Our local councillor introduced a 20mph on a narrow road going up a hill with two main roads at each end, two schools and several daycare centres. People in cars still regular drive up there at 40 or even 50mph. It's always the worst part of my commute.
When it comes too driving in the UK, there's virtually no enforcement of anything. People leave their vehicles wherever they please, all the 'minor' rules like not parking where roads join onto others are ignored, and cars get bigger and heavier seemingly every year.
It's very true in many parts of Europe they are not obsessed with cars, do not see them as status symbols, just a means of transport. In fact, having spent a lot of time in Spain, the constant 'wealth' signalling and overt displays of conspicious consumption is very noticible in the UK.
Don't get me started on parking! Monday in the daytime I found a van parked on the pavement where there are double yellow lines blocking the entrance to the cycleway within 5 m of a junction. When I remonstrated with the driver he said he could park there for half an hour! FFS thats at least 3 traffic regs breached.
It’s very true in many parts of Europe they are not obsessed with cars, do not see them as status symbols, just a means of transport.
Are you getting aprecaiting a nice car mixed up with treating it as a status symbol?
It depends on your definition of a nice car. Seem to me that the tiny Citroen Ami is nice. Limited already to a good urban speed, light cheap and small.
molgrips,
If driving a mile or two around a highly dense urban area in a Range Rover "Vogue" or Defender (marketed as "unstoppable", certainy was went one went through the wall and killed two little kids) to buy a litre of milk isn't conspicious consumption, I'm not sure what is.
In politics, we have "virtue" signalling, where people signal their ethics via social signals, but to my mind, "status" signalling has become acute in the UK. Cars are the ultmate status accessory and manufacturers know this: they're sold to appeal to people's emotions rather than any specific set of features. When was the last time you saw an advertisement listing features? They're sold on feelings.
I appreciate some people are into them like they are into bikes, but in my limited knowledge, aren't most cars just made in the same factories using the same people using an array of the same or similar parts which are just sourced from the same globalized suppy chains?
If a SEAT Ibiza is just a "rebadged" Golf, how can paying considerably more for a Golf be anything but an emotional and irrational decision to basically buy into a brand to send social signals to potential mates, competitors, etc. As if anyone save farmers buy large 4x4 drive vehicles to go off-road.
If driving a mile or two around a highly dense urban area in a Range Rover “Vogue” or Defender (marketed as “unstoppable”, certainy was went one went through the wall and killed two little kids) to buy a litre of milk isn’t conspicious consumption, I’m not sure what is.
Not necessarily. You might buy a Range Rover purely because you like it, and you might drive it to the shops purely because you are too lazy to walk. You genuinely may not be considering what others think of you. I'm not saying that's always the case but it might be.
I appreciate some people are into them like they are into bikes, but in my limited knowledge, aren’t most cars just made in the same factories using the same people using an array of the same or similar parts which are just sourced from the same globalized suppy chains?
There's two things going on here. Manufacturers do this for reasons of brand identity, which is as much (if not more) of a personal introspective thing than it is about external image. You might think 'I don't want people to think of me as the kind of boring sod who drives a Toyota; I'll get a Lexus' or you might think 'I don't want to BE the kind of boring sod who drives a Toyota'. The other is essentially selling different models at different price points - a Seat might have cheaper interior materials or less soundproofing than an Audi, as well as older/smaller engines. You couldn't get a Passat with a 3.0 TDI for example but you could in an Audi A6 even though they were both VAG engines.
If a SEAT Ibiza is just a “rebadged” Golf, how can paying considerably more for a Golf be anything but an emotional and irrational decision to basically buy into a brand to send social signals to potential mates
Again this is as much about signalling to yourself as it is to your mates.
And there are also other factors like for example BMW and Mercedes making their cars rear wheel drive. This does make a difference to the way it drives. BMW are one of few manufacturers who use double wishbone suspension on the front which is arguably better etc etc
Northwind
I don’t especially care what the talking points are tbh, it’s more that so much of it is just absolute fiction. This is all about spinning the Welsh change into something it isn’t, and using that to create a completely false “we are fixing this” message about something that doesn’t exist. Like someone else said it’s the same as the 7 bins and all the other “we will prevent things that aren’t happening”.
