A retired neurologist has urged Gloucestershire County Council to introduce 20mph speed limits in residential areas, which he says could save around 30 cyclists and pedestrians from being killed or seriously injured every year.
Speaking at a council meeting earlier this week, Gloucestershire resident Dr Paul Morrish said that between May 2019 and May 2021, five pedestrians and cyclists were killed, and 124 others seriously injured, on the county’s 30mph roads, Gloucestershire Live reports.
Morrish also claimed that the increased weight, size, and acceleration of electric vehicles could result in a rise in these figures on 30mph roads, unless improved safety measures are swiftly put in place.
The retired doctor called on the county council to follow the example of other local authorities in England and Wales by ensuring that communities in Gloucestershire who want 20mph limits to be implemented on residential roads can gain them quickly and easily.
> Wales set to reduce default speed limit to 20mph in residential areas
In England, a third of the population already lives in areas with 20mph speed limits, while from September blanket 20mph zones will be introduced in Wales on residential areas and streets busy with pedestrians, and where street lights are fewer than 200 yards apart.
Scotland is also set to make 20mph the “norm” in built-up areas, with councils permitted to make exceptions if they deem the area safe.
“Edinburgh has seen a 30 percent reduction in its casualties, in London on the 30mph arterial routes they’ve seen a 63 per cent reduction in collisions with pedestrians,” Morrish, who worked as a neurologist at Gloucestershire Royal Hospital, told a meeting at Gloucester’s Shire Hall on Wednesday.
“By going at 20mph we would save around 30 people from being killed or seriously injured every year in Gloucestershire.
“Why isn’t the council being more proactive in responding to all those communities to make the roads safer for them? That would encourage more people to choose walking or cycling. And we would have a fitter population and less money spent in the NHS.”
Responding to Dr Morrish’s concerns, the county council’s fire, community safety, and libraries cabinet member Dave Norman said that possible changes could concern “not just 20mph speed limits but the reduction of speed on roads where the current speed may be inappropriate”.
He continued: “What we need to do though is accept we have to go through due process.
“And due process involves consultation, and we are in a situation where I could not put my hand on my heart and say the right way forward is to make everywhere, where people want it, to immediately be a 20mph zone.”
Nevertheless, Norman said he would be happy to meet with Dr Morrish, along with the council’s road safety officers, to discuss where improvements could be made on a case-by-case basis.
In January, we reported that the government is considering draft road planning regulations which would introduce a default 20mph speed limit on new or redesigned urban and residential streets.
A draft version of Manual for Streets, the Department for Transport’s planning document for residential areas, seen by the Sunday Times and set to be published this year, says “the default should be to work to a design speed limit of 20mph in urban environments” and that “for residential streets, a maximum design speed of 20mph should normally be an objective, with significantly lower speeds usually desirable”.
Following the report, Neil Greig, director of policy and research at road safety charity the Institute of Advanced Motorists, argued that a default approach to 20mph on its own will not enhance road safety or benefit active travel.
“We’ve had longstanding concerns about a blanket approach to 20mph,” Grieg told the BBC’s Today programme.
“If you have to change the speed limit on a road, you have to change the environmental cues to tell drivers what speed they should be safely driving at. And the problem with simply changing to 20mph without changing the road, is that drivers will continue to drive on at the previous speeds.
“And that means you don’t have the safety benefits, and you don’t have the active travel benefits of changing the environment to make it easier to walk and cycle.”
72 thoughts on “Retired neurologist says increased weight and acceleration of electric vehicles will lead to rise in cycling-related fatalities unless 20mph speed limits are introduced”
The IAM is a motoring
The IAM is a motoring organisation, not a road safety one!
Bmblbzzz wrote:
And not a very good one if ‘advanced motoring’ does not include noticing 20mph speed limit signs or complying with them!
As for a blanket 20mph limit, what a great idea. When can we get it?
