Global study calls for 20mph speed limit as standard in built-up areas

PeterPeterPeter wrote:

I've been wondering for ages why we don't police speeding with a GPS system, that relatively speaking would be pretty cheap and loads better than the current system.

Everyone has a compulsory GPS tracker in any road liscensed vehicle, that doesn't log where you go but does ping a message to law enforcement every time you go over the speed limit but more than a few mph.

It would stop everyone whining about how unlucky they are when they get caught for speeding and the fines could be very small. Alot of current drivers would really notice pretty quickly if they got fined £10 every time they exceeded the speed limit, or got 3 points every 20 times.

Am I missing an obvious reason why this wouldn't work as I can't be the first to think of it- and seems like such an easy win.

I get that it would be politically difficult at first- but it isn't like there aren't a ton of restrictions already on car ownership, and I imagine the trackers being fitted in the liscense plates for example.

The real problem is unsafe driving, not speeding, which is an attempt to limit unsafe driving. Unfortunately, GPS systems aren't yet able to detect unsafe driving. Self-driving or A.I. assisted vehicles could solve this issue.

ktache wrote:

A 20mph speed limit is not draconian.

It is to Hussain Bolt!

ktache wrote:

A 20mph speed limit is not draconian.

I tried to Google it, but it doesn't seem as if Draco said much about traffic law.  He imposed the death penalty for stealing a cabbage, apparently, but nothing about speeding chariots.

nbrus wrote:

If the speed limit was reduced to 10 mph, then that would get more people onto bicycles. What needs changing is getting people to drive safely instead of being in a rush to get to their destination. Eating your bowl of cereal whilst stopped at the lights is not a sensible idea and those people need to get their act together. In terms of carrot/stick, I think rewarding people for good driving bahaviour (e.g. cheaper insurance) is more effective that imposing excessive restrictions that have minimal effect on those that already offend.

There's at least an argument here.

But how does that relate to your earlier post about 20mph being too slow and making an outlaw of Hussein Bolt?

davel wrote:

nbrus wrote:

If the speed limit was reduced to 10 mph, then that would get more people onto bicycles. What needs changing is getting people to drive safely instead of being in a rush to get to their destination. Eating your bowl of cereal whilst stopped at the lights is not a sensible idea and those people need to get their act together. In terms of carrot/stick, I think rewarding people for good driving bahaviour (e.g. cheaper insurance) is more effective that imposing excessive restrictions that have minimal effect on those that already offend.

There's at least an argument here. But how does that relate to your earlier post about 20mph being too slow and making an outlaw of Hussein Bolt?

Hussain Bolt's top speed is 27 mph !!! 

He's faster than me on my bike and could easily exceed a 20 mph speed limit, so you can't just allow him to ignore speed limits if you want to impose them on motor vehicles.

Speed limits are a mechanism for ensuring safe driving. We should be targeting the cause not the symptom. Why do we make cars that can easily exceed any speed limit? Everyone knows that owners will exceed the speed limit when conditions allow and no one is looking. Draconian measures will not fix a problem that has a deeper cause. Drug dealers still deal drugs. You will never eliminate accidents, so you need to be sensible about what measures you take to reduce them.

It wasn't that long ago when Aliston was done for killing a pedestrian on his fixie and everyone (i.e. cyclists) was screaming that the pedestrian had a duty of care to look where she was going. Are we now suggesting the opposite? Every sensible driver already drives at a speed appropriate for the conditions, so imposing unneccessary draconian 20 mph speed restrictions that apply even when driving conditions can safely support 30 mph is taking things a little too far IMHO.

nbrus wrote:

davel wrote:

nbrus wrote:

If the speed limit was reduced to 10 mph, then that would get more people onto bicycles. What needs changing is getting people to drive safely instead of being in a rush to get to their destination. Eating your bowl of cereal whilst stopped at the lights is not a sensible idea and those people need to get their act together. In terms of carrot/stick, I think rewarding people for good driving bahaviour (e.g. cheaper insurance) is more effective that imposing excessive restrictions that have minimal effect on those that already offend.

There's at least an argument here. But how does that relate to your earlier post about 20mph being too slow and making an outlaw of Hussein Bolt?

Hussain Bolt's top speed is 27 mph !!! 

He's faster than me on my bike and could easily exceed a 20 mph speed limit, so you can't just allow him to ignore speed limits if you want to impose them on motor vehicles.