Wales population circa 3.136M (2019)
Total road deaths in 2022 = 2% of 4,442 (88.84)... road deaths in 30mph zones conspicuous by its absence.
So 1:35,000 chance... per year in total if we take the 2/21 overall for the "KSI" that's 48 deaths in 30 mph zones or 1:65333
There is no record I could find of miles of 20mph road vs 30mph road.. however the KSI statistic is practically identical in terms of total incidents. (42/239 (17.5%) 20mph vs 421/2100 20%)
and dwarfed by the suicide rate in Wales. (300-350)
https://executive.nhs.wales/networks-and-planning/wales-mental-health-network/suicide-and-self-harm-prevention/
and that's dwarfed by those 15,581 people that have died while waiting for an operation since 2016 ( 15,581/7 = 2,225 )
So its hard to see what the problem they are addressing is from the data they supply??
Still, I think they should supply the information and have a referendum.
Do you wish to make life even more of a misery to reduce your chance of death by a traffic accident per year from 1:65000 to 1:60,000 by a blanket 20mph in all previous 30mph zones???
Do you wish to make life even more of a misery to reduce your chance of death by a traffic accident per year from 1:65000 to 1:60,000 by a blanket 20mph in all previous 30mph zones???
Whose life is being made a misery?
How many road deaths are acceptable?
Is your child one of the ones we should sacrifice for the benefit of a few minutes saved?
I don’t think that it’s necessarily all about deaths. A lower speed limit can make life more pleasant in towns and villages and help build confidence amongst people walking, on bikes, in mobility scooters. This can help community cohesion as people slow down and have opportunities to chat.
Do you wish to make life even more of a misery to reduce your chance of death by a traffic accident per year from 1:65000 to 1:60,000 by a blanket 20mph in all previous 30mph zones???
Thank you for volunteering your child for the cause of saving a few seconds.
I don’t think that it’s necessarily all about deaths. A lower speed limit can make life more pleasant in towns and villages and help build confidence amongst people walking, on bikes, in mobility scooters. This can help community cohesion as people slow down and have opportunities to chat.
This ^
I don’t think that it’s necessarily all about deaths. A lower speed limit can make life more pleasant in towns and villages and help build confidence amongst people walking, on bikes, in mobility scooters. This can help community cohesion as people slow down and have opportunities to chat.
100% this ^
I'd go as far as saying traffic blight is a reason many homes are less appealing these days and a 20 zone in a village would for many inc me add to the value of living there and to the houses there. Suprised this hasn't come up in the +/- debate but make your road a 20 zone or LTN and your house price probably gained some vs busier/faster areas.
Do you wish to make life even more of a misery to reduce your chance of death by a traffic accident per year from 1:65000 to 1:60,000 by a blanket 20mph in all previous 30mph zones???
I drive through a number of 20 zones in Oxfordshire on my way to the office and I don't experience this misery you mention. It's all quite relaxed and pleasant.
Molgrips
Whose life is being made a misery?
It seems over 50% of people don't support it.. just based on looking at social media and the suicide rate for wales would seem to indicate many people are not at all happy.
How many road deaths are acceptable?
The number the electorate decide... assuming you want to live in a democracy
Give them the actual numbers and ask ... You get one vote same as the other 2M or so of voting age.
How many do you think are acceptable ?
Is your child one of the ones we should sacrifice for the benefit of a few minutes saved?
Noone is being sacrificed ...why over dramatize this .. FFS people die.. we all do eventually we might as well be free to enjoy it as best we can.
I can't find easily separate stats for Wales but you'll save more lives banning houses and buildings with 2 or more stories and banning all watersports and access to water since falls down stairs and drowning kill far more on a UK average. Do you think they should fence off every beach, lake and river because we should aim for zero??
How many people falling down stairs or off cliffs is acceptable?
The chance he's going to die in a traffic accident in a 30mph zone that could be 20mph and he wouldn't have died is so vanishingly small as to be insignificant.