I did the IAM driver training
I did the IAM driver training/test years back. They empahsised driving was was safety first. Very glad I did it, because it made me a much better and far safer driver.
Same here. Done a number of
Same here. Done a number of IAM and other additional driving and motorcycling training in my time. Safety through observation and anticipation is of paramount importance, way higher in priority than what might be termed advanced vehicle control, the mechanics of actually driving a vehicle.
Doubtless someone will be
Doubtless someone will be along soon to say that the solution would be doubling the thickness of the foam in cycle helmets, and of course making them compulsory. Because when people have spent £40K or more on an electric vehicle, it’s only fair to make the rest of the world pay for the consequences.
I don’t think so.
I don’t think so.
It seems entirely rational.
That IAM comment seems to me to be an agreement for a comprehensive overhaul of everything. Even if that’s not what they meant.
“If you have to change the speed limit on a road, you have to change the environmental cues to tell drivers what speed they should be safely driving at. And the problem with simply changing to 20mph without changing the road, is that drivers will continue to drive on at the previous speeds.”
Again I’m missing the link
Again I’m missing the link but IIRC there *is* evidence (presented in the failed attempt to get 30mph default changed to 20mph as default in Scotland) that even just changing the signs has *some* effect. Though not making the average speed 20mph or below, but averages did come down.
I agree though, best way is to cue drivers through engineering:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=bglWCuCMSWc
… and obviously there *has* to be feedback if you’re breaking the rules (eg. enforcement).
Isn’t the problem though that
Isn’t the problem though that the cues have already been there and they are not followed.
For example, our local High Street in Knowle has not been altered to be a 20mph yet it already had multiple cramped zebras, poor visibility due to bends, lots of pedestrians crossing away from the crossings It was never a 30 environment but people drove at that speed. Now it is a 20, I can guarantee I will get hassled by a driver who disapproves of me both driving to what I assess to be a safe speed and also to the limit.
After all, on Friday night, driving on an unlit 50mph single carriageway, semi-rural but with sparse housing, farm entrances and rural side roads, I got tailgated, flashed then overtaken by a 4×4 Porsche who disagreed with my fully law abiding driving on the limit (limiter set to 52mph which I have checked against a couple of gps’s and various roadside speed signs and in the past, a measure red mile). There were plenty of cues there that overtaking was inappropriate let alone the speed which his would have been well above NSL.
So if drivers have demonstrated they are incapable of using existing cues appropriately, is he asking for instructive and annoying calming – unsightly street furniture and LA expense – for something that every driver should have the mental capacity to perform without physical coercion? He is basically saying he expects drivers to deliberately drive unlawfully – which of course we see every day from many many drivers.
Perhaps culture does matter
Perhaps culture does matter here?
In UK we have been telling people for generations that speed is good. Or at least the speed limits are targets. That “free-flowing traffic” is a “social good” (eg lifeblood of the city, engine which powers the economy etc).
In some other countries people still want to go vroom! but there is a different emphasis eg. safety through keeping speed down. Strangely that applies even in some urban areas in the US!
Where the culture generally supports it then “driver cues” are more effective. In the UK I think the “to the minimum speed limit and beyond!” culture is ingrained. We’d need to change multiple sources of feedback eg. politicians / councillors, driving instruction, ads and media portrayals, enforcement, road engineering (no more wide sweeping turns where speeds should be low “because it’s a safety issue” – for bad drivers)…
ubercurmudgeon wrote:
And super hi-viz, mandatory retina-ripper lights at all times, and body armour. If it saves one life…….
All so much more preferabler than actually dealing with the cause of the problem.
though of course it will
though of course it will require a police force that arent following Norfolks rules about them, to enforce them.
“If you have to change the
“If you have to change the speed limit on a road, you have to change the environmental cues to tell drivers what speed they should be safely driving at. And the problem with simply changing to 20mph without changing the road, is that drivers will continue to drive on at the previous speeds.”
