Forum menu
it seems the dicks are likely to stay in their cars and have twice as many things to hit!
Fair point. The last people to move out of their cars onto other transport will be the dicks. So maybe the correct approach should be to stop people driving like dicks. I don't know how that can be achieved though.
snip.
Any government which implemented simple solution and slashed the deaths and KSI data within a parliamentary cycle would be on a winner for reelection. Whilst any government that adds even mild inconvenience to the public and achieves no measurable benefit would be lauded [def: praised. I don't think you mean that] in the press.
Wales will be interesting. All the data I've seen has been positive -
18 month post implementation review .
Based on living in London, my borough has now been 20mph for nearly 10 years. Others have taken longer to catch up. It's really noticeable that the city is calmer now - going to towns outside London traffic feels way too fast in town centres. I'd say *most* traffic is now compliant, but it has taken some years to get there. ie - needs more time in Wales for full impact. (per report 54.0% of vehicles are now being driven at or below 24mph, compared to 20.8% before in Wales)
But:. In the first 12 months after the introduction of the default 20mph speed limit, there was a 11.8% decrease in total casualties. Casualties on 20 and 30mph roads decreased by 26.2% while casualties on >40mph roads increased by 4.2%*. Average journey time on 60 routes assessed had increased in nearly all (which you'd kind of expect) but only by a couple of minutes. Insurer esure reduced premiums for Welsh drivers, noting an average saving of around £45, and reported a 20% drop in vehicle damage claims.
The conservatives and reform are still campaigning on the basis of 20mph being a 'disaster' and that they'll remove it. It would be interesting to see up to date public opinion research but a year after it went in (Sept 2024) it was still running at 70% opposition. https://yougov.co.uk/politics/articles/50349-wales-overwhelmingly-rejects-the-20mph-speed-limit
When the Telegraph is still running stories like the one below you start to facepalm. It's paywalled but also clearly nonsense. no-one in their right mind would not visit Wales because of 20mph limits. Although the repeated misrepresentation of the limit in the right wing press (as every road everywhere rather than previous 30mph limits) won't have helped.
*that's an odd one. Correlation does not equal causation - those roads haven't changed. Are people driving more dangerously on 40mph roads because they want to make up time? Or have all roads generally become less safe but the impact on 20mph roads is actually even greater than 26%
Most of that £22Bn is not costs as in expendidture. It is putting a nominal value on things like distress to relatives of victims. That is not a subsidy to drivers or a cost to the taxpayer. So my point that road taxes far outweighs expenditure still stands. Car drivers are not subsidised.
Yes they are - hugely. Those deaths do have a cost is lost earnings, costs of NHS care ( many do not die immediately) cost of FAIs etc etc plus of course the lost earnings from injuries and disabilities and the cost of the NHS and social care
Plus all the other costs of cars such as damage to buildings, deaths and ill health from pollutiuon etc etc
then there is the lost value of all that land used for parking
\Plus many other costs such as enforcing motoring law
Most of that £22Bn is not costs as in expendidture. It is putting a nominal value on things like distress to relatives of victims. That is not a subsidy to drivers or a cost to the taxpayer. So my point that road taxes far outweighs expenditure still stands. Car drivers are not subsidised.
Yes they are - hugely. Those deaths do have a cost is lost earnings, costs of NHS care ( many do not die immediately) cost of FAIs etc etc plus of course the lost earnings from injuries and disabilities and the cost of the NHS and social care
Plus all the other costs of cars such as damage to buildings, deaths and ill health from pollutiuon etc etc
then there is the lost value of all that land used for parking
\Plus many other costs such as enforcing motoring law
but the “subsidy” also means that the price of food on your table is much lower than if it were delivered to the shops by horse and cart, that people can get to work and earn money and pay taxes which pay from healthcare, education etc.
but the “subsidy” also means that the price of food on your table is much lower than if it were delivered to the shops by horse and cart, that people can get to work and earn money and pay taxes which pay from healthcare, education etc.