On the other hand I'd rather my kid grew up in a free country not one dictating what people can and can't do and trying to justify it by false information and statistics
On the other hand I’d rather my kid grew up in a free country not one dictating what people can and can’t do and trying to justify it by false information and statistics
Same, a free country for kids to ride bikes on village and town roads, or not being scared of the speeding cars on the road outside your own front door. Have you seen how anxious parents are with their kids anywhere near a road in this country? It's not normal. It's not like that everywhere.
When I was young my friend was killed while riding his bike on the road outside his house, by a speeding driver. The driver would have been speeding whatever the limit was, but there are less speeding cars the lower the limit and at 20 there are fewer deaths than at 30, that's just physics.
If you think your 'right' to choose your speed absolutely everywhere is more important that children's lives or the peace where people live then you've got some issues to work out.
You might think ‘I don’t want people to think of me as the kind of boring sod who drives a Toyota; I’ll get a Lexus’ or you might think ‘I don’t want to BE the kind of boring sod who drives a Toyota’
I think this rather proves my point, no? I've not done any research, so I can't say for sure, but I'm not sure people would even understand that sort of statement about the ownership (or rather rental!) of a vehicle in Spain.
I don’t think that it’s necessarily all about deaths. A lower speed limit can make life more pleasant in towns and villages and help build confidence amongst people walking, on bikes, in mobility scooters. This can help community cohesion as people slow down and have opportunities to chat.
+1 this
On the other hand I’d rather my kid grew up in a free country not one dictating what people can and can’t do and trying to justify it by false information and statistics
There is no false information on 20mph - it simply is more socially pleasant, quieter, more environmentally friendly and safer for all.
As for living in a free country free from dictating what you can and cannot do - tough luck. We all have to adhere to laws, pay taxes, stick to some social norms etc etc.
There is no false information on 20mph – it simply is more socially pleasant, quieter, more environmentally friendly and safer for all.
Are you trying to say the Welsh Assembly didn't claim this was about traffic fatalities?
Mark Drayford is quoted as saying
"keep people from losing their lives".
is every quote a lie and why hasn't he sued BBC wales if he never said this?
"And behind this decision, and this course of action, is those lives. It is the lives of people who will be saved. It is the lives of people who would otherwise be caught up in the road traffic accidents which will not happen when people are travelling at 20mph but do happen when people are travelling at 30mph. That is the purpose of it. That is why this government will stick fast to the decision that we have made."
As for living in a free country free from dictating what you can and cannot do – tough luck. We all have to adhere to laws, pay taxes, stick to some social norms etc etc.
No we don't we can stand up and be humans not sheep... we can vote out politicians that lie and if needs be we can stand up and remove their foot soldiers.
The largest petition ever for the Senedd ... and they blatantly choose to ignore it.
Do you wish to make life even more of a misery to reduce your chance of death by a traffic accident per year from 1:65000 to 1:60,000 by a blanket 20mph in all previous 30mph zones???
Well this is a delicious mix of questions/points all rolled into one!
Do you wish to make life even more of a misery
no, but... see * further down...
to reduce your chance of death by a traffic accident per year from 1:65000 to 1:60,000
Yes please, reducing risk of death would be great!
by a blanket 20mph in all previous 30mph zones???
Well, since that's not quite what they've done I find it hard to answer a hypothetical. But since you ask, yeah, not a bad place to start, any that genuinely need it increasing can have that done.
So, the * about misery, I don't think slowing traffic down a little bit is causing misery for anyone, it might be being used as an excuse for some people to make themselves angry, but misery? Nah...
Yes please, reducing risk of death would be great!
Cool so that's 2 votes for ... 160,000 against.
Probably time the entire electorate were given the facts and consulted.
So, the * about misery, I don’t think slowing traffic down a little bit is causing misery for anyone
What you think is irrelevant (in terms of vanishingly small numbers).
The way to find out is by actually asking them.
it might be being used as an excuse for some people to make themselves angry
Sure... but so what if over 50% of people given the actual facts prefer not to have the restriction then it's irrelevant.
@stevextc there is some really horrible stuff in that last post. You cannot treat people statistically like that. Have a read of the arguments against utilitarianism.
On the other hand I’d rather my kid grew up in a free country not one dictating what people can and can’t do and trying to justify it by false information and statistics
Other countries are available, feel free to live in one of those!
