_zed]

It will be quite interesting to see if it actually improves air quality and travel time, despite the negative press. We've had a 20mph zone through our town for a number of years now. Whilst it is slightly annoying when the road is clear, it is actually quite helpful when trying to filter in from a side road. When it was a 30 zone you would have to wait a lot longer, and even though people here are pretty good at letting people out, I think it happens a lot more often now.

In addition to this the getting annoyed the speed limit is lower is pretty irrelevent in a lot of big cities. Average speed across london is about 12mph. It was actually faster in the days of horse and cart.

Apart from anything else there are more and more people on the roads these days (in addition to individual vehicle size increase), seems like everyone slowing down is the only way to deal with this in built up areas as you can't make the roads any bigger.

Although what is worse I live on a 40mph A road and was a main route and has 2 lanes up the high from the days when lorries couldn't maintain the speed limit (every lorry now can get up the hill without crawling). The town now has a bypass so the road is not a main route and they have now put in numerous housing estates further up my road. The amount of people walking down the road since I moved in 7 years ago has vastly increased, inc school children from the new estates. Yet no one has thought to change the speed limit. Cars literally pass my house at 60mph! You can hear them coming and then whoosh - a blur past my entrance. Someone is going to get killed.

 

[Phil Pascoe]

They certainly know how to increase pollution dramatically in my area - they changed a busy two lane dual carriageway to two single lanes and installed two sets of traffic lights. It's now a queue from end to end, aggravated by the layout - if coming from the town to the major school in the area you have to join the dual carriageway for about fifty yard then get off it again because they wouldn't put twenty yards of road in between the road out of the town and the school.

 

[artie]

So how do you choose who is allowed to kill who?

AFAIK the only lawful killing of a human being is in the defence of your life or another.

By your statement it is acceptable for an adult to kill a child or other vulnerable road user.

You see this is the pointlessness of trying to have a measured debate, you go all emotional and accuse me of saying something that anyone can scroll back and see that I did not.

Even one death is important and should be avoided. It is ridiculous to believe there is an acceptable number of deaths.

Yes one death is important and should be avoided if possible.

It's definitely not ridiculous to understand that deaths will occur. Not all pedestrian children or cyclists or adults are injured or killed in 30 zones.

If we drive everywhere at 20 mph it would surely save at least one life.
Would you support that?

Safety is ABSOLUTELY why the 20mph limits are being introduced. Do you have evidence of another motive?

Of course I don't it was just a speculation.

Can you prove that safety is the only reason.

 

[Blackswanwood]

Can you prove that safety is the only reason.

If you read what Paul has already written it includes a clear reference to only being able to find references to it being a safety measures.

As you say …

You see this is the pointlessness of trying to have a measured debate …

 

[artie]

If you read what Paul has already written it includes a clear reference to only being able to find references to it being a safety measures.

I wasn't actually asking him to give me proof, but hoping he would see the impossibility of providing such.

In the same way as him asking me for evidence was.

Surely you understand that references are not evidence.

 

[Jacob]

...

Surely you understand that references are not evidence.

They were probably references too evidence.
Strewth this thread is getting astronomically boring!
Churning through nonsense is good exercise up to a point but we are way past it!
Any mods still awake? Time to press the button?

PS good to see L Fox being sacked - what a tedious berk! Laurence Fox and Calvin Robinson sacked by GB News

 

[Noel]

They were probably references too evidence.
Strewth this thread is getting astronomically boring!
Churning through nonsense is good exercise up to a point but we are way past it!
Any mods still awake? Time to press the button?

PS good to see L Fox being sacked - what a tedious berk! Laurence Fox and Calvin Robinson sacked by GB News

Fox got arrested this morning, house raided and searched. Probably looking for angle grinders.................

 

[sploo]

Probably looking for angle grinders.................

Assuming there's a gag in there, but I don't get it

Fox is a colossal though regardless.

 

[Noel]

Assuming there's a gag in there, but I don't get it

Fox is a colossal though regardless.

In addition to his (ex) GBeebies outpourings he posted a video backing and encouraging the “Bladerunners” (self styled vigilantes cutting down ULEZ cameras). He said he would join them, buy and supply angle grinders and so on, hence the arrest and house search, which he live streamed smoking a cigar al la Mr A Tate.
If they have a chat room, forum, FB page I imagine plenty of discourse on brands, batteries and grinding wheels. Possibly.
Yep, a colossal indeed, along with the Rev boy and the pound shop Kiwi import.