if that's where you've got to your line of argument really has "run out of road"
but the “subsidy” also means that the price of food on your table is much lower than if it were delivered to the shops by horse and cart, that people can get to work and earn money and pay taxes which pay from healthcare, education etc.
if that's where you've got to your line of argument really has "run out of road"
Eh? If you believe that road users aren't paying their fair share of the roads then you need to stop seeing roads as a state provided commodity that directly or indirectly benefits society / population as a whole and tax every user for their exact contribution to the cost of roads. You can debate how that cost is calculated and apportioned, but perhaps its something like weight per mile per wheel. If current road tax and fuel duty aren't covering the "true cost" then the cost needs to be attributed to the other users, including road haulage, emergency services, public transport etc as well as the ordinary drivers. If the state is subsiding roads then of course there should be a tax saving to offset against those directly attributed costs. Tough luck if you are a low earner who currently doesn't own a car - your food subsidy can no longer be supported by the state, you must pay the true cost of production and delivery. The idea that somehow it matters whether the state subsidises roads or not is a nonsense - without roads the country would essentially collapse. Roads are an essential basic development that any modern society needs. People who actively avoid driving a car, and are pious about it with the "I'm subsidising the roads" argument, are either disengenuous or deluded. Unless they are living as a hermit on an island with a 100% self-sufficient lifestyle they need the roads just as much as their neighbour.
You say induced demand I say increased mobility. More mobility is good.
This has been on my mind over the weekend because it's hard to disagree with. The important thing to remember with this argument is that induced demand works for other forms of mobility than private cars*. Building more roads is usually the default solution to increasing mobility of people and things but it's not the only solution and its rarely the best. To give an example close to what @irc mentioned, there are plans to fully dual the road between Inverness & Nairn. This will most likely increase the traffic volumes between Nairn & Inverness and as a result in more traffic in both places. As far as I can tell there's not much thought into what will be done with all the extra vehichles once they arrive at their destinations. Improved public transport would likely cost much less than a load of new road and have much less impact on the communities it serves (Transport Scotland's own data predict this, not just me waving a hand).
Anyway, back to the main topic - I'm generally all for extra testing for more dangerous drivers and I guess the over 70s eye test thing is a first step that's just the easiest to implement. Here's hoping that it means more places will offer good alternatives to driving so that those who lose their licenses can still get about as needed.
*I know other vehicles use the roads, but private cars are by far the least efficient movers of people & stuff on those roads.
If you believe that road users aren't paying their fair share of the roads then you need to stop seeing roads as a state provided commodity that directly or indirectly benefits society / population as a whole and tax every user for their exact contribution to the cost of roads.
Ages ages somewhere up there I posted that the average price per litre of fuel in the UK hasn't risen since about 2011.
And the impact of inflation on £1.40 is:
(from BoE calculator)
Maybe much of the benefit of roads is that I can get my Temu/Amazon crap delivered quickly. But I still think fuel is woefully underpriced and road users aren't paying enough. EV's should pay by weight or torque (we have one).
but the “subsidy” also means that the price of food on your table is much lower than if it were delivered to the shops by horse and cart, that people can get to work and earn money and pay taxes which pay from healthcare, education etc.
Or conversely unneeded mileage is reduced. supermarkets do not ship food back and forward across the UK, WFH becomes more normalised, Cyclists are safer etc etc etc
is there much evidence that when supply chains become complex supermarkets look to streamline rather than just pass the cost to consumers (or screw their suppliers).but the “subsidy” also means that the price of food on your table is much lower than if it were delivered to the shops by horse and cart, that people can get to work and earn money and pay taxes which pay from healthcare, education etc.
