20 mph limits

[Lootman]

I see no reason that a self-driving car could not do that if necessary. Besides, it is the overall safety which matters. Even if there are a small number of situations where a human would out-perform a machine, there are likely to be far more situations where the machine is better. A manual override may well be counterproductive.

In theory you are correct. But the difference is this. If a driver runs over a child at a school crossing, that individual driver is blamed. If a driverless car does that, the entire technology is indicted.

We accept human nature. But if you override human nature and then screw up, it is much worse.

And as a result we end up with more dead children.

Yes but the problem is perception. The childrens' lives who will be saved will not be known, and so their familes will not be heard from.

But the families of children who are killed by driverless cars will kick up a firestorm.

Decades ago the UK experimented with having summer time all year long. This meant that in winter children went to school in the dark instead of going home in the dark. Overall child deaths due to traffic accidents to and from school went down. But the parents of children whose lives were saved were of course silent. The parents whose children were killed going to school kicked up a fuss.

The experiment was never repeated.

[DrFfybes]

Well the original question was about how well the 20mph limits are enforced.

For those of you that choose to adopt a cavalier attitude towards adhering to limits, its worth remembering that should you exceed those limits and kill or injure someone whilst doing so, the courts are likely to take a hard line with you.

Far worse than that is the fact that you may need to be looking over your shoulder for the rest of your life in case an irate family member catches up with you !

What you appear to be saying is that if I hit and kill a pedestrain in a 40 limit I'm OK as long as I was doing 39mph, but if I was doing 41 then I should be prosecuted?

Fine, I'll just set my cruise at the relevant limit then and ignore the road conditions.

Paul

[Lootman]

Well the original question was about how well the 20mph limits are enforced.

For those of you that choose to adopt a cavalier attitude towards adhering to limits, its worth remembering that should you exceed those limits and kill or injure someone whilst doing so, the courts are likely to take a hard line with you.

Far worse than that is the fact that you may need to be looking over your shoulder for the rest of your life in case an irate family member catches up with you !

What you appear to be saying is that if I hit and kill a pedestrain in a 40 limit I'm OK as long as I was doing 39mph, but if I was doing 41 then I should be prosecuted?

Fine, I'll just set my cruise at the relevant limit then and ignore the road conditions.l

Indeed, the idea that a speed limit is correct in all conditions and situations is a nonsense. There are roads I know where at times 30 mph is too slow and at other times 15 mph is too fast. It all depends on light, weather, road surface and traffic, as well as the capabilities of the vehicle and driver.

Ideally we would have variable limits depending on the prevailing conditions, like they have on some motorways, so that the limit can be set to something prudent and related to the environment at the time and place.

[9873210]

Implicit in the idea that driverless cars that will not deliberately run over pedestrians are useless is that current traffic patterns rely on the threat of drivers deliberately running over pedestrians.

It is more that pedestrians currently have a high motivation to not leap out into traffic because of the risk to themselves of doing so. If instead it were guaranteed that the cars would instantly slam on the brakes then that would encourage such risky and selfish behaviour.

There is no semantic difference between these two statements.

[AF62]

Implicit in the idea that driverless cars that will not deliberately run over pedestrians are useless is that current traffic patterns rely on the threat of drivers deliberately running over pedestrians.

No, it is just that currently pedestrians have to be cautious because drivers are unpredictable.

A good example is Highway Code rule 170 - “watch out for pedestrians crossing a road into which you are turning. If they have started to cross they have priority, so give way” (https://www.highwaycodeuk.co.uk/road-junctions.html). Would you assume that drivers knew and applied this rule when crossing or would you assume they didn’t and take care, probably waiting until there was no traffic before crossing.

A driverless car obeying this existing and straightforward rule will dramatically slow down traffic in cities.

[Lootman]

Implicit in the idea that driverless cars that will not deliberately run over pedestrians are useless is that current traffic patterns rely on the threat of drivers deliberately running over pedestrians.

It is more that pedestrians currently have a high motivation to not leap out into traffic because of the risk to themselves of doing so. If instead it were guaranteed that the cars would instantly slam on the brakes then that would encourage such risky and selfish behaviour.

