Jump to content

Why death rates INCREASED in 20mph zones


Recommended Posts

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1317430/20mph-zone-increases-death-rates-switching-cameras-reduces-accidents.html

 

I often think, drivers are too busy watching their speedometers to make sure they are keeping under 20mph just in case there is a Police radar trap hidden somewhere, rather than keeping their eyes peeled for children on the road.

 

And folk accelerate as soon as they are past the 20 sign, where there is more likliehood of children on their way home.

 

Not that you really see many children walking home from school these days...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 33
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I often think, drivers are too busy watching their speedometers to make sure they are keeping under 20mph just in case there is a Police radar trap hidden somewhere, rather than keeping their eyes peeled for children on the road.

 

Whether the politically correct brigade like it or not this is the simple truth.

 

I loathe the over-the-top and pointless road "safety measures" and road markings/signs that even the SIC are wasting money on.

 

What they should be doing in bringing in a by-law for mandatory dipped headlights during winter from when the clocks change.

 

Even now with the light fading already I just can't believe the number of drivers who drive around in the half-mirk with no lights on at all. They seem to be totally gormless to the aspect of being seen rather than seeing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What never gets taken in to consideration it that the higher your speed the more you automatically concentrate and pay attention, for your own safety. Toodling along far slower than is absolutely necessary allows drivers the time and opportunity to be distracted by all sorts of things by boredom if nothing else, and be lulled in to a false sense of security that at that speed they can easily avoid any obstacle, so don't pay so much attention.

 

Not saying limits are a bad thing, certainly 30 is quite plenty along the Esplanade and numerous other streets in the town, but if was 40 along King Harald Street, I doubt it would do any harm. Likewise, I doubt it would change much regarding accident levels if the main road was upped to a 70.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not saying limits are a bad thing, certainly 30 is quite plenty along the Esplanade and numerous other streets in the town, but if was 40 along King Harald Street, I doubt it would do any harm. Likewise, I doubt it would change much regarding accident levels if the main road was upped to a 70.

I totally disagree with this. Along King Harald St you've got Islesburgh house, Islesburgh community centre both with associated youth clubs, the playing park, flower park and Cockatoo Brae which leads up to the Gilbertson Park. There are always lots of kids around this area, from around eight in the morning 'til after midnight at the weekends. The speed limit is just fine as it is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What never gets taken in to consideration it that the higher your speed the more you automatically concentrate and pay attention, for your own safety.

Only up to a point, surely, or driving down a crowded street at 100mph would be safer than driving down it at 10mph.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest CyprusPluto

Some 20mph speed limits do instill boredom, but if you drive you have a duty to watch the road ahead and your speed. Not one or the other.

 

Similarly a lot of drivers, but not all, would do 35 in a 30 zone. Making the speed limt of King Harald Street 40 instead of 30 would mean some would do 45 - that is far too fast for a built up road with housing. What's more doing 40 instead of 30 down that length of road would save you just 10 seconds.

 

Finally on the main road speed limit. Again many drivers will do 5mph over. Making it 70 would mean cars doing 75mph. Many cars are simply not capable of travelling those speeds on that road safely. Subaru Impreza's and Audi 4wd's will be, but what about Toyota Aygo's and Citroen Berlingo's.

 

All that said I do feel there should be an allowance of 'speed limit plus' for overtaking. If you're stuck behind someone doing 45 in the corners and 55 on the straights. For safety reason you can only get past them on the straights. Doing so at no more than 60 mph is clearly dangerous. The less time you spend on the other side of the road the better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm still learning to drive (but gaining confidence with each trip out) and I am surprised at the number of people who want to pass me while I am driving 60. Why do they need to pass me? And, I'd like to thank the driver of the blue van with Zetland written on the back door for passing me AS I was turning the junction from Scalloway to Lerwick (the one by the golf course). Came up behind me on the Scalloway road and passed as I was turning! My driving instructor said he'd never seen someone do something like that before. Scared the bejezus out of us both!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What they should be doing in bringing in a by-law for mandatory dipped headlights during winter from when the clocks change.

 

This is another myth that for some reason seems to have sucked in a lot of people in Shetland.

 

Daytime running lights are every bit as dangerous as speeding, arguably moreso in built up areas.

 

No need to go over old ground, plenty of info on the DaDRL Website. Of course there are idiots who don't understand how to use them properly, but better the odd one using them wrong than everyone!

 

The real problem in all these cases is that the penalties for causing accidents are simply not high enough. If speeding anywhere, anytime, meant a 5-10 year ban, causing any injury through careless/reckless driving carried a mandatory 10 year jail sentence, and causing death carried the death penalty, there would be much fewer dangerous drivers on the roads.

 

The word "accident" is a personal dislike of mine. Genuine "accidents", by definition, are extremely few and far between. Most of what are termed as traffic accidents are mistakes, ignorance, or plain carelessness on behalf of someone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems, as ever the motorist trying to worm out of actually taking full responsibility for their actions, they seem to want to dictate speed limits when it suits them, because, they think they are the safe and expert driver, sadly I do not know this and have to treat all drivers as idiots until they are traveling away from me.

It does seem funny that folk will travel above the speed limit in other built up areas with out any care, but only concentrate on watching their speed at 20.