At the top of this article is a picture of a red circle with a black number 20 in it. That is the cue. It’s a massive bleedin’ cue innit? It’s obvious!
And once all urban areas are
And once all urban areas are 20mph, then the cues will be exactly the same as 30mph now, so drivers will have no difficulty whatsoever.
“……Neil Greig, director of policy and research at road safety charity the Institute of Advanced Motorists, argued that a default approach to 20mph on its own will not enhance road safety or benefit active travel.”
Well, it appears to have worked everywhere it’s been tried, so sorry Mr Greig, stick with baking: road safety seems to be beyond you.
The IAM has been through a
The IAM has been through a few top end people, and I’m not convinced the current mob, who are focused on ensuring the IAM is viable, are locked into the fundamentals of advanced motoring, the main one being safe driving. The IAM have slipped off message a few times, especially with sharing the roads with cyclists.
Geofencing.
Geofencing.
If it can work for those ever so dangerous electric scooters, surely it can be applied to the behemoths of the roads.
And some enforcement. Average speed cameras seem to work…
If…
If…
But yes we should try, rather than just shrug.
I don’t see any downsides to 20mph being the new 30mph, as long as there is some actual enforcement. I still think separation of modes where the motorised traffic volume is high and / or speed differential great (which can still be the case in a 20mph zone) is the gold-standard solution to lots of these issues. It just takes longer and more political “bravery” (Sadly more than most of our overlords possess).
Meh. And what does a retired
Meh. And what does a retired neurologist know about the statistics of electric car accidents? I’m betting sweet fa.
Probably also believes bike helmets should be mandatory coz it saves da brains.
Doctors are notoriously shit at statistical analysis unless it’s actually their day job.
Except he is correct on this
Except he is correct on this matter.
It’s very basic physics. F=MA
And he has correctly
And he has correctly identified that electric cars have very good standing start acceleration, so it is not an unreasonable hypothesis that electric cars are more likely to create incidents through increased speeds in congested urban environments. Combined with the increased momentum, faster acceleration and poorer stopping is a problem is not an exactly radical science and it is unlikely that there could be a counter-intuitive compensating something around as drivers aren’t noted for slowing down to compensate for poor stopping in SUVs.
If be interested in comparing the stopping distance of a Golf and an e-Golf.
Edit: old news https://www.whatcar.com/advice/buying/why-do-electric-cars-have-longer-braking-distances/n19813
Careful, there is mention of
Careful, there is mention of “wing” mirrors.
I wonder whether “wing
I wonder whether “wing cameras” will become the new parlance. I suspect that people will still refer to rear view cameras as wing mirrors, causing excess pedantry across the nation.
Are they right or left,
Are they right or left, though?
Maybe we could agree to just have one in the middle as a way to stop the thread descending into bickering?
KE = 0.5 MV^2 shows that 30
KE = 0.5 MV^2 shows that 30 has 2.25 times the energy to dissipate than 20.
levestane wrote:
Yes, but the comparator is mass not velocity, i.e. EVs are heavier then IC vehicles. In terms of KE, a car being 20% heavier isn’t going to make much difference. Moreover, smallish changes in KE are only going to make a difference in collisions which cause the vehicle (and driver) to significantly slow down. A pedestrian or cyclist is so much lighter than a car, that the small changes in the mass of the car are irrelevant.
No offense, but at least he
No offense, but at least he has formal medical training and probably the benefit of having seen many cases.
What professional qualifications do you have to support your claim that he’s wrong?
I’m a trained statistician
I’m a trained statistician unlike the quack who propbably did one term at med school if that.
Facts matter, his unsubstantiated opinions shouldn’t.
I agree.
I agree.
Although mommy always told me a good statistician can always come up with the result you want.
Just like those 79% of 48.31 women whose wrinkles disappeared after someone bought them cream X for Christmas ?