There is no semantic difference between these two statements.

No there is, because you used the word "deliberate" there, which I would assert is not the case at all. Accidents, by definition, are not deliberate.

[9873210]

It is more that pedestrians currently have a high motivation to not leap out into traffic because of the risk to themselves of doing so. If instead it were guaranteed that the cars would instantly slam on the brakes then that would encourage such risky and selfish behaviour.

There is no semantic difference between these two statements.

No there is, because you used the word "deliberate" there, which I would assert is not the case at all. Accidents, by definition, are not deliberate.

There have been votes in parliament, are you arguing that MPs lack free will and do not act deliberately?

The long line of deliberate choices that pedestrians should fear for their lives, rather than drivers fear the law, dates from at least 1896 with the repeal of the Locomotive Act.

Society has deliberated, it has made choices, and drivers are happy to implement those choices. Using the passive voice "accidents happen" does not remove the causality.

Notice that I have not questioned the wisdom of the choice, merely asserted that it was made and continues to be made. Looking forward I believe parliament, and society in general, remains capable of (and will) make similar (although not identical) choices with respect to self driving cars.

[Lootman]

There is no semantic difference between these two statements.

No there is, because you used the word "deliberate" there, which I would assert is not the case at all. Accidents, by definition, are not deliberate.

There have been votes in parliament, are you arguing that MPs lack free will and do not act deliberately?

The long line of deliberate choices that pedestrians should fear for their lives, rather than drivers fear the law, dates from at least 1896 with the repeal of the Locomotive Act.

Society has deliberated, it has made choices, and drivers are happy to implement those choices. Using the passive voice "accidents happen" does not remove the causality.

Notice that I have not questioned the wisdom of the choice, merely asserted that it was made and continues to be made. Looking forward I believe parliament, and society in general, remains capable of (and will) make similar (although not identical) choices with respect to self driving cars.

I can see this is a hobby horse for you so this will my last contribution to your diversion. The difference between "accidental" and "deliberate" is intent. If a driver did not deliberately intend to kill a pedestrian then it was an accident and the law treats it as such. That does not mean that the driver is blameless or not at fault: he may have been careless or negligent. What it means is that he did not set out on his trip with the intention of causing death, as you suggest.

[88V8]

I recall govt research some years ago which noted that 80% of pedestrian accidents were caused by pedestrians.
Can't find that now, but here are come causes https://www.statista.com/statistics/323 ... ritain-uk/.
Perhaps if pedestrians were prosecuted, that would be more effective in accident prevention.

I also wonder about cyclists. And local authorities failing to fill in potholes and dropped drains that cause cyclists to swerve.

As a motorist, cyclist though seldom, and pedestrian, I get tired of being demonised when behind the wheel while the parties often at fault are sanctified..

edit... and here's an interesting one, albeit 2013 and his sources I haven't checked https://trafficsafetystore.com/blog/why ... accidents/ but
While ideal for neighborhood peace, battery-operated automobiles and hybrids are 40% more likely to strike pedestrians – who detect oncoming traffic with their ears as well as their eyes – than their gas-guzzling counterparts. The risk jumps to 50% in residential areas, where the speed limit is at or below 35mph and stops and turns are more frequent. (Source: NHTSA)

Our neighbours up the lane have en electric car which on more than one occasion has nearly run me over. Almost as dangerous as bicycles.

V8

[AF62]

I recall govt research some years ago which noted that 80% of pedestrian accidents were caused by pedestrians.
Can't find that now, but here are come causes https://www.statista.com/statistics/323 ... ritain-uk/.
Perhaps if pedestrians were prosecuted, that would be more effective in accident prevention.

A similar but readable source -
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.u ... 3-data.pdf

Lots of children involved in accidents (so no prosecutions there) and lots of drunk people on Friday and Saturday nights (perhaps prosecuting them for being drunk instead - and the pubs for serving them whilst drunk).

But of course if we are going to prosecute pedestrians for behaving poorly, then it is only sensible to massively step up the enforcement of drivers behaving poorly as well...