Speed limits are a mechanism for ensuring safe driving. We should be targeting the cause not the symptom. Why do we make cars that can easily exceed any speed limit? Everyone knows that owners will exceed the speed limit when conditions allow and no one is looking. Draconian measures will not fix a problem that has a deeper cause. Drug dealers still deal drugs. You will never eliminate accidents, so you need to be sensible about what measures you take to reduce them.

It wasn't that long ago when Aliston was done for killing a pedestrian on his fixie and everyone (i.e. cyclists) was screaming that the pedestrian had a duty of care to look where she was going. Are we now suggesting the opposite? Every sensible driver already drives at a speed appropriate for the conditions, so imposing unneccessary draconian 20 mph speed restrictions that apply even when driving conditions can safely support 30 mph is taking things a little too far IMHO.

that's an argument for removing all speed restrictions. Which is not necessarily a bad idea, but leaves things open to subjective interpretation.

ConcordeCX wrote:

that's an argument for removing all speed restrictions. Which is not necessarily a bad idea, but leaves things open to subjective interpretation.

I feel confident that in the not too distant future we will have A.I. built into all motor vehicles and it will prevent us from driving in an unsafe manner, or may even do the driving for us if we choose. When this happens we will have no need for speed limits.

nbrus wrote:

I feel confident that in the not too distant future we will have A.I. built into all motor vehicles and it will prevent us from driving in an unsafe manner, or may even do the driving for us if we choose. When this happens we will have no need for speed limits.

Such a scenario would come with consequences though such as not allowing cycling and only allowing pedestrians to cross at designated points.

I don't have that level of confidence in software either.

hirsute wrote:

nbrus wrote:

I feel confident that in the not too distant future we will have A.I. built into all motor vehicles and it will prevent us from driving in an unsafe manner, or may even do the driving for us if we choose. When this happens we will have no need for speed limits.

Such a scenario would come with consequences though such as not allowing cycling and only allowing pedestrians to cross at designated points.

I don't have that level of confidence in software either.

there won't be any pedestrians or cyclists, we'll all have jetpacks.

Software's fine. It's the people who commission it that are the problem. See Uber for further details.

Your scenario won't happen. Not only because it's socially unacceptable, but also because properly specified and written software can deal with the difficulties. We are only at the very beginning right now, and as far as I can see the best of the software is already better than humans. This doesn't mean that no-one will be killed or injured in the forthcoming utopia, but there will be very significantly fewer than now, and each death will be treated far more seriously than the deaths brought about now by human drivers. It's irrational but hey, humans.

it will also be possible for cyclists, pedestrians, skateboarders and so on to equip themselves with smart watches or phones which will communicate with the rest of the infrastructure and with other portable devices. By then we probably won't even need a phone or watch, they'll be built into our false teeth,which will be permantly clamped to Strava.

nbrus wrote:

ConcordeCX wrote:

that's an argument for removing all speed restrictions. Which is not necessarily a bad idea, but leaves things open to subjective interpretation.

I feel confident that in the not too distant future we will have A.I. built into all motor vehicles and it will prevent us from driving in an unsafe manner, or may even do the driving for us if we choose. When this happens we will have no need for speed limits.

Another one falling for the hype.  Why are so many so gullible about this stuff?

nbrus wrote:

davel wrote:

nbrus wrote:

If the speed limit was reduced to 10 mph, then that would get more people onto bicycles. What needs changing is getting people to drive safely instead of being in a rush to get to their destination. Eating your bowl of cereal whilst stopped at the lights is not a sensible idea and those people need to get their act together. In terms of carrot/stick, I think rewarding people for good driving bahaviour (e.g. cheaper insurance) is more effective that imposing excessive restrictions that have minimal effect on those that already offend.

There's at least an argument here. But how does that relate to your earlier post about 20mph being too slow and making an outlaw of Hussein Bolt?

Hussain Bolt's top speed is 27 mph !!! 

He's faster than me on my bike and could easily exceed a 20 mph speed limit, so you can't just allow him to ignore speed limits if you want to impose them on motor vehicles.

Speed limits are a mechanism for ensuring safe driving. We should be targeting the cause not the symptom. Why do we make cars that can easily exceed any speed limit? Everyone knows that owners will exceed the speed limit when conditions allow and no one is looking. Draconian measures will not fix a problem that has a deeper cause. Drug dealers still deal drugs. You will never eliminate accidents, so you need to be sensible about what measures you take to reduce them.

