It was my fault

@ajuk.uk@gmail.com As we've discussed previously managing driver behaviour *is* complex (because humans). But even where e.g. lower "blanket limits" are being decried (is that the objection to "traffic calming by fiat"?) a) the statistics show that average speed does come down and b) deaths and injuries are reduced *. Sounds *measurably* good, no? What are the down-sides? (Leaving aside much wider arguments about individual autonomy and "state control"). Well, delays to *motor traffic* are usually very strongly discouraged - both for "common sense" reasons ("vital emergency services" through "time is money" and then the usually less evidenced "pollution increases"). That's also built in to many of our government metrics (e.g. "must have a minimal negative impact on journey times" for road changes, building new developments etc.) However reducing the speed limits does not always greatly increase journey times. Of course that varies with locality and specifics since the reasons again are complicated (traffic flow smoothing, re-routing of traffic, "traffic evaporation"). * The statistics as always should be scrutinised - but at worst it seems like what would have been deaths become serious injuries and probably some of what would have been serious injuries become less serious and "not reported" - so if deaths come down but serious injuries go up I'd say that's expected and a win. Why does this happen even if all that changes is a number on a sign (which is a poor way to change behaviour, agreed) - possibly because psychology (anchoring effect) and also that some people slowing down will often physically impede and hence slow down others?

@ajuk.uk@gmail.com "There’s one group of people who say the speed limit is a legal tool there to single out reckless drivers" Not trying to be snarky - but who is this group? That sounds like the kind of thing that people with a certain kind of grievance trot out - "of course, the speed cameras are just a council cash cow..." Or "if it weren't for incompetent drivers (unlike me) we really wouldn't need speed limits, we should and ultimately must trust reasonable people..."

Aren't things quite bleeq enough these days? Why would I want to up the bleeqness?

AHahahahhahaaaa. No.

Whenever I hear/read a cycle helmet trope I know immediately the source doesn't cycle, is most likely a thoughtless petrolhead, and likely gets their knowledge from GB News. As for those not councillors, the public can be as bad.

@ajuk.uk@gmail.com Coming next from ajuk, there's no point in having a drink drive limit of 0.80 BAC, let's increase it to 2.0 and then we'll catch the really drunk people without bothering those who have just had a few drinks. Honestly, what a lot of nonsense, "lots of people are ignoring the law" is an argument for stricter enforcement and harsher sanctions, not "oh, people don't like it so let's not bother". Speeding is not "normalised and socially acceptable" because of 20 mph limits – the majority of motorists admit to ignoring 30 mph limits as well – it's because successive governments, councils and police forces are reluctant to enforce perfectly reasonable laws for fear of being labelled "anti-motorist". Meanwhile every year 1750 people are killed by drivers (with 56% of fatalities having excessive speed as a factor) and 25,000 more seriously injured.

@Mr Blackbird Definitely my experience in my brief and inglorious year as a motorcycle courier, delivering £10,000 of aeroplane tickets to someone in Belgravia, not a chance of a tip and the snottiest attitudes imaginable, taking work out to some freelancer in a council flat in Leytonstone often a tip, always a chat and an offer of tea. Many very rich people really do regard the rest of the population as a totally different species. I guess if they started thinking of them as equals that might lead to some uncomfortable thoughts that maybe they should be equally rewarded for the same level of work, and that would never do.

I think the issue about speed limits isn't actually a debate about what the speed limit should be. Moreover, It's people talking past each other because they working from different frameworks of what the speed limit is. There's one group of people who say the speed limit is a legal tool there to single out reckless drivers, and there's the other group who assume they're traffic calming by fiat, because, they don't understand how speed limits work. There is evidence to suggest lower limits work on the sort of narrow residential streets that already lend themselves to such speeds, when it comes to much wider main road where you see non-compliance rates of well over 90%, those people who limits were previously able to single out and target are the sort of drivers most likely to hurt of kill a cyclist. Meanwhile you help to make speeding normalised and socially acceptable instigated by people who claim to want the opposite.

If motorists stopped drinking and/or drug driving and driving faster than the speed limit, that would reduce the head injuries to cyclists, pedestrians, and motorists.

Our window cleaner told me that he rarely gets Christmas tips from his customers in the wealthier areas of town. Maybe it's part of the go getter / climb the greasy pole mentality. I once read that many Olympic gold medalists share a lot of common personality traits with psychopaths - the need to dominate, to come out on top, to soundly beat your opponents. Perhaps the same applies to some high fliers in business?