So, show us your facts and
So, show us your facts and explain how you arrive at your conclusion. You’re just making assumptions.
Secret_squirrel wrote:
It’s simple physics, really. A travelling object with increased mass will require more energy to stop
What evidence do we have he
What evidence do we have he has any formal medical training?
Would a brain ‘doctor’ be able to sew me back together if I got torn to shreds by 3 MAMILs riding abreast on their carbon bikes, straight through the red light at the pelican crossing I was using?
Might just be a ‘Dr’ because someone gave him a framed bit of paper at a Uni do
A simple web search will tell
A simple web search will tell you.
“you have to change the
“you have to change the environmental cues to tell drivers what speed they should be safely driving at. And the problem with simply changing to 20mph without changing the road, is that drivers will continue to drive on at the previous speeds.”
Much of SW London where I live is a 20mph zone. There’s broad acceptance of this limit. One environmental cue used is white circles with 20 inside painted on the road … not so hard really, is it?
but is that because the
but is that because the residential roads Im assuming are lined with parked cars, so the natural tendency is to drive slower, and then the 20mph limit is more easily adopted, rather than the lower limit is just being adopted ?
its just Ive seen 20mph zones implemented in residential areas, with signs, with visual cues and even with speed bumps and it makes no difference to the speed of how the vast majority drive in them.
same in 30limits, Ive seen roads where theyve installed speed cushions, which are next to useless imo as their width is smaller than most vehicles inside wheel to wheel width so people can just drive over them as if they arent there, and theyve installed a speed indicator sign, SUV overtook me went through the sign at 37mph, so his speedo was almost certainly showing 40mph. So there were physical cues, visual cues, and that driver was happily driving basically as fast as he wanted to.
A roads as well, without
Some A roads around here, without parked cars are also 20 zones. I accept that narrower roads = generally lower speeds, but even on A roads round here most cars drive at 20 -27mph – a lot better for cyclists than 30 -37mph.
I’d like to see most roads in English towns and villages being 20mph, except dual carriageways. As a driver, it makes very little difference to my journey time, and its a lot safer because more time to observe and react and less speed to scrub off. Had my driving assessed recently by an IAM examiner who agreed btw …
Unlike the USA where high
Unlike the USA where high slab-fronted vehicles are popular and desirable, European cars are specifically required to consider the safety of impact with a human, hence the shape of the bumper and bonnet.
While cars are getting bigger and more massive due to the obsession with owning an SUV, but…
Most people are under 120kg. Even the lightest cars are 1000kg. I don’t think it’ll make much difference whether the car that hits you is 1500 or 2000kg.
Fortunately EVs, with sales having accelerated in the last three years, are generally modern cars with many safety features.
Hmm… I think some vehicles
Hmm… heavier may be worse than you think. I think some vehicles with US geometry are over here already. Have we regulated for visibility immediately in front of the taller vehicles? (I believe we’re trying to get that for trucks)? Chunkier A-pillars also aren’t helping us. Although any vehicle could have them heavier vehicles need sturdier roof support for when they roll.
Drivers *ought to* mitigate that by moving their heads but “voluntary” safety measures are less effective.
Extra mass doesn’t help when you need to slow down. Road damage is very dependent on vehicle (axle) weight.
I wonder about issues with people losing the audible cue of “car here” with electric vehicles at low speed? Yes, tyre noise dominates at higher speeds, but going under a vehicle offends at any speed – more likely again with more momentum.
I suspect that the electric
I suspect that the electric car thing is a hook to get people to read it.
I am more concerned about SUVs and trucks, partly because of their size and weight and partly due to driver behaviour. IME drivers of big, expensive cars are generally speaking more likely to be aggressive and inconsiderate compared to those in smaller cars.
20 mph limits have been shown to make a difference. Enforcement of 30 and 40 mph limits in built-up areas would be a great improvement on the current situation.
I agree.
I agree.