It wasn't that long ago when Aliston was done for killing a pedestrian on his fixie and everyone (i.e. cyclists) was screaming that the pedestrian had a duty of care to look where she was going. Are we now suggesting the opposite? Every sensible driver already drives at a speed appropriate for the conditions, so imposing unneccessary draconian 20 mph speed restrictions that apply even when driving conditions can safely support 30 mph is taking things a little too far IMHO.

Where to start...

Maybe with "Usain" Bolt...

He's kind of a pedestrian, with about 95kg of mass, no?

Unlikely to be travelling at 27mph for much longer than 200 yards, no?

Do you spot any differences between him and a car, say even a little one, like a Fiat 500, that is over 5 times his mass and has no tissue or flesh?

Is it just a bit possible that we might make laws that treat the damage dealt by such different vehicles, er, differently? Kind of how they already do?

Here's a clue...

It might be just a tad fucking cretinous, short-sighted, and fuckwitted to suggest that "Every sensible driver already drives at a speed appropriate for the conditions" is any kind of solution when 5 people die every fucking day on the roads.

davel wrote:

It might be just a tad fucking cretinous, short-sighted, and fuckwitted to suggest that "Every sensible driver already drives at a speed appropriate for the conditions" is any kind of solution when 5 people die every fucking day on the roads.

Let's say you're driving around town at 01.00 am in the morning and no one is around ... do you think a 20 mph speed limit is appropriate for these conditions? Is it ok for police, ambulance, and fire services to break speed limits? Most in town traffic rarely reaches 20 mph as it is.

nbrus wrote:

davel wrote:

It might be just a tad fucking cretinous, short-sighted, and fuckwitted to suggest that "Every sensible driver already drives at a speed appropriate for the conditions" is any kind of solution when 5 people die every fucking day on the roads.

Let's say you're driving around town at 01.00 am in the morning and no one is around ... do you think a 20 mph speed limit is appropriate for these conditions?

Yes!

nbrus wrote:

It wasn't that long ago when Aliston was done for killing a pedestrian on his fixie and everyone (i.e. cyclists) was screaming that the pedestrian had a duty of care to look where she was going. Are we now suggesting the opposite? Every sensible driver already drives at a speed appropriate for the conditions, so imposing unneccessary draconian 20 mph speed restrictions that apply even when driving conditions can safely support 30 mph is taking things a little too far IMHO.

I don't know about 'everyone', but I for one certainly didn't regard Aliston as blameless.  Even if I thought the police 'reconstruction' was shockingly stupid, and felt annoyed by the glaring double-standard displayed in the whole affair, Aliston did screw up in several ways.

  In any case, in that example the victim stepped out at a distance where a car going at 20mph would have been unlikely to stop in time (6.5m, about the precise idealised stopping distance for a car at that speed - and since when do motorists stay under the speed limit?), so what's the relevance to a discussion about 20mph limits?

As for 'every sensible driver' and 'speed appropriate for the conditions'...  Firstly there are huge numbers of drivers who are not sensible.  Secondly what does 'appropriate for the conditions' even _mean_?   I don't understand what that phrase is supposed to mean.  Appropriate for whose needs and priorities?  The driver's or everyone else's?  Fast traffic is intimidating to both pedestrians and cyclists, and it greatly increases the cost to those road users of driver errors.

It's not up to drivers alone to decide what is 'appropriate', the roads in urban areas don't belong to them, they are there on sufferance.  in more than a few roads I'd prefer a speed limit for motorised traffic of zero.  I'll settle for 20.  Why do you want to drive down my streets at high speed?  Leave home earlier or get a bike!

felixcat wrote:

These figures understate the safety benefits of slowing drivers down. They show how much more likely it is that pedestrians hit a slower speeds will survive, but not how much less likely it is that they will be hit in the first place.

Summary:At 20mph one in twenty pedestrians hit will die.

                      At 30mph nine in twenty pedestrians hit will die.

                      At 40mph nineteen in twenty pedestrians hit will die.

Another benefit is that it makes built up areas, which by definition are where people live, work, shop or go to school, so much more pleasant places to be, and make it so much easier to cross the road.

 

nbrus wrote:

Why not just reduce the speed to Zero mph and eliminate accidents altogether. No point in half measures. Seriously, 20 mph is way too slow.

For what?

nbrus wrote:

Why not just reduce the speed to Zero mph and eliminate accidents altogether. No point in half measures. Seriously, 20 mph is way too slow.