[Arborbridge]

I recall govt research some years ago which noted that 80% of pedestrian accidents were caused by pedestrians.
Can't find that now, but here are come causes https://www.statista.com/statistics/323 ... ritain-uk/.
Perhaps if pedestrians were prosecuted, that would be more effective in accident prevention.


Our neighbours up the lane have en electric car which on more than one occasion has nearly run me over. Almost as dangerous as bicycles.

V8

So would it be your fault or the neighbours fault if you were runover - which side of the statistics would you go on?

It's a moot point at times whose "fault" it is. My own observation as a pedestrian is that drivers mostly drive on the principle that nothing will go wrong. In the driver's world people don't trip over, get distracted, or behave erratically.
The machine is the one providing the large dynamic force which causes damage, not the pedestrian, and in my view the people in charge of those machines should be the ones taking responsibility to drive as though something will go wrong.
I can't count the number of times I have been passed on a narrow road by a car which assumed I would not trip or lurch, driven too fast (in the circumstances) by a decent looking middle class person. If you are a foot away, you should be passing at low speed (not much more than walking in a confined space), not insisting on doing 20 or 30 just because that's what the limit is. Momentum does a lot of damage.

Having said that, of course, pedestrians should be held to blame if they do something provocative or absurd, but in general it is the motorist who should carry the onus to make sure that he proceeds safely.

Arb.

[airbus330]

Bit of a six of one, half dozen of the other. Both pedestrians and motorists should exercise due care and attention of each other, but unfortunately, if they get it wrong, the pedestrian is most likely to come off worse. I can't be bothered to find the reference, but there was some published evidence that 20mph zones had worse pedestrian/car accidents stats after implementation due to pedestrians changing their habits to dive across the road in front of v slow moving traffic. Having unlearnt their survival tactic of treating crossing the road with caution, they get it wrong more often.

[Nimrod103]

There is no accounting for bad behaviour. The nearest I came to an accident as a pedestrian was when I crossed the one way street outside Broadgate, (which I crossed every day on my way to work), looked in the direction of cars approaching, and was nearly hit by a cyclist pedalling furiously the wrong way.

I feel generally that most accidents in residential areas are caused by people not taking the time to look properly, because they are in such a rush. Whether it is a pedestrian dashing across the road, or a car pulling out of a side road, these actions have to be done slowly (to begin with) while judging where other moving objects are.

[DrFfybes]

It's a moot point at times whose "fault" it is. My own observation as a pedestrian is that drivers mostly drive on the principle that nothing will go wrong.

Arb.

Exactly this, except pedestrians and cyclists also make the same assumptions.

I've dealt with several incidents and a few fatalities at pedestrian crossings over the years, and seen several near misses, with fault lying both ways. . One was an impatient taxi driver who overtook a vehicle in lane 1 coming off the roundabout and went through the red, https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-devon-16300843
and I've seen several ignoring or not saying the reds, but with the fatalities most of the time it was pedestrian error

These tend to be the more serious as the drive isn't expecting itso doesn't take avoiding action.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/engl ... 538518.stm isn't quite as it seems - the lorry was stopped a few metres back from the lights and the short elderly lady walked right in front of the truck below his eyeline as the lights changed, the driver thought the 'bumps' as he set off where his wheels going over the raised crossing and didn't know anything about it until he was pulled up about 1/2 a mile away. Ive had one where someone was texting and walked out in front when the reversing bleeper sounded on a vehicle in the adjacent building site, and a very common one is large junctions with no centre island, where people see the lights change in one direction and step out in front of vehicles coming from their right who had laready passed the stopline.

This morning I apprached a crossing as it went red, the lady waiting on my left shot out on her mobility scooter as soon as the driver coming the other way slowed down. Traffic still had an amber (which technically means "stop") but she never even glanced in my direction.

Paul

[AF62]

I can't be bothered to find the reference, but there was some published evidence that 20mph zones had worse pedestrian/car accidents stats after implementation due to pedestrians changing their habits to dive across the road in front of v slow moving traffic. Having unlearnt their survival tactic of treating crossing the road with caution, they get it wrong more often.