Also read about social contract. We all accept limitations on what we can do so that we can live safely and happily. You presumably were ok with 30mph limits?
You would think all the bluster was about something important!
All you are being asked is to drive at 20 mph in place where people live.
If you doubt the sense in lowering the speed limit, just imagine you accidentally stepped in front of a moving car. What speed do you want it to be doing 20 or 30mph?
It's a quite small thing to ask.
@stevextc - I'm not going to try and change your mind as fundamentally I just disagree with you. I think 20mph limits, and the welsh policy in particular are a good thing, and I do not find any of the arguments against it persuasive.
I'm sure people will still keep railing against it, if any of the points they raise become persuasive I might change my mind, but for now I think the downsides are either imagined, or minimal enough to be outweighed by the positives.
A few pedestrian deaths is a sacrifice I think Rishi is prepared to make if it lets him survive one more week of news cycle.
You cannot treat people statistically like that.
Why not. Your life insurance company do, your pension provider does, your car insurance company does. Nice does every time it evaluates new drugs.Government has whole teams who do little else. It’s done all day everyday. Actuaries have turned it into a profession.
If all these lowered speed limits are working as advertised and saving lives, reducing the volume and severity of accidents etc why aren’t insurance premiums coming down to reflect the reduced risk
Sure… but so what if over 50% of people given the actual facts prefer not to have the restriction then it’s irrelevant.
Is it? We already know about 52% of people are ****ing maniacs don't we 😉
The "will of the people" is at best a strange thing, time it right and present enough facts via FB and I'm sure you could persuade could persuade 51%+ of eligible voters that Upper school places should be awarded not on catchment and/or academic merit but the outcome of a series of battles to the death between 11 year olds.
I can see the minister for schools now: "It might not be safe, but at least it's fair, yes they'll have to murder some childhood friends but at least half of all children get the opportunity to do GCSEs"...
Are you saying want to put the setting of local speed limits to a national vote?
Well don't worry as at least one of the parties running in the next GE have unnecessarily strong opinions (if not actual policies) on the imagined "restrictions" including "blanket 20 mph limits" that these yoghurt weaving Local government types aren't actually implementing currently...
If this is the major red line issue for you, then I suppose your vote is essentially already cast.
Welcome to the Culture Wars...
molgrips
@stevextc there is some really horrible stuff in that last post. You cannot treat people statistically like that.
You may find it horrible, its a reality.
Each death is a tragedy to someone but it's irrelevant to 99.99%+ of the population.
We can't set policy based on completely avoiding every death or life quickly becomes not worth living for everyone else so we have to collectively pick a number along with what costs and changes it will bring and aim for that.
88.84 fatalities / 3.1 million ? We can theoretically save those other 88.34 people just ban ALL road traffic.. then we ban trains and boats cos people die on those and stairs and walking and cycling or riding a horse.
Also read about social contract. We all accept limitations on what we can do so that we can live safely and happily. You presumably were ok with 30mph limits?
The limit is irrelevant to me, it's the deceit, the lying and wilful ignoring of wishes of the electorate is what bothers me.
Talking of social contracts, the contract between the Synedd and electorate states that any petition with 10,000 signatures will be CONSIDERED for debate.. not some tin pot dictator deciding on a pet project. We are still living with Thatcher's pet projects.
In this case the assembly changed something, it's extremely unpopular, 430,000 people signed a petition calling for the default 20mph speed limit law to be rescinded. responses to the petition is a record for anything . The next most popular was 67,940 signatures and he/they refuse to even think about changing it or holding a referendum.
He's got one job and that is to do the will of the electorate... that's it and if he doesn't care what the electorate want he needs getting rid of.
You still didn't say how many deaths you think is acceptable and at what costs... why not think? What is the cost (to people) vs benefit... I personally think 88/3 million is pretty good.. but if you think 5 is too many it comes with increasing costs.
Maybe if everyone had to pick range along with a realistic way to get there they'd collectively decide on 5, 50 or 500.. it's not like individual councils can't already set a 20mph limit
It's a fast track way to a quieter, more peaceful way of life for 67 million people (when it finally reaches Eng/Scot)
What's not to like?
