20mph

[Rhyd6]

It seems that the powers that be are determined to impose a 20mph across large chunks of Wales. Apparently the idea is to make us all walk or use bikes to increase our fitness levels. Personally I think it's more likely to kill some of us off. We have the trap, only need to find a suitable pony and it'll be free manure all round.

R6

[CliffEdge]

Welsh people run Wales.

[88V8]

We have the trap, only need to find a suitable pony and it'll be free manure all round.

Where we lived in Surrey, there was a chap with a trotting cart, used to prance along the road. It was a B road and increasingly busy, but he was fast enough that it didn't cause too much aggro.
Perhaps horses would be OK with a minimum speed of 15mph...

We collect the droppings from the horses that walk up our lane. Our ex-suburban neighbours think we're odd....

V8

[Bminusrob]

Welcome to 2022. You are seeing the effect of removing "common sense" from the education system, and the stopping of calling an idiot an idiot.

A typical example of this recently is that apparently, Chris Boardman, ex-Olympic gold medal winner, and now in an advisory category on health and fitness "has said people shouldn't use cars for journeys of less than a mile". I know this because lots of local areas have "quoted" him on their Facebook sites. Now, I know that Chris Boardman is not an idiot, so I looked a bit futher into what he said, and guess what. he only suggested that people should think about short journeys, and if a car is necessary for the journey. Unfortunately, the brainless part of society, who are only capable of getting jobs with local councils read what they want to read, and "quote" it as fact.

Another good example near where I live is Bideford. Little White Town, as described by Charles Kingsley in his writings. The local authority, who extort money from me, spent hours and hours discussing removing all the signs saying Little White Town because it could be construed as racist. These are the idiots who my hard earned money goes to pay for. Their education (or lack of it) has led them to fail to think before acting. A tiny amount of research will show that what Charles Kingsley is referring to is the preponderance of houses in the area which are rendered, and painted white. This whole case (and it is just one example of what is happening all over the country, not just on matters of race, but on lack of thinking first) should have been looked into for a couple of minutes, and discarded with a short reasoning about white fronted houses; a building style common in new builds in the area.

Now, as for your 20mph limits in Wales, there are some good reasons for 20mph speed limits. There was a seried of adverts a few years ago showing the difference between 20, 30 and 40mph in the event of an impact with a child. However, the brainless mob to whom I referred above aren't thinking about this. They have decided that 20mph will reduce fuel consumption and pollution a bit like reducing speeds from 70mph to 50mph. They are completely wrong, as the small amount of research which they have failed to do will show them. Cars use less fuel at 30mph than at 20mph (largely due to gearing), and also spend less time polluting build up areas if they drive through them at 30mph rather than at 20mph.

I suggest you just give up, and catch the train... Oh no. They are on strike. Time for bed, said Zebedee.

[kempiejon]

10 or 15 years ago I had to do a speed awareness courses after getting GATSOd at 34 in a 30. Only those a going a little bit over the 30 limit can dodge the points and take a course instead. It was quite long at something like 4 or 5 hours and cost me a similar amount of money to the fine I avoided. We saw some films and looked at analysis of a pile up. There were lots of facts and figures, the exact numbers I do not remember but the gist being at 20mph most pedestrians survive contact with a vehicle at 35mph (about the speed most of us on the course we doing when photographed) half die or have life changing injuries.
It did change my behaviour I sometime drop to 3rd in a 30 and at the lowest speeds in built up areas will drive below the limit - to the annoyance of the hot hatches behind me right up my pipe.
My experience is that I'm unusual by staying below 30 in a 30 limit.

[GoSeigen]

However, the brainless mob to whom I referred above aren't thinking about this. They have decided that 20mph will reduce fuel consumption and pollution a bit like reducing speeds from 70mph to 50mph.

Evidence please, else you're making it up like the other people you accuse of being brainless.

GS

[TUK020]

10 or 15 years ago I had to do a speed awareness courses after getting GATSOd at 34 in a 30. Only those a going a little bit over the 30 limit can dodge the points and take a course instead. It was quite long at something like 4 or 5 hours and cost me a similar amount of money to the fine I avoided. We saw some films and looked at analysis of a pile up. There were lots of facts and figures, the exact numbers I do not remember but the gist being at 20mph most pedestrians survive contact with a vehicle at 35mph (about the speed most of us on the course we doing when photographed) half die or have life changing injuries.
It did change my behaviour I sometime drop to 3rd in a 30 and at the lowest speeds in built up areas will drive below the limit - to the annoyance of the hot hatches behind me right up my pipe.
My experience is that I'm unusual by staying below 30 in a 30 limit.

The statistics that I recall are:

At 20mph, 90% of children will survive being hit by a car.
At 40mph, 90% of children do not survive

[Bminusrob]

However, the brainless mob to whom I referred above aren't thinking about this. They have decided that 20mph will reduce fuel consumption and pollution a bit like reducing speeds from 70mph to 50mph.

I think the graph in this link https://www.mpgforspeed.com/ clearly shows what I was said. This link https://www.whichcar.com.au/car-advice/ ... -save-fuel shows a very similar shaped graph.

[JohnB]

Driving at too low a speed for a road leads to inattention. Without the optical flow and introduction of hazards, you tend to switch off. There is a pollution change, and increased risky overtaking from those not prepared to obey a lower limit. So a better measure is the change in the number of bad accident outcomes with a limit change, especially if it can be expressed in quality life-year reduction, as that can then be directly compared with the time lost by longer journey times.

