Matt Rendell Interview still coming…

@DrG82 I think the LAs bungled the exceptions. They had plenty of time in the run up to the implementation date to apply exceptions but mostly frittered this time away. Regardless, I think that the reduction in casualties brings financial savings not just to the NHS but the economy as a whole and makes it a great investment.

@the little onion the level of self-deception required to honestly and truthfully attempt such an argument seems in opposition of service to the crown. antithetical, even.

@the little onion Even worse, wearing or not wearing hi viz being seen by drivers who just don't give a s**t.

Have those Zeddam course designers been on a fact-finding study to Denbighshire? https://road.cc/news/active-travel-path-branded-pointless-due-to-steps

@the infamous grouse no. It’s what defence lawyers do. He’s doing his job. This case hinged not on whether the driving was bad at the point of collision, but whether the driver knew the poor victim was trapped afterwards, and knew that continuing to drive would cause him further severe harm.

In his closing speech to jurors on Tuesday, Jaime Hamilton KC, defending, said: "You are likely to hold Simon Richardson in contempt. That contempt may well manifest itself in a loathing of Simon Richardson and, in fairness, you are probably right to. Because it is right that we acknowledge it was the actions of Simon Richardson that led to the death of Michael Mullins. Not only is he responsible for the death of Michael Mullins, he acted in the most selfish of ways with one thought in his mind – himself. But that does not make him guilty of the homicide offences on this indictment." (emphasis mine) what a piece of shit.

@mctrials23 yeah ... but that's when we look at places like car parks and conclude that in fact 10 or even 5mph does in fact make a lot of sense!

@Mr Blackbird where can I find photos of this study? Asking for a friend.

@Gd29 I was waiting for the classic "why don't we just ban driving completely by reducing the speed limit to 5mph or 0!" argument and here it is. The statistics are very clear on the benefits of reducing the speed limit from 30-20mph. It doesn't remove bad driving but it mitigates the damage. It also makes fuck all difference to journey times. Everything with driving is risk vs reward. Sure, dropping it to 10mph would save a lot more people but it would make travel by car ridiculous and have minimal benefit vs 20mph. The reward wouldn't be worth the cost.

@Gd29 "Speed limits are an ineffective tool when the problem is drivers not driving in an appropriate manner for the conditions and environment. Those drivers weren’t following the speed limit and/or paying sufficient attention anyway!" That is a question, not an assertion. What are the relative numbers of drivers who are eg. "don't care" criminals who may never have taken a test or are happy to take life, how many are "criminally negligent" eg. may have a licence and not intend to break the law regardless, but just aren't fussed about basic safe driving (maybe regularly drive while tired, never slow down when conditions require), how many are just normal humans (who occasionally make unfathomable mistakes)? What are the relative rates of collisions? What are the casualty outcomes? What effect does simply changing a number on a sign have? If any, why? (There's the psychological "anchoring effect", if 70% of people *are* below the limit does that slow down others, do the "don't cares" maybe just overtake dangerously (but would they anyway? ) ) etc. Reduced speed is a mitigation in that it leads to better outcomes in collisions, that's a known I believe. IIRC there's also agreement that it can mean that fewer collisions happen as there's more time to react. "If that is the problem and you don’t deal with it, but you want to keep reducing injuries/fatalities, you have to keep dropping speed limits until you prohibit road use entirely" "If" (plus as noted other safety measures are available)