A Brexit Party politician has said that the only way to prevent road casualties would be “for us all to return to walking” as the Senedd backed plans to make 20mph the default speed limits in residential areas in Wales.
The BBC reports that a report commissioned by the Welsh Government has recommended that 20mph replace 30mph as the default residential area speed limit and the Welsh Government now plans to implement the change by 2023.
However, South Wales East Senedd member David Rowlands, from the Brexit Party, railed against the decision – and seemingly also against the very idea that it is worth reducing road casualties.
After suggesting that the only way in which injuries and deaths on the roads could be eliminated would be “for us all to return to walking,” Rowlands facetiously floated the idea of drastically reducing the limit on motorways.
“This constant reduction in speed could be applied to our motorways,” he said. “A 30mph speed limit on these would save far more lives.”
Deputy transport minister Lee Waters said that 80 children were killed or seriously injured on Welsh roads during the last year for which figures were available.
Referring to the findings of the report, he said: “Even a 1% drop in average speeds is likely to bring about a 6% drop in casualties.”
He concluded: “Whilst we have made progress on reducing deaths on our roads in the 21 years of devolution, despite our considerable efforts there are still 4,000 accidents which result in injuries every year in Wales.
“The evidence is clear, reducing speeds reduces accidents, reducing speed saves lives and slower speeds in our communities improves quality of life.”
Plaid Cymru’s Sian Gwenllian, Senedd member for Arfon, said that enforcement would be key and called for more to be done.
“The question of enforcement is an important one and is one that needs to be addressed,” she said.
“At the moment, the 20mph speed limits aren’t being implemented in a proactive manner, if truth be told.”
51 thoughts on “Brexit Party politician rails against “constant reduction in speed” as Senedd backs default 20mph speed limit in residential areas”
Quote:
Expecting a Brexiteer to argue logically and fairly is pointless. They learnt their lesson back in 2016: disingenuousness wins.
handlebarcam wrote:
Expecting a Brexiteer to argue logically and fairly is pointless. They learnt their lesson back in 2016: disingenuousness wins.
Far too polite; they just lied.
Still, the Russia report might be released next week, unless Boris the Liar can prevent it, so we might be rejoining the week after.
I voted for Brexit. I believe
I voted for Brexit. I believe in 20mph speeds or lower in residential and built up areas. I believe in making cars the least preferred option for personal transport wherever possible. I hope that is logical enough for you.
Same here.
Same here.
Anyone would think that making broad sweeping generalisations about half of the population was unwise, inaccurate and ironically a bit disingenuous.
Not everyone, just under half
Not everyone, just under half of everyone…
paulrbarnard wrote:
Actually, very considerably under half of everyone, and as signatories to the Venice Commission, the tiny majority of the people who voted should have been ignored.
eburtthebike wrote:
You’ve posted this lie before Burt.
There is nothing of the sort in the Venice convention.
[/quote] You’ve posted this
The “Venice Convention” is literally a convention centre in Venice. Do you mean the Venice Commision? If you do, then the breach of spending caps (and we haven’t even got into what the Russians spent on it) would call for the referendum to be anulled.
Take it up with Burt. I was
Take it up with Burt. I was just quoting him.
For clarity though the Venice Commison specifically advises against a minimum quorum or the use of a super majority.
“7. Quorum It is advisable not to provide for: a. a turn-out quorum (threshold, minimum percentage), because it assimilates voters who abstain to those who vote no; b. an approval quorum (approval by a minimum percentage of registered voters), since it risks involving a difficult political situation if the draft is adopted by a simple majority lower than the necessary threshold.”
It’s also worth knowing that Remain significantly outspent Leave, that the Electoral Commision’s fine against BeLeave was overturned in court and that the CPS declined to press charges against either Vote Leave or BeLeave.
The original Electoral Commsion investigation related to an alleged £500k overspend by Vote Leave so even if that were proven, which it wasn’t, then Remain would still have outspent Leave by £6m.
https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/who-we-are-and-what-we-do/elections-and-referendums/past-elections-and-referendums/eu-referendum/campaign-spending-eu-referendum
And the millions of Europeans
And the millions of Europeans who have/had made Britain their home, and the millions of Brits who have/had made Europe their home, should have been allowed to vote but weren’t. So hundreds of thousands of people whose lives have been devastated had no say in the matter. Tragic.
I said Brexiteer not brexit
I said Brexiteer not brexit voter. The -eer suffix denotes an active participant or campaigner. It derives from electioneer, which implies at least knocking on doors on behalf of a candidate, not merely voting for them.