End of discussion, really
Now to aggressively go after wanton hard acceleration and loud exhausts
Talking of social contracts, the contract between the Synedd and electorate states that any petition with 10,000 signatures will be CONSIDERED for debate
I suspect they did consider it.
But decided you and the others who signed it were wrong.
So no debate.
stevextc
Free MemberDo you wish to make life even more of a misery to reduce your chance of death by a traffic accident per year from 1:65000 to 1:60,000 by a blanket 20mph in all previous 30mph zones???
OK so first of all it's pretty weird that you quoted my post and responded to it with 7 paragraphs that had essentially nothing to do with what I posted. What's that all about?
But second, ironically you did accidentally make a good point in this last bit which I've quoted here. Because my post was all about the dishonesty and misrepresentation of it all, and that's exactly what "blanket 20mph in all previous 30mph zones" is. There is no such blanket change. It is a commonly repeated lie. And this, weirdly, is the only thing that was actually appropriate to my post, not because of the argument you wanted to make but because of the example you made.
As for misery, my whole town is 20mph except for the main road through it, has been for years, and it's great. I don't think anyone would change it back. The roads are chilled, there's less noise, less frustration, and it's actually easier to get around because people are doing things that bit more slowly and easily. My last place was the same, people whinged about it when the limit changed but 5 years on nobody thought anything of it, it just made it a nicer place to live and the difference in drive time was absolutely trivial. It's not all about ksis. It doesn't even have to be <anything> to do with ksis. It's made these towns better places to live, while making them fractionally worse places to drive.
What a mad idea, for a town to be a place to live more than it is a place to drive through. FWIW there are numerous studies showing reductions in minor injuries and ksis, and since rather than try and refute them you just avoided them I suspect you know that perfectly well.
What a mad idea, for a town to be a place to live more than it is a place to drive through.
Indeed.
I like mad ideas though.
Maybe the Senedd decided to ignore the petition to not do the 20mph thing because they had very recently had that debate and decided to go for it. Might be worth a rematch in a couple of years but not weeks after it's implemented.
As for popularity I looked at that guardian article TJ posted in the other thread that pointed out that local councilors usually found 20mph zones to be electorally popular as most people don't want cars speeding through where they live and those speeding through don't vote for the local councilors. Basically 20mph zones are popular and get people reelected so we will likely get more of them.
Must ask my local councilors why ours is not here yet...
Sorry if this has been mentioned, but surely the pollution is less at lower speeds, as those with a non ev are not using a 'lead foot', maybe even those with an ev are saving battery. I'm not an expert, it's just common sense.
As we know very tiny tots and babies are often at exhaust level when out in a buggy.
OK so first of all it’s pretty weird that you quoted my post and responded to it with 7 paragraphs that had essentially nothing to do with what I posted. What’s that all about?
Are you new here?
Sorry if this has been mentioned, but surely the pollution is less at lower speeds, as those with a non ev are not using a ‘lead foot’, maybe even those with an ev are saving battery.
I believe that is the reason Paris decided to go blanket 30kph.
It seems over 50% of people don’t support it.. just based on looking at social media and the suicide rate for wales would seem to indicate many people are not at all happy.
You do realise people don't generally commit suicide because of speed limits? That's a pretty egregious trivialisation.
FFS people die.. we all do eventually we might as well be free to enjoy it as best we can.
People do die yes and it's generally considered to be a bad thing when it happens prematurely. Having to drive at 20mph on residential streets should not diminish your capacity to enjoy life. That's the most pointlessly melodramatic thing I have heard on here in a long while.
The chance he’s going to die in a traffic accident in a 30mph zone that could be 20mph and he wouldn’t have died is so vanishingly small as to be insignificant.
Not true, not true at all. There is a lot of research on this, you can't just hand-wave it away.
We can’t set policy based on completely avoiding every death or life quickly becomes not worth living for everyone else
No, we can't, but that's not what's happening here. We're being asked to make a very minor change to have a very major effect on some people. That's how government works. You can't make legislation based on averages. I mean - most people are straight, so why worry about gay marriage? Most people in the UK are white so why bother with laws against racism? Most people aren't in poverty, so why bother with helping the poor? We can just please all the people whose lives are already easy. A huge part of good governance is protecting the people who need it from the tyranny of the majority.