Then bring on the 10mph speed limit and after that get all motorised vehicles to require a person with a flag to walk in front of it.
Every car has 1 single safety
Every car has 1 single safety system above any developed to date…. …….. the driver.
As long as everything is functioning correctly without a mechanical failure, a good driver cannot be beaten.
Sure on the road there are 100’s of potential contributing factors to cause an accident such as distracted cyclist/driver/pedestrian, cyclists/driver/pedestrian ignoring traffic lights or cyclist/driver/pedestrian ignoring Highway Code.
Good point! The trick – like
The trick – like the perfect ruler – is how you get the wonderful ideal kind rather than the ones reality tends to serve up.
Alternatively, knowing human nature and a bit of physics, maybe apply the principles of “sustainable safety” as opposed to wishful thinking or ideology.
https://sustainablesafety.nl/
They could alternatively put
They could alternatively put a design limitation on car designs where they are not allowed to accelerate above a particular rate – very easy to implement on electric cars.
That they are selling these with higher acceleration when they are heavier in part just demonstrates the perverse priorities when supposedly range is a major factor. I guess when it comes to the crunch that a lot of drivers would buy a car with 50 miles less range if they have the occasional chance to burn away from the lights when they want to scare the mother in law.
It is perverse that performance way beyond our road’s capacity is such a selling point. I’d set a maximum 0-60 of 13 seconds or less (more?), maximum speed of 75mph (with the ability to unlock when going abroad). Ideally, base it on power output as well, so if you get a big car you get a slow car.
In my local driving most NSL roads of 20 years ago are now a mix of 40 and 50mph.
Agreed. Sadly “top trumps” is
Agreed. Sadly “top trumps” is a factor in advertising so even if you can’t say “top speed 200mph!” saying “0-60 in 3 seconds” will indeed hook some folks, unnecessary as this is for getting from A-B. *
Maybe car ads should be regulated like cigarette ones? (was about to say alcohol but that’s a low bar…)
* sorry, there’s me forgetting that acceleration is a vital safety feature on UK roads again…
I worry that the growing size
I worry that the growing size of today’s vehicles, the wish for unnecessarily huge range, combined with insane acceleration will mean that we will see more deaths of innocents inside buildings.
Ah yes, good point. Probably
Ah yes, good point. Probably we’ll hear even more “it did it all by itself! ” stories the more electronic
distractionsdriver assistance features there are.ktache wrote:
Or maybe a public call for mandatory pedestrian helmets (inside and outside use) – if it saves one life…
Even if we struggle to hard
Even if we struggle to hard limit capabilities, we could have similar classifications to motorbikes defined by combination of weight, acceleration, top speed, etc and make them easy to lose;
So extenuating circumstances on bans would automatically restrict you to the least capable vehicles, while the highest performance vehicles require a long period with a clean licence, extended (and periodic) tests, etc
I used to live in a 20mph
I used to live in a 20mph zone. After years of lobbying we finally got the local authority to put down speed strips so we could actually verify the speeds. Needless to say the vast majority of vehicles were doing over 20mph including 50 and 60 mph. (This was a residential street in London) Beccuase the way the LA summarised the data – 80th percentile etc – they concluded that despite the majority of vehicles were travelling above the limit plus 10% it was not an issue and no further action was required. The Police were even persuaded to do speed checks. Again, within minutes they had registered numerous vehicles speeding. Speeding is endemic and not sufficiently punished.
For safety reasons speed
For safety reasons speed differentials are more important than absolute speed. In the areas likely to be affected there is more likelihood of encountering other road users not travelling at 30mph. Decrease the speed difference and things get safer. If you can only gonatb20 then suddenly that risky overtake of a bike doesn’t seem so important.
as a bonus it will cause satnav algorithms to stop routing people down residential streets.