The most ridiculous scheme I encountered was the redesign of Exhibition Road outside the museums in London to convert it to a 'shared space' where there was no delineation between road or pavement. Really sensible for an area full of overseas tourists who invariably look the wrong way when crossing the road.

I understand after numerous pedestrians have been injured, including one instance in 2017 when a taxi drove into a group of 9 people and sparked thoughts it was a terrorist incident, that the £30m scheme has been removed and put back to road and pavements again.

[richlist]

Is it worth me pointing out that 20mph zones are maximum speed limits. There is no compulsion on a driver's part to drive at 20mph. It's often preferable to drive at less in order to avoid pedestrians, often outside schools and other congested areas. What's the hurry ? You will still arrive faster and fresher than if you were walking.

[AF62]

Is it worth me pointing out that 20mph zones are maximum speed limits. There is no compulsion on a driver's part to drive at 20mph. It's often preferable to drive at less in order to avoid pedestrians, often outside schools and other congested areas. What's the hurry ? You will still arrive faster and fresher than if you were walking.

The issue is not that a 20mph limit is put in place outside schools and other congested areas, but that some councils are imposing 20mph zones over wide areas where there is no specific reason for a 20mph limit.

As a result, some people comply with the 20mph limit but lots get frustrated and do silly things to get past. Of course that can happen in 30mph limits, but it is far far less frequent. As a result you end up with the oddity that the 20mph zone can be less safe for pedestrians as they are not expecting the overtaking car doing 40mph on the wrong side of the road.

[swill453]

As a result, some people comply with the 20mph limit but lots get frustrated and do silly things to get past. Of course that can happen in 30mph limits, but it is far far less frequent. As a result you end up with the oddity that the 20mph zone can be less safe for pedestrians as they are not expecting the overtaking car doing 40mph on the wrong side of the road.

Nothing like my experience in the slightest. 20mph limits covering entire towns are widespread here. Some drivers comply rigidly. Some drive more than 20 but less than 30, presumably having lowered their speed slightly from before. Some drivers ignore it completely and drive the same 30-35ish they always used to. Net result is a lowering of the average speed, so a partial success I suppose.

But I've never seen anyone get so frustrated with a 20-compliant driver that they try to overtake.

Scott.

[genou]

The issue is not that a 20mph limit is put in place outside schools and other congested areas, but that some councils are imposing 20mph zones over wide areas where there is no specific reason for a 20mph limit.

I don't think this has been mentioned here yet - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland- ... 0programme.

It seems to be working quite well, with decent compliance ( not that I am driving very much at the moment ) . It makes crossing the road more civilized*, and after you sit in the car at a junction a couple of times unnecessarily ( because you don't expect the speed of approach ), it makes a deal of junctions easier in a car.

Going from NSL to 20 is puzzling a few people - they start slowing down way in advance.


* there's an on demand by pedestrian light controlled crossing between me and the town when going on foot. The lights are almost unused now.

[vrdiver]

As a result, some people comply with the 20mph limit but lots get frustrated and do silly things to get past. Of course that can happen in 30mph limits, but it is far far less frequent. As a result you end up with the oddity that the 20mph zone can be less safe for pedestrians as they are not expecting the overtaking car doing 40mph on the wrong side of the road.

Nothing like my experience in the slightest. 20mph limits covering entire towns are widespread here. Some drivers comply rigidly. Some drive more than 20 but less than 30, presumably having lowered their speed slightly from before. Some drivers ignore it completely and drive the same 30-35ish they always used to. Net result is a lowering of the average speed, so a partial success I suppose.

But I've never seen anyone get so frustrated with a 20-compliant driver that they try to overtake.

Scott.

Three nights ago, when driving out of an estate road towards our town, I was obeying the 20mph limit when a car came up behind, hung around for about 10 seconds before pulling out and overtaking, then roaring off ahead of me. It was dark with ineffective street lighting, icy, and the road has speed humps... Mind you, it would probably have been the same story if I'd been doing 30.

VRD