The motorist seems to blame everything else but their own driving abilities, but the more this happens, the more the control will be removed with trackers and GPS Speed Limiters.

I spend alot of my working time clearing up after motorists who cannot drive safely. Your car, your driving your responsibility.

I personally think that folk should have a series of tests, each one will allow an increment of horse power and the ability to carry passengers.

Sadly, as soon as you pass your test there are only reactionary laws to encourage folk to improve their driving. But it would be difficult to implement, if you restrict folk to 30 mph roads for instance you will have allot of new drivers bombing around built up areas, so perhaps a series of follow up tests to see how things go.

The test includes sensible driving with regard to emissions, adhering to this will reduce accidents if all follow, sadly some think they are more special than all of us special folk.

 

oh, is there more updated info, DaDRL Website is over 2 years old

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Responsibility" being the key word.

 

People are having their Rights increased, but not their Responsibilities.

A friend who is a parent of a teenager described a leaflet they had come home from school with, outlining all of their Rights, but, none of their Responsibilities...

 

The 'Nanny State' is only too happy to let folk shirk their responsibilities, then bring in 'knee-jerk' legislation to deal with the problems that ensue:

 

Problem - Reaction - Solution ;)

 

 

"folk should have a series of tests, each one will allow an increment of horse power"

 

Yes- as Bikers have been subject to for a number of years!

 

In fact, I think Everyone should be made to spend the first 6 months of their driving career on a motorbike / moped- teach folk some road-sense / defensive-driving before they are let behind the wheel of a car!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I often think, drivers are too busy watching their speedometers to make sure they are keeping under 20mph just in case there is a Police radar trap hidden somewhere, rather than keeping their eyes peeled for children on the road.

 

Whether the politically correct brigade like it or not this is the simple truth.

 

I loathe the over-the-top and pointless road "safety measures" and road markings/signs that even the SIC are wasting money on.

 

What they should be doing in bringing in a by-law for mandatory dipped headlights during winter from when the clocks change.

 

Even now with the light fading already I just can't believe the number of drivers who drive around in the half-mirk with no lights on at all. They seem to be totally gormless to the aspect of being seen rather than seeing.

 

I woul suggest that you make an effort to read the full report by WS Atkins on the Portsmouth 'experiment' rather than react to newspaper headlines. You might then learn a little about road safety and not blithly knock the effort made by experienced professionals to reduce the casualty rates on our roads.

 

For the most part what they attempted in Portsmouth was doomed to failure but it would seem that a mostly political agenda once again won out over good sense!

 

The likely reason that casualty rates rose was not because drivers were paying more attention to their speeds. The very limited reductions in vehicle speeds measured by the investigators would back this up!

 

No, what is more likely is that pedestrians and cyclists 'felt safer' as they were in 20mph zones. Unfortunately they weren't any safer as the speeds hadn't reduced :(

 

Until, as Spinner suggests, the penalties for speeding - and for the collisions that all too often occur as a result - are made more stringent then won't really improve.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Making it 70 would mean cars doing 75mph. Many cars are simply not capable of travelling those speeds on that road safely. Subaru Impreza's and Audi 4wd's will be, but what about Toyota Aygo's and Citroen Berlingo's.

I bet you any money that I could get a Toyota Aygo or Citroen Berlingo to go 75. :lol:

Just because a car like an Aygo has a small engine doesn't mean it can't go fast. Saying that I haven't driven an Aygo but i did used to have a 1.0L car which only had about 45-50 hp! :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Finally on the main road speed limit. Again many drivers will do 5mph over. Making it 70 would mean cars doing 75mph. Many cars are simply not capable of travelling those speeds on that road safely. Subaru Impreza's and Audi 4wd's will be, but what about Toyota Aygo's and Citroen Berlingo's.

 

All that said I do feel there should be an allowance of 'speed limit plus' for overtaking. If you're stuck behind someone doing 45 in the corners and 55 on the straights. For safety reason you can only get past them on the straights. Doing so at no more than 60 mph is clearly dangerous. The less time you spend on the other side of the road the better.

 

You say that some cars clearly aren't capable of doing over 60mph which is fair enough, but you go on to say that there should be an allowance of "speed limit plus" for overtaking. This is all very well for the Subaru Impreza's and the Audi 4WD's, but what about the Toyota Aygo's and Citreon Berlingo's?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All that said I do feel there should be an allowance of 'speed limit plus' for overtaking. If you're stuck behind someone doing 45 in the corners and 55 on the straights. For safety reason you can only get past them on the straights. Doing so at no more than 60 mph is clearly dangerous. The less time you spend on the other side of the road the better.

 

If somebody is doing 55mph in a 60mph zone, WHY would you want to pass them?

 

I cannot believe that you would be 'stuck behind them' as they are already running at close to the legal maximum for that section of road.

 

I don't know you so this is not personal but, I'm beginning to think that the less time some drivers spend on either side of the road the better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If somebody is doing 55mph in a 60mph zone, WHY would you want to pass them?

 

I cannot believe that you would be 'stuck behind them' as they are already running at close to the legal maximum for that section of road.

Why would you not feel that you would like to pass them? I know the speed limit is not a target, but it's quite frustrating sometimes when you're following somebody along a straight piece of road at 50-55mph when there's no reason not to be doing 60.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...