The principal of health and
The principal of health and safety is that it should be ALARP (as low as reasonably practical). If due process means that they need to consider the evidence then fine but if due process means asking the public what they think then that’s nonsense. All of the authorities are looking at the same data so if it’s reducing casualty rates where it has been implemented than other authorities need to explain why they consider it impractical for their region.
But… but … but … PeoPLe
But… but … but … PeoPLe CaNt DRivE aT 20 mph.
For some reason, people seem to find it impossible to be able to keep their vehicles to 20mph or less.
They complain that they are constantly looking at the speedometer, instead of where they are going.
Personally, I’d suggest this this is pure horseshit, and vehicle manufacturers should be made to put the speedometer back in the line of sight of the driver, and as some vehicles have, mounted adjacent to the centre console.
A driver should be capable of driving their vehicles at any speed, and safely maintaining that speed – if not then they shouldn’t be behind the wheel.
On my speed awareness course
On my speed awareness course about 15 years ago, there were at least 2 drivers who claimed it was impossible to stick to 30mph (“Can’t do 30 in 5th gear”).
I’ll agree it is harder in a modern sound insulated car running at less than 15% of its maximum speed, but equally rather than applying tech to distractions like massively complex audio systems, a speed limiter is an easy fix. Every car made these days has electronic engine control and electronic speed detection and electronically controlled braking, and many have some form of automatic gearing, so fitting a limiter into the loop is barely more than a control lever – easily adapted from existing cruise control – and a bit of programming (which all manufacturers already have for some of their models).
In a manual car, you might want to stay in 2nd gear for 20, depending on the set-up, as you would stay in 3rd in a 30.
Back in the ’80’s when I took
Back in the ’80’s when I took my driving test, you had to be in top gear by the time you got to 30mph.
I understand that to have been changed due to more vehicles having 5 and 6 gears, and the issues that such a low speed has for essentially a cruising gear.
Driving at 20mph should have no more physical or mental effort than driving at 20 mph; agreed that you just leave it in 2nd – even easier in an auto.
Some of the trucks I used to drive, when fully loaded, you would have already have changed gear 6 times to get to 20mph.
Oldfatgit wrote:
No you didn’t. Your instructor may have used this figure as a rough guide but it certainly didn’t figure in the examiner’s marking.
I would suggest OFG meant;
I would suggest OFG meant; when he started driving, and your top speed might have been 70 in those days.
I have a long driveway at
I have a long driveway at work, with a 15 MPH speed limit and a radar display. I use second gear to help keep my speed down on the occasional day I drive to work.
When I bike it, I go a bit faster because my colleagues don’t all go 15 MPH and I don’t want them on my wheel.
I absolutely agree with you.
I absolutely agree with you.
Just like all cyclists abide by the Highway Code and stop at ALL red lights on ALL their journeys.
Broken_Chain wrote:
I do
Pedestrian crossings are a
Pedestrian crossings are a nightmare – if there’s the green light facing you there’s always a red man light, and vice versa. I have to get off and walk past every one…
brooksby wrote:
I do
— Broken_Chain
yep, treat it as a stop sign; stop, check it’s clear then go. maximum safety. And no indefinate waits at traffic lights with sensors designed only for cars
To give the council member
To give the council member and the IAM chap their due I believe the overall message is still “the goal of our streets and roads is the maximum throughput of motor traffic consistent with safety”. So they’re probably just sticking with how it was and is in the hope that these ideas are just a fad.
However “it’s not as simple as a blanket speed limit – one size doesn’t fit all” gets sillier the longer you think about it. For one – er… we do have defaults – that’s what the national speed limits are. So 30mph urban. There’s also a mechanism to vary this default – which I don’t think will be changed (definitely remained under eg. the Scottish proposal for 20mph).
The argument that this won’t make people do eg. 20 or below? Well that’s indeed shown by current evidence. However as the article notes there are studies which show even just changing signs *does* reduce speeds. And reduces casualty figures, which is one of the main reasons for the proposal.
