[Closed] Blanket 20mph speed limit for Brighton

Mr Agreeable - Member

Increased cycling = increased safety?

So you think an increase an cycling would [i]decrease[/i] safety?
Or do you not know what you think?

You can't be prosecuted for exceeding the speed limit as a cyclist, only for "furious cycling".

http://www.astounding.org.uk/ian/cyclelaw/speed_limits.html

It's going to be hard for cyclists to stick to that speed limit

I'm not so sure, all that willywaving must create substantial amounts of drag.

😆

2010 - 92 KSI
2011 - 143 KSI

Care to dispute that?

The question is more complex. Cyclists KSI's are up in London but # of journeys is up as well which *could* explain it. The problem is that actually the KSI's per mile travelled seem to be increasing - ergo London's streets are becoming more dangerous.

You can easily reduce pedestrian injuries to zero by removing peds from the roads (Motorways are very 'safe' places for pedestrians based on the stats). There is a large body of evidence that suggests the reason for improvements in 'road safety' over decades is that removing peds from the roads is precisely what we've done - kids don't play outside any more so they dont get run over. That's not really progress.

Reducing road speeds, encouraging peds back onto the streets may well increase KSI's in the short term but it's a move in the right direction. Surely the answer is to do more to remove the danger, not to remove the people.

it would certainly appear that increased cycling = increased safety.

correlation =! causation

Alternatively, places where it is safe and pleasant to cycle have high rates of cycling. Which seems more likely?

but why have this argument here - it's been comprehensively shot down in flames elsewhere. There is no '[url= https://aseasyasridingabike.wordpress.com/category/safety-in-numbers/ ]safety in numbers[/url]' effect on the roads - it's wishful thinking, not a strategy for mass cycling.

Read [url= https://aseasyasridingabike.wordpress.com/category/safety-in-numbers/ ]AsEasyAsRidingABike[/url]

I'm struggling to understand how having less motorists and more cyclists will maintain or decrease road safety. 😕

ETA: it's ok; I've read your link and it agrees with me:

"Cycling gets safer the more people do it."

I think this is generally true.

In the Netherlands they have a default speed limit of 30 km/h in residential areas. Same in Germany. Just sayin'.

AND just to mix it up a bit... also legal for bikes to go the wrong way on one-way streets. Oh and just to mix it up a little bit more (and as I've mentioned many times before), also green traffic light for motorised traffic turning right across ped/cycle crossings that also have a green light to cross/proceed.

My street is a one way street, 30kph limit, that allows both ways for bikes 🙂

correlation =! causation

once lots of people are cycling (if!) we stop being an out group and are treated with more respect and safety on the roads by most other road users, serious bike/vehicle interactions should go down, total number of minor [i]falling off bike [/i]accidents will obviously rise but increase in nation's health should outweigh all that.

Safety in numbers sounds promising but it'll be a long time and an order of magnitude of numbers before its felt. Needs a societal shift and I'm doubtful it will ever happen.

Safety in numbers sounds promising

I'm assuming you didn't actually bother clicking through the links?

simons_nicolai-uk - Member

I'm assuming you didn't actually bother clicking through the links?

I did.
I like the bit where he generally agrees that increased cycling = increased safety.

Hang on a minute, did [i]you[/i] read the link? 🙂

Without reproducing the whole 'swimming with sharks' piece I've picked out a few key paragraphs for you. Which bit are you referring to?

"Those who think that the best way to create safer cycling is just to get more people cycling should take a long hard look at this graph, because frankly it’s a complete mess, that shows no clear relationship at all between the amount of cycling, and relative safety"

"In other words, according to Jacobsen, the reason cycling has become safer is not because of changes to the physical environment; rather, the “more plausible explanation” is that drivers are behaving differently now that they are surrounded by more cyclists. I’ll leave you to judge whether that is indeed more plausible; what is interesting is that [b]this explanation[/b] of improved driver behaviour as a consequence of being surrounded by more walkers and cyclists [b]is only a hypothesis. It is not substantiated[/b] by Jacobsen"

"the [b]causal relationship posited ...simply isn’t substantiated[/b]....we still don’t have any evidence that driver behaviour is actually modified or improved by the presence of more cyclists to the extent that there might be pay-offs in terms of the safety of the latter group"

" In other words, the best evidence suggests that the relationship runs in exactly the opposite direction to that commonly assumed – namely, [b]it is safety that is producing numbers[/b]"

"In a paper published in 2009, Rune Elvik argued that a doubling of pedestrian and cyclist volume, with corresponding mode shift away from driving, would not, alone, reduce the KSI burden, and may actually increase it. Indeed, he suggests that, [b]without any change in the environment, it is only when the amount of driving is reduced by 50% (with corresponding mode shift to walking and cycling) that we may see a reduction in the total KSI burden.[/b] That is an enormously long way to go by ‘Safety in Numbers’ alone"

‘Safety in Numbers’ is a serious distraction from the actual business of making cycling safer.

The bit I quoted six posts up.
Do you really think that having less motorists and more cyclists will maintain or decrease road safety?

It's the 'less motorists' bit that's the issue. You need to make a large reduction in motorists numbers - 2009 paper referenced suggests 50%.

A minor reduction in motorists often just leads to higher speeds - London wasn't actually more pleasant to cycle around during the olympics, nor is it at night, because the remaining vehicles drive faster.

If you can pull that one phrase out from the body of evidence presented you're obviously a troll. Will walk away.

simons_nicolai-uk - Member

If you can pull that one phrase out from the body of evidence presented you're obviously a troll. Will walk away.

I'm a troll for quoting your "evidence" (which is in the main opinion. Nothing wrong with that but don't pretend it's fact)?

Sounds more like you've just embarrassed yourself.

I presume you've read the 2009 paper, The non-linearity of risk and the promotion of environmentally sustainable transport?

simons_nicolai-uk - Member.

A minor reduction in motorists often just leads to higher speeds - London wasn't actually more pleasant to cycle around during the olympics, nor is it at night, because the remaining vehicles drive faster.

you've got a point.

my commute is much more pleasant at rush hour, i can just pootle past all the stationary/slow-moving cars.

Not interested in statistics to be honest - educating bad drivers MAY be a way forward but dont hold your breath, there will still be the blind granny, the mother bollocking the kids etc etc...

As far as 20mph Brighton goes - Itll just be a case of getting everything in place (signage etc), get the odd few sticking to 20mph, a year or so on make it mandatory then a few bobbies / cameras to add to the council/police coffers.
Politicians never do anything for the good of the community (in my opinion...) unless it involves self promotion or a favour .

Call me mr cynical ...