 

[Jacob]

In addition to his (ex) GBeebies outpourings he posted a video backing and encouraging the “Bladerunners” (self styled vigilantes cutting down ULEZ cameras). He said he would join them, buy and supply angle grinders and so on, hence the arrest and house search, which he live streamed smoking a cigar al la Mr A Tate.
If they have a chat room, forum, FB page I imagine plenty of discourse on brands, batteries and grinding wheels. Possibly.
Yep, a colossal indeed, along with the Rev boy and the pound shop Kiwi import.

OK who are the Rev boy and the pound shop Kiwi import?

 

[paulrbarnard]

AFAIK the only lawful killing of a human being is in the defence of your life or another.

You see this is the pointlessness of trying to have a measured debate, you go all emotional and accuse me of saying something that anyone can scroll back and see that I did not.

Yes one death is important and should be avoided if possible.

It's definitely not ridiculous to understand that deaths will occur. Not all pedestrian children or cyclists or adults are injured or killed in 30 zones.

If we drive everywhere at 20 mph it would surely save at least one life.
Would you support that?


Of course I don't it was just a speculation.

Can you prove that safety is the only reason.

A clearer statement of your position than previous ones.

Your previous post claimed the ‘all life important’ argument is just an argument. That’s why I drew the logical conclusion you did not support that view. You have clarified it and agree that protecting life is desirable. So why are you arguing against 20mph? It is clearly shown through multiple research over multiple years that there is a very significant reduction in injury and death at 20mph than 30mph.

I do support the idea that the speed limit should be 20mph on all roads that have residential or publicly accessible commercial premises as well as all single track roads (those without a center white line)

I wasn't actually asking him to give me proof, but hoping he would see the impossibility of providing such.

In the same way as him asking me for evidence was.

Surely you understand that references are not evidence.

the reason I asked because it was not clear you were speculating and I had seen no reference but safety. Your statement clearly suggested you thought there was another reason.

 

[artie]

I do support the idea that the speed limit should be 20mph on all roads that have residential or publicly accessible commercial premises as well as all single track roads (those without a center white line)

Do you realise that covers almost every road in the country except motorways?

the reason I asked because it was not clear you were speculating and I had seen no reference but safety. Your statement clearly suggested you thought there was another reason.

And I do but I have no proof so no point stating it.

 

[Noel]

OK who are the Rev boy and the pound shop Kiwi import?

As seen and mentioned in your link earlier - Rev Calvin Robinson and Wootton (who has some rather colourful allegations against him in last few weeks- hidden cameras, extortion, cat-fishing, aliases, blackmail etc, usual stuff....).

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-67009045

 

[RogerS]

..... Please don't put your words into my mouth,....

I didn't. I said 'we' and not 'you'. Unless you consider yourself royalty and worthy of the 'we' pronoun.

 

[Keith Cocker]

Whatever they do won't stop the idiots who are going to speed no matter the consequences.

And that ***** is never us is it?

 

[Keith Cocker]

15 minute cities are much like the brave new world foisted on us in the 60’s and 70’s all the wonderful new developments, only problem is the population don’t want to live in it!

Another Tory lie

 

[paulrbarnard]

Do you realise that covers almost every road in the country except motorways?

It’s only roads that are not wide enough to support two vehicles at once, “except motorways” is a gross overstatement. And yes it is for the country case that I specifically added these roads. Realistically 30mph might be better for those in the country but I’m not immune to a bit of over statement either.

If you want to know the reason look up the statistics for accidents in rural areas.

 

[Agent_zed]

If we step back a bit from the argument and counter arguments about speed and what risk is acceptable and look at why this has changed then perhaps we might come to a more sensible position than just shouting 'facts' at each other.

Yes 20mph is safer than 30mph but less safe than 5mph etc etc. There will always be a balance of risk vs reward. But other factors come into play. I've mentioned already the increase in traffic volume in previous posts, both moving and stationary is huge and speed limits have changed little (if at all) in this time. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a78fa5bed915d0422066d7b/vehicles-summary.pdf Look at the sheer amount of vehicles increase since the 50's, Even since the 80's they have almost doubled to 2010 (and I assume have continued since then).

even in the rural towns/villages driving through any road is a sea of parked cars. This has changed since I was a kid (as evidenced by the above link) and roads are now far more difficult to see a person crossing and have much more objects to try and navigate.

30mph is no longer a sensible limit in many of these areas, even if you can get up to 30. Dropping to 20mph is a reasonable reduction in these conditions that we have been in for a long time. In many cases you won't even find you are driving any slower as you can't go any faster anyway.

 

[John Brown]

I didn't. I said 'we' and not 'you'. Unless you consider yourself royalty and worthy of the 'we' pronoun.

I assumed that was your usual patronising tone, but it's nonsense, anyway, as either you consider yourself royalty, "we" means both of us, or your using it in the "how are we today?" sense. All of those interpretations include me.