There are also people who repeat Brexit lies, to acquaintances or online, but that’s not the same as inventing or being paid to spread them. And I didn’t say leavers either.
Of course, whenever anyone says anything about the way the leave campaign was conducted, it gets painted it as an attack on “half of the population”. Like I said, disingenuous.
That’s not the commonly
That’s not the commonly accepted usage of Brexiteer.
See here.
https://www.lexico.com/definition/brexiteer
Even if your definition were correct it would still be disingenuous to suggest that every single person who campaigned to Leave the EU behaved in the exact same way.
I’ve no problem whatsoever with people criticising Brexit or the Leave campaign. We live in a reasonably free country after all.
What I do take issue with is people seeking to imply that all Leave voters have the same motives/foibles/flaws.
That’s clearly not true yet it is suggested time and time again.
handlebarcam wrote:
It derives from wankeer, surely?
slappop wrote:
Lololol. Clever and funny!
slappop wrote:
Is that Dutch for driver?
Now there’s an admission you
Now there’s an admission you don’t hear too often.
Do you still want Brexit?
20 m.p.h is the new default
20 m.p.h is the new default speed. Where a higher limit is justified, then this can easily be applied for through the normal processes, though I suspect that local consultation will rather favour the lower noise, safer roads and decrease in rat run traffic.
What I do appreciate is that reducing speed alone is no panacea to ending road traffic deaths. There needs to be enforcement of the limits and active policing to remove unlicensed, uninsured, incompetent, willfully dangerous and intoxicated drivers from the equation.
Almost nobody obeys the speed
Almost nobody obeys the speed limit anyway, especially the 20mph ones.
Especially cyclists. There’s
Especially cyclists. There’s plenty of Strava sections with speed limit busting averages already in existence. One of my favourites is past a school in a 20 zone, I’ve got about 27 mph average through it even though it was done at 7am on a Sunday. Still a 20 at any time time though in legal terms and I did know how fast I was going.
Will we see actual Strava policing?
Not condoning dangerous
Not condoning dangerous cycling, but legally speaking speed limits don’t apply to cyclists. They could be done for furious cycling, however
the little onion wrote:
Been an ambition of mine for years.
We certainly should! Some
We certainly should! Some Strava segments are plain stupid. Like the one down the high street of the local town. The KOM for that one is just gross stupidity.
True not even the Bristol
True not even the Bristol Police.
thick now. Thick then.
thick now. Thick then.
See my reply above, so the
See my reply above, so the police and Edmund King, AA president are thick also?
oldmixte wrote:
No. But you might want to look in the mirror. You know, that bright shiny thing with the person in it who follows your every move.
So if they are not wrong they
So if they are not wrong they must be right so why the sarcastic remarks instead of arguing on the facts? I suggest you study the accident reports.
I suspect that the accident
I suspect that the accident figures will rise as motorists will have to pay close attention to the speedometer to avoid exceeding the speed limit and a fine and endorsement. Better to have eyes on the road than gazing down on the dashboard.
What nonsense.
What nonsense.
How did you manage to pass your driving test?
I mean, not exceeding the speed limit enough to fail, and not running over pesky cyclists and pedestrians, which would also have resulted in a fail.
Even remaining on the road.
And don’t forget the years of experience and competence you must have gained since then.
Plans to scrap buffer zones
Plans to scrap buffer zones and introduce a strict 1mph speed limit penalty were called for last year by Chief Constable Anthony Bangham, of West Mercia Police – the National Police Chiefs’ Council lead on road policing.
Chief Inspector Ian Hanson, chairman of the Greater Manchester Police Federation, said: “I find it absolutely staggering that the effective policy lead for policing should show himself to be so out of touch.”
And some even said making drivers stare at their speedos to check speeds would actually make roads more dangerous.
Edmund King, AA president, added: “The last thing we want is drivers glued to the speedometer 100 per cent of the time. We want drivers to concentrate on the road ahead.”
I do not have any idea how
I do not have any idea how what you have just written is in any way relevant to what my question and point was, or for that matter with the above article.
But I will bite, how do you manage , whithout staring constantly at the speedo, to stay within your so called “buffer zone”?
Maybe you should stick to cycling because driving, especially in a legal manner, might just be a bit much for you.
ktache wrote:
Thanks for saying that in a much more polite way than I would have managed.
What gets me is the reason
What gets me is the reason that drivers stare at the speedo is because instead of driving at a safe speed, they go as fast as they think they can get away with. The fear of being busted is bigger than the fear of ending of compromising the lives of innocent others.
Starting to come round to the old idea of the spike on the steering wheel… Though of course that assumes all in collisions are at fault.