The problem is that detailed statistical analysis is hard, both to do, and to sell to voters.

[88V8]

However, the brainless mob to whom I referred above aren't thinking about this. They have decided that 20mph will reduce fuel consumption and pollution a bit like reducing speeds from 70mph to 50mph.

Evidence please, else you're making it up like the other people you accuse of being brainless.

I think Rob already answered this but I know for a fact that in the (few) 20mph zones we have, I'm driving my little stickshift Peugeot in 2nd or 3rd gear, whereas when they used to be 30mph it was 3rd or top.
That means roughly 50% more emissions.

I have read that this is offset by less tyre and brake dust. But they don't end up in the atmosphere and enhance warming or smog.

Less clear what effect 20mph has in an automatic, as my autos have much bigger engines and can pull a higher gear.

V8

[stewamax]

Only 10 mph more to go and the Red Flag Man cometh.

Remember the verse posted when the 70mph limit was introduced?
Sung to the Red Flag tune:

Tom Fraser’s flag is deepest red,
On Motorways he walks ahead.
If we exceed three score and ten
We’ll likely end up in the pen.
Though Motorways were made to speed,
The flow of traffic, not impede,
Tom Fraser says “No ruddy fear,
keep the red flag flying HERE!"

[Tom Fraser was Minister of Transport at the time.]

[GoSeigen]

However, the brainless mob to whom I referred above aren't thinking about this. They have decided that 20mph will reduce fuel consumption and pollution a bit like reducing speeds from 70mph to 50mph.

I think the graph in this link https://www.mpgforspeed.com/ clearly shows what I was said. This link https://www.whichcar.com.au/car-advice/ ... -save-fuel shows a very similar shaped graph.

No I'm talking about your statement which I carefully quoted that the "brainless mob" have decided to use the speed limit to reduce fuel consumption and pollution. Where did you get that information from?

GS

[Bminusrob]

However, the brainless mob to whom I referred above aren't thinking about this. They have decided that 20mph will reduce fuel consumption and pollution a bit like reducing speeds from 70mph to 50mph.

I think the graph in this link https://www.mpgforspeed.com/ clearly shows what I was said. This link https://www.whichcar.com.au/car-advice/ ... -save-fuel shows a very similar shaped graph.

No I'm talking about your statement which I carefully quoted that the "brainless mob" have decided to use the speed limit to reduce fuel consumption and pollution. Where did you get that information from?

GS

Today program interview this week (Tuesday or Wednesday). I didn't catch the name. I was probably too busy trying to find my last remaining hair to tear out.

[didds]

I suggest you just give up, and catch the train... Oh no. They are on strike. Time for bed, said Zebedee.

that rather assumes there is a train to catch, since 1966

[Bminusrob]

Common sense has been restored, at least in part.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... klash.html

They have worked out that lowering the speed limit to 20mph produces more congestion and more pollution.

I am eagerly awaiting someone to stump up the money for a Freedom of Informatiion Request to find out how much this idiotic policy has cost. The politicians involved need to be surcharged.

How do local councils find all these idiots? It reminds me of the occasion in Thatcham, where the local coucil installed illegally high speed ramps, causing damage to cars. They removed the speed ramps fairly quickly. When challenged on the cost, their response, I kid you not was "Well it didn't cost us anything because we used out surplus to pay for it."

[MrFoolish]

If children are taught (like I was) not to step out into the road when there's a car coming, then it makes no difference if the car is doing 30 mph or 20 mph.

If the children (or adults for that matter) can't walk somewhere without their heads buried in their phones then good luck to them.

Responsibility cuts two ways.

[bluedonkey]

Even less fuel consumption traveling by bike. Good idea for short journeys.

[Mike4]

If children are taught (like I was) not to step out into the road when there's a car coming, then it makes no difference if the car is doing 30 mph or 20 mph.

If the children (or adults for that matter) can't walk somewhere without their heads buried in their phones then good luck to them.

Responsibility cuts two ways.

The thing that irks me about stuff like this is why use statistics for children? There are a lot more adults around to get hit by cars than there are children.

I guess the answer is 1) children are smaller and thinner so injure more easily thus making the stats worse, giving more support for the (already taken) decision, and 2) the thought of injuring or killing children tugs hard at the heart strings than injuring or killing adults, also giving more support to the (already taken) decision,

[DrFfybes]

Even less fuel consumption traveling by bike. Good idea for short journeys.

Better still to walk, but it is a balance of convenience, time, and carrying 6 bottles of wine and 18 toilet rolls the 2 miles back from the supermarket.

Assuming, of course, that one is physically able to walk/cycle that far.

[servodude]

If children are taught (like I was) not to step out into the road when there's a car coming, then it makes no difference if the car is doing 30 mph or 20 mph.

If the children (or adults for that matter) can't walk somewhere without their heads buried in their phones then good luck to them.

Responsibility cuts two ways.

The thing that irks me about stuff like this is why use statistics for children? There are a lot more adults around to get hit by cars than there are children.

I guess the answer is 1) children are smaller and thinner so injure more easily thus making the stats worse, giving more support for the (already taken) decision, and 2) the thought of injuring or killing children tugs hard at the heart strings than injuring or killing adults, also giving more support to the (already taken) decision,

I think it might be 'cos normally the areas concerned are around a school (or at least that's the most commonly expected place to encounter a reduced speed limit)
With the expectation that at some points of the day there are hordes of the blighters milling about and occupying the blind spots of large badly parked vehicles.