Climate Crisis: Are we doing enough?

[dutchguylivingintheuk]

Yes. And at 20 you are 7 times safer than 30mph.

you say that based on what exactly?

And you have much more time to react at 20 mph, so the chances of being hit must be lower as well.

No because drivers feel they can do more behind the wheel as they are going slow anyway and have time to react, so your chances of getting hit might actually increase because a driver playing/texting/watching something on his phone takes much longer to react then a driver going 30 and paying attention to the road.
It's not that i'm against these 20 zones i just don't like all the silly arguments for it, i mean yes there are quite a few places where 30 is too fast or let's on the higher side of the limit. But let's also not pretend that the average quality of driving goes up by 80% or more of you decrease the speed by 10. The average driving style is still pretty sh*te so it ain't gonna do no miracles unfortunately.
In the Netherlands they did similar in the 70's speeds where slightly different but that's not the point in the 80'' they found out it didn't significantly change much, then they started improving driving lessons, with more attention for things around you in a car, more attention for blind spots often have etc. etc. They also started younger with cycling lessons in schools, not only about learning to cycle(which was already provided prior) but also about how to respond, communicate and safely drive throughout traffic.
And yes road layouts are safer too, but that's more because it is demand meets function instead of function tries to create demand, like some (intended) cycle friendly crossings in the uk are made.
so tldr still a long way to go sadly.

 

[newfhouse]

you say that based on what exactly?

Physics.

Kinetic energy equals half mass times velocity squared, so a half speed impact delivers just a quarter of the energy to the body of the victim.

 

[Unkraut]

There has been a 30 kmh / 20 mph speed limit here in most residential areas for decades, and in the last few years this has been extended to cover the whole of urban areas.

My sister visited from Engand not long ago and commented how could I stand driving so slowly, to which I could only reply you get used to it.

It did seem irritating at first, but it has to be safer for all concerned and it definitely cuts fuel usage and noise. Taking 3 minutes instead of 2 to get out of town is hardly a high price to pay for this.

 

[Bazzer]

No because drivers feel they can do more behind the wheel as they are going slow anyway and have time to react, so your chances of getting hit might actually increase because a driver playing/texting/watching something on his phone takes much longer to react then a driver going 30 and paying attention to the road.
It's not that i'm against these 20 zones i just don't like all the silly arguments for it, i mean yes there are quite a few places where 30 is too fast or let's on the higher side of the limit. But let's also not pretend that the average quality of driving goes up by 80% or more of you decrease the speed by 10. The average driving style is still pretty sh*te so it ain't gonna do no miracles unfortunately.

Do you have evidence this is actually what happens, or is this, to use your own phrase, a silly argument?
The last published government analysis I saw of mobile use while driving, did not break down the offence to the speed limit on roads.

 

[matticus]

you say that based on what exactly?

No because drivers feel they can do more behind the wheel as they are going slow anyway and have time to react, so your chances of getting hit might actually increase because a driver playing/texting/watching something on his phone takes much longer to react then a driver going 30 and paying attention to the road.
It's not that i'm against these 20 zones i just don't like all the silly arguments for it, i mean yes there are quite a few places where 30 is too fast or let's on the higher side of the limit. But let's also not pretend that the average quality of driving goes up by 80% or more of you decrease the speed by 10. The average driving style is still pretty sh*te so it ain't gonna do no miracles unfortunately.
In the Netherlands they did similar in the 70's speeds where slightly different but that's not the point in the 80'' they found out it didn't significantly change much, then they started improving driving lessons, with more attention for things around you in a car, more attention for blind spots often have etc. etc. They also started younger with cycling lessons in schools, not only about learning to cycle(which was already provided prior) but also about how to respond, communicate and safely drive throughout traffic.
And yes road layouts are safer too, but that's more because it is demand meets function instead of function tries to create demand, like some (intended) cycle friendly crossings in the uk are made.
so tldr still a long way to go sadly.

I think you need to see a doctor about your Internet Tourettes. (like real tourettes it's quite funny to watch at first, then becomes sad when you realise they can't help it ... )

 

[dutchguylivingintheuk]

Physics.

Kinetic energy equals half mass times velocity squared, so a half speed impact delivers just a quarter of the energy to the body of the victim.

Yes but someone who responds directly at 30 off course means an higher impact,, due to higher speed but someone going 20 but not paying attention therefore braking much later possibly dragging the victim along or even under the vehicle is gonna do more damage despite a slower speed.

Do you have evidence this is actually what happens, or is this, to use your own phrase, a silly argument?
The last published government analysis I saw of mobile use while driving, did not break down the offence to the speed limit on roads.

1.3% used their phone during driving 78% uses their car to go to work. considering the aoun of residential area's you do the math

I think you need to see a doctor about your Internet Tourettes. (like real tourettes it's quite funny to watch at first, then becomes sad when you realise they can't help it ... )

yeah, but youre just called in first , for the ''i don't like what the other person's writing but don't have any meaningfull argument back, so i start trying to be funny disease''

 

[newfhouse]

Yes but someone who responds directly at 30 off course means an higher impact,, due to higher speed but someone going 20 but not paying attention therefore braking much later possibly dragging the victim along or even under the vehicle is gonna do more damage despite a slower speed.