What’s a buffer zone? It’s
What’s a buffer zone? It’s meaningless as you haven’t defined it.
You introduced the term. What
You introduced the term. What do you mean by it ?
See my reply re having an
See my reply re having an adapter fitted that will slow you down without you having to worry about it. You can even get a reduction in your insurance from some firms if you have one fitted. Win-win!
https://etsc.eu/intelligent-speed-assistance-isa/
Sorry, but anyone who can’t
Sorry, but anyone who can’t drive at 20mph without needing to keep looking at the speedo is probably to dim to be allowed to drive.
Get in car. Drive at 20mph. Listen to engine. Continue driving. Keep listening to engine.
If you hear the engine note at 20mph, you know what it sounds like. If you can’t tell the difference between that sound and the sound it makes when you’re driving at 25mph for example, you really shouldn’t be behind the wheel of a car.
My car is so quiet you can
My car is so quiet you can hardly hear the engine at 20 mph in top gear but third is great, without touching the throttle it does 18 mph on the flat, that’s computers for you. Shouldn’t be behind the wheel? I suspect then the fact that many drivers do not have perfect pitch which you seem to have would take lots of them off the road. It must be wonderful to be perfect like you.
They could have an
They could have an intelligent speed adaptation device fitted so that if they inadvertently went over the speed limit their vehicle would automatically slow down to the correct limit. These devices are becoming more and more sophisticated and cheap. There is no excuse for a driver to feel hard done by for going over the speed limit by “accident”. And PS we shouldn’t call them accident figures, they are collision or incident figures.
If a car hits a pedestrian:
If a car hits a pedestrian:
at 40 mph there is a 90 percent chance they will be killed.
at 35 mph there is a 50 percent chance they will be killed.
at 30 mph there is a 20 percent chance they will be killed.
at 20 mph there is a 2.5 percent chance they will be killed.
roadwise.co.uk/using-the-road/speeding/the-chance-of-a-pedestrian-surviving
Many drivers exceed the 30mph limit. If by reducing the limit to 20 mph you reduce the average speeds of cars to say 25 mph then there will be a huge reduction in pedestrian mortality. Who can argue against that?
Most drivers will brake hard
Most drivers will brake hard in an accident situation so if travelling at 30mph the impact speeds are often much lower. Check the accident statistics for yourself.
oldmixte wrote:
Without wishing to pre-empt Jules59, those are collision speeds, not driving speeds. Surely that was so bleedin’ obvious it didn’t really need saying?
And presumably if they were
And presumably if they were travelling at 20mph to start with the driver would have more time to react and if they did brake hard, they would be far less likely to have a collision at all.
The incident stats (we don’t
The incident stats (we don’t call them accidents anymore) here in Australia show that in 50% of pedestrian collisions the driver did not brake at all. The most likely reason for that is the high default speed and the reaction time. Our default urban limit is 50kmh. There is significant push from road safety researchers to lower it to 30kmh as a result.
oldmixte wrote:
I wonder what the stopping distance is for a double decker bus travelling at 30mph downhill?
I was on the ‘shared-use’ path going uphill (A369 going toward Bristol). There was a roadie coming downhill on the road, travelling at least 30mph, I’d venture, with a double decker bus following him at only about 8-10 feet distance, with more cars behind it.
brooksby wrote:
Depends how far it is to the next stop, surely?
mdavidford wrote:
I understand the humour, but I just feel that ten feet behind a bike on a main road going downhill might be just a teensy bit close… I’m just not completely convinced that the bus driver would have been able to react and to stop in time if the cyclist had hit a problem on the road and come off.
Brexit Party policitican in
Brexit Party policitican in ‘arsehole’ shocker
20mph….OUCH! Reducing speed
20mph….OUCH! Reducing speed, reducing injuries etc but where do we draw the line? 20mph is painfully slow. The main point of using a vehicle is to go fast. It’s not so much how fast people drive but the general manner of driving. Excessive speed is one factor but enforcement seems to focus way too much on speed alone. Tailgating for example really pisses me off but cameras are not set up to enforce this.
On the other hand driving should be discouraged. The roads are full and we do not need more cars on them blocking them up. I don’t feel that pissing motorists off is the right way to do so. A frustrated driver isn’t a safe driver.
Quote The main point of using
Quote The main point of using a vehicle is to go fast……
OUCH! I thought it was to get from A to B
So, your solution then? You wish to discourage motorists, but lower speed limits and enforcement aren’t right according to you. They sound splendid to me.
Oh dear, another troll to
Oh dear, another troll to join the likes of socraticyclist.