He’s got one job and that is to do the will of the electorate
No that is absolutely not how government works at all. Otherwise we'd have a referendum on every policy and a civil service to enact everything. And if we did that the results would be terrible because of the above tyranny of the majority effect. I mean, you've admitted yourself you don't care about people dying if it makes you feel like you're getting to work slightly quicker. Just wondering if you know what empathy is?
What is the cost (to people) vs benefit
The cost of making the default limit 20 (not all limits) to us, is utterly trivial. The cost to some family of a death, from a RTA or lung disease, is huge. You want someone to pay that price for a trivial benefit to you? And you think that would be a good way to govern a country? God help us.
The limit is irrelevant to me, it’s the deceit, the lying and wilful ignoring of wishes of the electorate is what bothers me.
Wishes of the electorate? They were voted in with this in their manifesto.
That is the will of the electorate. Not some online petition with limited validation that a signatory is legitimate or even lives in Wales.
And where are the lies again?
All this frothing from the usual bunch of snowflakes.
Also, it's not necessarily the case that everyone opposes the limits. I have found two polls, one suggesting the public support it and one suggesting they don't.
I suspect that the number who don't support it will be pretty small in 10 years' time, they are just grumpy pants right now.
He’s got one job and that is to do the will of the electorate
Interesting point but given that in the UK a government is generally elected by a minority it is clearly not the case that the government acts to do the will of the electorate (or at least the majority of the electorate).
cookea
Is it? We already know about 52% of people are **** maniacs don’t we 😉
I get that... and I'm not for chucking referenda at everything like Switzerland but when they are used then the information needs to actually be accurate and include a mechanism for what is being asked.
Brexit is also a perfect example of government creating it's own mandates through lies and deception then blaming the electorate.
Both of these examples are deliberate misuse of mandates... where the majority of people voting for something wouldn't have voted for it if they knew what/how.
Based on the number of responses to the petition (now apparently 430,000) it's safe to say had he said he was going to introduce this and announced how many lives any reasonable calculation shows it may possibly save he wouldn't have been elected.
Are you saying want to put the setting of local speed limits to a national vote?
If this is the major red line issue for you, then I suppose your vote is essentially already cast.
I'm saying 430,000 people on the petition shows this is not what people thought they voted for.
Either they made an election promise but had no idea how they would deliver it or they already had pet projects and lied.
Either way he needs dragging out of the Synedd and handing over to the masses he betrayed.
This lies and deception is endemic in our politics from local to national.
Our local council is doing the same right now with a fake sham consultation on what services will be cut but refuses to disclose what relative services cost. At the end they will do what lines their own pockets and then blame the electorate saying they all voted for it in the consultation.
time it right and present enough facts via FB and I’m sure you could persuade could persuade 51%+ of eligible voters that Upper school places should be awarded not on catchment and/or academic merit but the outcome of a series of battles to the death between 11 year olds.
I can see the minister for schools now: “It might not be safe, but at least it’s fair, yes they’ll have to murder some childhood friends but at least half of all children get the opportunity to do GCSEs”…
That's a stretch ... but to turn that into the way the 20mph is being done the promise would be to promise "Upper school places should be awarded with a fairer system" ... and then coming up with a hunger games scenario and then blaming the electorate because that's what they voted for.
Either way he needs dragging out of the Synedd and handing over to the masses he betrayed.
Are you really encouraging violence against a politician? Wow.
Sorry if this has been mentioned, but surely the pollution is less at lower speeds, as those with a non ev are not using a ‘lead foot’, maybe even those with an ev are saving battery. I’m not an expert, it’s just common sense.
I'd like to think that properly enforced 20s will mean a move away from traffic-calming measures where cars slow down, causing brake and tyre dust emissions, and accelerate away causing pollution/reduction in battery life. Tyre dust is horrible stuff for the environment... https://e360.yale.edu/features/tire-pollution-toxic-chemicals
It also means less infrastructure to re-mark, repair, etc. There are some wicked speed humps near us that are hard work on a bike because of poor maintenance