You want higher speed limits in case inattentive but slower drivers fail to stop when they collide with someone? Is that really your argument?

 

[Bazzer]

1.3% used their phone during driving 78% uses their car to go to work. considering the aoun of residential area's you do the math

If I have interpreted your response correctly, you appear to be claiming the incidents of "playing/texting/watching" on the phone in a 20mph zone and thus not paying attention in said 20mph zone, is a matter of mathematics not evidence.

 

[BoldonLad]

I cannot provide any links to this, but, I seem to recall an experimental "system" in Netherlands, where motor traffic and pedestrians where allowed to use the same space, all road markings etc were removed. If I recall, the initial effect was positive, ie serious accidents were reduced. This was thought to be because the "new" system created uncertainty in both drivers and pedestrians, so, both groups took more care. After a while however, familiarity bred contempt, and, accident severity began to rise again.

 

[theclaud]

I cannot provide any links to this, but, I seem to recall an experimental "system" in Netherlands, where motor traffic and pedestrians where allowed to use the same space, all road markings etc were removed. If I recall, the initial effect was positive, ie serious accidents were reduced. This was thought to be because the "new" system created uncertainty in both drivers and pedestrians, so, both groups took more care. After a while however, familiarity bred contempt, and, accident severity began to rise again.

Extraordinary.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shared_space

Your final claim seems dubious. Or perhaps it's just very carefully worded? Lobby groups for blind and other disabled people have long objected to shared space, and a lot of people are ambivalent about or hostile to it or cling to the reassurance of segregation, but I'm not aware of any schemes where accident severity (or indeed frequency) has increased. The evidence points the other way.

 

[matticus]

You want higher speed limits in case inattentive but slower drivers fail to stop when they collide with someone? Is that really your argument?

Now you put it like that, I'm starting to see the logic ...

 

[dutchguylivingintheuk]

You want higher speed limits in case inattentive but slower drivers fail to stop when they collide with someone? Is that really your argument?

No it is just my point that stats like 7 times lower impact don't tell the full story, and are settings things up for comments/reviews later on claiming it is not working.
I'm not against 20 zones however i am against over claiming the increased safety it will provide. It falls into the same trap as eletric cars as at the moment, yes at face value they are cleaner than combustion engines, however due to their production methods and high maintenance they are effectively not cleaner and it will take a lot of time for them to get cleaner.

So a politician taking a job with a corporation means the entire EU system is failing does it?

Hypocritical as you are if i gave this example about an Tory you would have come up with an list of other corrupts Tories.(yeah you can lie that you would'nt i simply don't beleive you) Well newsflash if you would have read everything i wrote and not what you wanted to read, you would have read it's just an example.
There are many many more sadly

If I have interpreted your response correctly, you appear to be claiming the incidents of "playing/texting/watching" on the phone in a 20mph zone and thus not paying attention in said 20mph zone, is a matter of mathematics not evidence.

creative way of misconstruing what i wrote but no that is not what i'm saying, if 78% uses their car to go to work every day and 1.3% uses their phone, considering the likelyness that work trips start or come trough an 20 zones, that is indeed evidence poeple who use their phone would also do that in an 20 zone.
Slower speeds make people feel they can a take higher risk, that is an basic scientific fact. (not specific to cars mind you)

 

[BoldonLad]

Extraordinary.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shared_space

Your final claim seems dubious. Or perhaps it's just very carefully worded? Lobby groups for blind and other disabled people have long objected to shared space, and a lot of people are ambivalent about or hostile to it or cling to the reassurance of segregation, but I'm not aware of any schemes where accident severity (or indeed frequency) has increased. The evidence points the other way.

Thank you for clarifying.

I didn’t really make any claims, I thought my post clearly indicated that I had only a vague memory of the Dutch trials. Clearly, my o level english was inadequate again.

 

[Bazzer]

creative way of misconstruing what i wrote but no that is not what i'm saying, if 78% uses their car to go to work every day and 1.3% uses their phone, considering the likelyness that work trips start or come trough an 20 zones, that is indeed evidence poeple who use their phone would also do that in an 20 zone.
Slower speeds make people feel they can a take higher risk, that is an basic scientific fact. (not specific to cars mind you)

You are using mathematics and not evidence. For example, were I to drive to work, I would not pass through any 20mph zone. My wife did not when she worked, nor do either of my children who have to use a car for their commutes. - And both children have flown the nest. I would imagine there are thousands if not hundreds of thousands of commuters in a similar position. So where is the "likelyness", and where is the evidence that people are more likely to use their phones in a 20mph zone, if their work trip starts or finishes in that 20mph zone?

Your evidence in relation to motorists and slower speeds is where?

 

[AndyRM]

Slower speeds results in higher risk taking? Can't wait to see the science behind that.