In Scotland we know this because “but defaults don’t make sense” was one of the reasons given for why the 20s plenty bill was not recommended by committee. (For other explanations you could look at their constituencies and “interests” i suppose…)
chrisonatrike wrote:
I didn’t read an awful lot into it at the time, but my overriding impression was that many were misunderstanding (misrepresenting) what a “default” speed limit is, as essentially meaning that all streets will be 20mph.
As I understood it, the idea was that the default speed limit for new urban roads will be 20mph unless a good case is made for the limit to be something else, in which case a different limit can be applied.
The current position is that those streets will be 30mph unless a good case is made to justify a different limit.
To be honest, that sounds eminently sensible to me. A higher limit where appropriate, but 20mph where there is no good reason for it not to be.
Everyone getting upset in the
Everyone getting upset in the comments, but the guy is right. Faster and heavier bikes take longer to slow down and will therefore be more likely to hit someone that a lighter and slower bike would not. And they weigh more and go faster so will hurt more, and are much more likely to kill. eBicycles are great but they carry a new set of dangers to pedestrians that regular bikes do not (or at least a larger extent).
I think the retired
I think the retired neurologist’s comments were about electric cars, but I appreciate that you have an axe to grind.
Have you thought, however, that the cyclist on an electric bicycle carrying even an extra 10Kg of motor and battery is still a fraction of the f = ma of the same cyclist driving a car?
ChuckSneed wrote:
Yeah…only this article, and Dr Morrish’s very sensible comments, have absolutely nothing to do with ebikes in any way, shape or form. He’s talking about electric cars. It helps to read the article before commenting if you don’t want to make a fool of yourself.
I’m not sure Nigel is that
I’m not sure Nigel is that interested in avoiding being a fool.
Are you convinced about that
Are you convinced about that ID? My impression, before I ceased looking at comments from this nutter, was that he was different and intent on making up bogus topics to incite a stereotyped reaction to which he could then object- questions that no genuine person would ask: I am taking my boyfriend to Amsterdam etc. I agree that both, if they are distinct, are annoying sad gits
Then ad to that all bikes on
Then ad to that all bikes on the roads who are as dodgy as the cyclist riding it – questionable maintenance, missing brake or worn components, incorrect tyre pressures, etc..
Pillows… new law for all
Pillows… new law for all motorised vehicles to have to strap some extra puffy pillows to the front…
Broken_Chain wrote:
How about air bags on the outside, but not on the inside?
Cushion-coated iSAVE-SC1
Cushion-coated iSAVE-SC1 electric vehicle is a soft touch
https://newatlas.com/isave-sc1-electric-vehicle/25567/
Surely you’d want to sit in
Surely you’d want to sit in the comfy bit?
On a residential street,
On a residential street, 20mph for a motorised vehicle is generally as fast as you want to be going if you are in any way considering what might happen ahead of you. If there are lots of parked cars then 20mph is probably too fast. Also consider that it’s not just to give sufficient time for hazard avoidance, but also keeps road noise down for residents. Those travelling at higher speeds are doing so with tunnel vision.
But the whole thing is upside down. I live on quite a wide residential road and the number of people who just accelerate from one end to the other is astonishing. Most of them live on the road since it doesn’t actually go anywhere other than to feed the houses. They’re not in the main people who would consider themselves to be irresponsible drivers. But they don’t know any different behaviour. It’s just built in behaviour to keep accelerating as the road appears clear. I’ve been buzzed at high speed when getting into my car on a number of occasions. There is no reaction to hazards because the space ahead of their bonnet is clear. Speed limit signs make little difference. It’s a driver behaviour issue and you only change that through training and coaching the skills and attitudes that come with safe and considerate driving. Those skills and attitudes lead to setting a safe speed. Signs and cameras don’t. If we’d spent the last 30 years pushing drivers through additional training and coaching then we’d be in a very different place to that which has come about from speed limit signs and cameras.