Do you think 15mph speedlimits would help reduce accidents?

[Cyclone]

I am pleased my lessons have come through to you Nagel! Well done

 

In all seriousness - it is a case of planning roads, simple as. residential streets feed into main-streets, feed into main-roads. Respective speed limits: 30km/h, 50km/h, 80km/h.

 

Take Hillsborough as an example - why should people do 30 on Taplin Road - nobody in their right mind does anyway. But because it is allowed, there is little one can do when someone decides to skip over the horrible road-surface at that speed. Why not just set it, and the side roads, to 15mp/h? Holme Lane/Bradfield Rd to 30mp/h and Penistone Road 40 or 50 mp/h - that way people living on, for example, Oakland Road would still be in the city a lot quicker than if everything was 30 as it is now.

 

What the council have done so far in this area is set 'main streets' for want of a better word, to 20 mp/h WHILST LEAVING the roads feeding into it at 30. Absurd and nonsensical.

 

Someone who currently does 30 on there, will probably still do 30 no matter what the sign says.

If most people already drive at a sensible speed, then there's little point in putting up a new sign...

 

---------- Post added 10-02-2016 at 08:51 ----------

 

There is ample evidence that the seriousness of accidents is linked to speed.

 

The square of the speed, actually:rolleyes:

 

Okay, but now can you answer the question that I actually asked?

 

---------- Post added 10-02-2016 at 08:51 ----------

 

Was there some evidence that the increase in accident rate was caused by an increase in speed?

 

There was an increase in child fatalities you said.

 

Is there any evidence that this was caused by an increase in speed?

As opposed, for example, to it simply being a statistical blip. It's not a trick question.

 

The DfT said: “It is too early to say at this stage if this marks the end of the long-term downward trend in child KSI casualties, or if it is as a result of short-term factors.”

 

The numbers are getting so low that they will become susceptible to statistical noise. If a rise becomes a trend, then there's a problem. If it just happens for a year, it's probably just a blip.

But blaming it on speed, without any evidence to actually link it, that's just stupid.

Edited February 10, 2016 by Cyclone

[srt2016]

Driving at 15 mph is another part of the nanny state

 

Which justs adds to the many bottlenecks already designed into our roads.Its costing our economy/us billions.

 

"Economic consequences: Longer journey times reduce job opportunities within reasonable travelling distance. This effect on labour mobility reduces economic output by increasing unemployment and reducing the area in which people can reasonably work.

 

Environmental consequences: Despite environmentalism being a driving justification behind the growth of traffic management, there have been serious environmental costs. Traffic lights add to fuel consumption as drivers brake and accelerate, increasing emissions, noise pollution and harmful health effects. And a shift to public transport delivers few gains if motorists shift to noisy and polluting diesel buses, or if energy-intensive new rail infrastructure forms part of the policy package."

 

http://www.iea.org.uk/in-the-media/press-release/rip-out-80-of-traffic-lights-to-boost-economy-road-safety

 

 

.

[Eric Arthur]

Which justs adds to the many bottlenecks already designed into our roads.Its costing our economy/us billions.

It's a good point and yet we know that lower speed limits reduce injuries.

 

How about removing all those the bottlenecks and giving those roads a 15mph limit. If you can use every road that you've been forced off by traffic planners a 15mph limit seems like a small price to pay.

[WalkleyIan]

At some point you have to accept that deaths on the road are the price we pay for easy mobility.

 

Sweden is just one country that doesn't accept that position.

 

http://www.visionzeroinitiative.com/en/Concept/

 

Other countries are now adopting similar ideas.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vision_Zero

 

I see Volvo has announced (if James May's last Sunday is to be believed) that no one will die driving a new Volvo by the year 2020.

 

Now if they also extended that to no one killed by a Volvo they are getting somewhere.

 

In pure hard nosed cash monetary terms every road fatality costs society nearly £2 million.

 

Government's own figures from 2012

 

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/244913/rrcgb2012-02.pdf

 

 

A number of assumptions have been made to produce a broad illustrative figure which suggests that allowing for accidents not reported to the police could increase the total value of prevention of road accidents to around £34.3 billion.

[Cyclone]

Road capacity is limited by junction throughput though. Not amount of tarmac or the speed allowed.

[srt2016]

It's a good point and yet we know that lower speed limits reduce injuries.

 

How about removing all those the bottlenecks and giving those roads a 15mph limit. If you can use every road that you've been forced off by traffic planners a 15mph limit seems like a small price to pay.

 

There is no need to have our country going round in slow motion at all. Especially doing it under some pretence guise that it somehow saves life's.

If pedestrians are getting hit, then they need educating with the green cross code.Its not rocket science.

[Cyclone]

That's just an attempt to cast blame, not to consider safety.

[Eric Arthur]

There is no need to have our country going round in slow motion at all. Especially doing it under some pretence guise that it somehow saves life's.

If pedestrians are getting hit, then they need educating with the green cross code.Its not rocket science.

 

You missed the point. The suggestion was to let you use ALL the roads instead of the ones that you are channelled onto by planners. The payback suggestion is a 15 mph limit on those roads, but the no entries etc all go, with the possibility of removing bottlenecks and reducing urban journey times. Nobody is suggesting that EVERY road becomes 15mph.

 

It's only an idea, but I'd be interested to hear what you think of that because it's something that is possible, unlike getting everyone to follow the Green Cross Code.

[srt2016]

You missed the point. The suggestion was to let you use ALL the roads instead of the ones that you are channelled onto by planners. The payback suggestion is a 15 mph limit on those roads, but the no entries etc all go, with the possibility of removing bottlenecks and reducing urban journey times. Nobody is suggesting that EVERY road becomes 15mph.

 

It's only an idea, but I'd be interested to hear what you think of that because it's something that is possible, unlike getting everyone to follow the Green Cross Code.

 

Why would getting people to look before they cross a road seem so difficult to you?

If they are not capable of that,they really shouldn't be out on their own.

[Cyclone]

You missed the point. The suggestion was to let you use ALL the roads instead of the ones that you are channelled onto by planners. The payback suggestion is a 15 mph limit on those roads, but the no entries etc all go, with the possibility of removing bottlenecks and reducing urban journey times. Nobody is suggesting that EVERY road becomes 15mph.

 

It's only an idea, but I'd be interested to hear what you think of that because it's something that is possible, unlike getting everyone to follow the Green Cross Code.

 

Using the roads that are currently restricted doesn't increase the overall capacity of the road network as that's determined by junctions. And there are key ones which can't be avoided.

 

---------- Post added 10-02-2016 at 09:56 ----------

 

Why would getting people to look before they cross a road seem so difficult to you?

If they are not capable of that,they really shouldn't be out on their own.

 

What magical intervention do you propose to make that will make people look?

It sounds so simple and it could presumably save the lives of 1700 children in the next year alone.

So what's your actual proposal?