"

The UK DOT analyzed injury and death rates for pedestrians hit by vehicles at 20 mph, 30 mph, and 40 mph. They found that at 20 mph, or at the typical speed limit in school zones in the US, roughly 5% of pedestrians would not survive a vehicular collision. Let’s use a sample of 20 random people (young adults, children, middle-aged men and women, and seniors) to make the percentages more understandable.

In our hypothetical 20 mph collision, a 5% fatality rate means 1 out of 20 individuals would die, whether at the scene or at the hospital. 65%, or 13 out of 20, would survive with some injury, such as a broken leg or arm. A full 30% would walk away without any injuries whatsoever, or 6 out of our sample 20 people. Those are pretty good odds; you’d have a 95% chance of surviving what could otherwise be the last day of your life.

The picture changes dramatically at 30 mph; just 10 mph more.

What are my odds of surviving if I’m hit by a car at 30 mph?

Now we’re at the typical speed limit for urban and suburban areas in many parts of the US. Keep in mind most people in 30 mph zones aren’t going to be traveling at 30 mph; they’re going to be traveling faster. But if they obeyed the speed limit, here’s what would happen, on average, if they hit random members of our random sample of 20 people.

First of all, the death rate jumps to 45%. A full 9 out of 20 people would die, whether at the scene or soon afterward. Game over. No take backs, no do-overs. Just dead. Another 50% would be injured, or 10 out of 20 people. And a scant 5%, or just 1 out of 20 people, could expect to walk away without injury.

The difference is sobering. Think of it the next time you’re driving past a crosswalk, or better yet, crossing one on foot. If you’re hit at 20 mph, you’re going to have a bad day, but you’re almost guaranteed to survive to complain about it the next day. If you’re hit at 30 mph, it’s a coin flip as to whether you’re going to see your loved ones again, ever. Is it fair to give so much power over to someone who wanted to get somewhere, anywhere a few seconds earlier?

Of course, the picture gets still worse at 40 mph. In fact, it makes 30 mph look marvelous.

What are my odds of surviving if I’m hit by a car at 40 mph?

You’re likely to see 40 (or 45) mph speed limits on the outskirts of towns or on 2-4 lane roadways and expressways through large cities (e.g., Lake Shore Drive in Chicago or State Street or Harrison Avenue in Rockford, IL). They’re pretty common, and the odds are good that you can think of an area close to where you live with 40+ mph speed limits that doesn’t require going on the highway. Yet you can also probably think of a number of times when you’ve seen pedestrians attempting to cross such streets, with or without cross-walks. Here’s what would happen, on average, if 20 people were hit at these speeds.

To put it simply, nearly all of them would die at the scene. The death rate jumps to a near-conclusive 95%. That’s 19 out of 20 people, or pretty much everyone. That’s not the injury rate; it’s the death rate. The 20th person would be injured. That’s a 5% survival rate. There are very few diseases with 95% fatality rates (untreated Rabies is the only one most Americans have any real risk of coming across), but those are your odds of dying if you’re hit by a vehicle at speeds you’re likely to find in every city in the country."

nbrus wrote:

Why not just reduce the speed to Zero mph and eliminate accidents altogether. No point in half measures. Seriously, 20 mph is way too slow.

For many roads, I'd agree.  Did you have a point?

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

nbrus wrote:

Why not just reduce the speed to Zero mph and eliminate accidents altogether. No point in half measures. Seriously, 20 mph is way too slow.

For many roads, I'd agree.  Did you have a point?

Yes, my point is 20 mph is way too slow. Kids on pedal cycles would be done for speeding. Hussain Bolt would be done for speeding. My neighbour's cat would be done for speeding.

We already have 20 mph zones in areas where it makes sense, we don't need these zones everywhere. A max speed limit does not mean you have to drive at that speed. Always drive according to conditions and expect the unexpected. Don't start penalising drivers for driving safely when conditions allow. 20 mph is slow...

nbrus wrote:

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

nbrus wrote:

Why not just reduce the speed to Zero mph and eliminate accidents altogether. No point in half measures. Seriously, 20 mph is way too slow.

For many roads, I'd agree.  Did you have a point?

Yes, my point is 20 mph is way too slow. Kids on pedal cycles would be done for speeding. Hussain Bolt would be done for speeding. My neighbour's cat would be done for speeding.

We already have 20 mph zones in areas where it makes sense, we don't need these zones everywhere. A max speed limit does not mean you have to drive at that speed. Always drive according to conditions and expect the unexpected. Don't start penalising drivers for driving safely when conditions allow. 20 mph is slow...

That's a lot of words to say absolutely fuck-all.