Al. No-one is suggesting converting all 30mph limit areas to 20mph. Just some of them.
It is disingenuous because rather than just admit that you plain don't want to slow down you feel like you need to clutch at some frankly very tenuous other arguments to justify your position. I think disingenuous is the right word for that.
20ph limits are suggested for certain areas, not as a substitute for all 30s.
Nothing you say is "too subtle for me". Actually, nothing you have said is subtle at all.
Just because you drive at 30 doesn't put you at the front of the queue at the lights. Nonsense.
Al. No-one is suggesting converting all 30mph limit areas to 20mph. Just some of them.
Oh. I thought that was pretty much exactly what TJ was advocating.
Nothing is certain, but pretty sure that 20mph would have left all of them alive
LOL!
Glad your laughing. Actually, no. What's so funny about people being dead when they wouldn't otherwise be just because drivers are selfish?
IIRC the US has a charge called 'vehicular manslaughter' - wonder if we could have a charge worded similarly?
It is disingenuous because rather than just admit that you plain don't want to slow down you feel like you need to clutch at some frankly very tenuous other arguments to justify your position
Nothing you say is "too subtle for me". Actually, nothing you have said is subtle at all.Just because you drive at 30 doesn't put you at the front of the queue at the lights. Nonsense.
GlenP - don't you understand that someones journey is FAR more important than another persons safety?
glenp I was commenting on your debating style, get a grip!
Because of course driving at 30 on wide straight roads with good sightlines and few pedestrians on the pavements is FAR more dangerous than driving at 20. Silly me.
al - I know you were trying to laugh at my phrase - but you also know what I meant by "pretty sure". I could spell it out - you are much less likely to die if hit at 20 than 30. You won't definitiely survive, but your chances are much higher. But you knew that, you were just being, er, you.
aracer - again you make stupid comparisons. Wide straight roads without pedestrians are not really what we are talking about. It is places like High Streets and residential roads that 20 would be much better. Actually, the limit is only a maximum - you might want to try rolling along at 20 next time the pavement is full of pedestrians and there are folk trying to cross the road and so-on. Once you get used to it you'll wonder why you didn't try it sooner.
"So pointing out that you'll use more fuel and generate more pollution travelling at 20 rather than 30 is a tenuous argument"
i doubt this has a significant effect when many urban roads are full of traffic lights and junctions anyway. constant stop/start driving will have far more of an effect on fuel consumption than speed.
In london i counted around 10 traffic lights per mile.
<sigh> go back and read my posts properly, HH. Not everybody lives in London (or Edinburgh) - I can drive for 4 or 5 miles in 30 limits through the middle of Malvern with a traffic light density of exactly 0 per mile.
glenp - I'll bet at least one of the long straight roads I drove down at 30mph today would be on TJ's list. That being a road with pavements set well back from the road behind big verges. Can't actually remember the last time I drove down the road with pavements full of peds, though I'll be sure to come back to you in 5 years or so when I next do.
BTW have you worked out my queues yet?
All I've worked out is that the kind of arterial 30 limit road that you're talking about, with pedestrians well separated from the road by verges, good visibilty, not many traffic lights etc, is not going to be a target for a 20mph limit.
So all of this discussion is completely pointless. You're talking about conditions completely different to those meriting a 20mph limit. You are using your own very specific example of roads not warranting a 20mph limit to try and put a case against 20mph limits in general.
Anywhere with rows of shops, kids playing next to the road, schools, difficult visibility, and other factors that make it not a dead straight roll-along would however be a good place to consider a 20mph limit. The stop-start nature of those roads plus the major safety benefits would defeat the slightly reduced mpg arguments.
Ah, so it was actually too subtle for you then.
I'm not convinced most people would describe many of the roads I'm talking about as "arterial" even though there isn't a safety issue with doing 30 along them.
You are using your own very specific example of roads not warranting a 20mph limit to try and put a case against 20mph limits in general.
This topic has been closed to new replies.
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