Or conversely unneeded mileage is reduced. supermarkets do not ship food back and forward across the UK,
hey I work from home and live a short walk from a train station - if you want me to benefit from such a policy more than a nurse who needs to be at the hospital before 0800 - crack on. Seems a bit unfair.WFH becomes more normalised,
or less maintenance gets done on the roads, traffic feels even more entitled to be there and small vans become large vans for efficiency and vulnerable road users actually get a worse deal? Is there a similar country somewhere in the world which 100% has zero road subsidy? Are cyclists both welcome on these entirely motorist funded roads and actually safer? That’s the point I’m making - inventing policy ideas is easy; ensuring they achieve your promises with no unintended consequences is not.Cyclists are safer etc etc etc
I’ve been thinking about ways to curb speeding, especially after that horrific crash in Bolton which killed an innocent taxi driver. 3 young lads, all with previous, filming at over 100mph in a 30 zone, on the wrong side of the road. All 4 lost their lives. I’m all for eye testing, but these are the people you want OFF the roads.
Theres no deterrent. A ban won’t stop them. Sentences are lenient. They don’t care about insurance.
We shouldn’t be limiting the cars speed, we should limit the person. Why not fit a tag on persistent speeders that alerts the police when they’re over the speed limit? The technology can’t be too difficult to adapt. My car beeps at me the second I go over 30mph. Make it that any subsequent significant violation is dealt with by a prison sentence.
Why not fit a tag on persistent speeders that alerts the police when they’re over the speed limit?
Tracking speed limits is not accurate enough yet, travelling as passenger, on a train, plane or coach, sorry but so many problems with what you suggest.
Tracking speed limits is not accurate enough yet, travelling as passenger, on a train, plane or coach, sorry but so many problems with what you suggest.
Offenders are only allowed to drive cars fitted with data loggers. If the data logger detects a speeding event then it fires off the data to the plod. Obviously this is a proper data logger integrated into the car, not just relying on people's phone GPS.
I'd argue all cars should be fitted with a data logger that can be queried in the event of a collision/suspected collision.
I often say on here the lack of deterrent in not the size of the fine/points/ban its the (perceived) probability of being caught. I mean the offender in that case died - its hard to see what greater punishment might be a deterrant?I’ve been thinking about ways to curb speeding, especially after that horrific crash in Bolton which killed an innocent taxi driver. 3 young lads, all with previous, filming at over 100mph in a 30 zone, on the wrong side of the road. All 4 lost their lives. I’m all for eye testing, but these are the people you want OFF the roads.
Theres no deterrent. A ban won’t stop them. Sentences are lenient.
and where are we going to get the police officers ready to go catch them?Why not fit a tag on persistent speeders that alerts the police when they’re over the speed limit?
Make it that any subsequent significant violation is dealt with by a prison sentence.
I don't know if you are aware but the prisons are currently bursting at the seams, and the courts and prosecutors are struggling with their workload and resourcing. Currently most people caught speeding admit it, which keeps the burden on the courts low. If the consequence was jail you'd be highly motivated to: try to evade being stopped, to fight cases at court. Then once convicted your life would be forever changed, with a high likelihood of never making a positive contribution to society again. I know that's meant to the be the deterent but if you don't think you'll get caught its irrelevant until it happens. Unintended consequences.
I'd argue all cars should be fitted with a data logger that can be queried in the event of a collision/suspected collision.
I think all new cars either have that or it will be introduced soon (at least in the EU and I doubt we are demanding its disabled in the UK). Retrofitting - would you be happy to pay say £1000 to have a logger added?
Retrofitting - would you be happy to pay say £1000 to have a logger added?
Well, not me obviously. I'm a good driver.
But yes, I can see how it could end up being yet another tax on the poor (or at least a tax on people who drive ten year old cars).
On the other hand it could be yet another disincentive if you were only allowed to drive cars with a datalogger fitted if you got a certain number of points on your license. But then I'm not sure how much effect disincentives have on people who are going to drive irresponsibly anyway.
Overall though I don't see anything wrong with people who have a certain number of points on their license being required to have additional monitoring.
On the other hand it could be yet another disincentive if you were only allowed to drive cars with a datalogger fitted if you got a certain number of points on your license.
Who's going to stop them jumping in a car without a datalogger?
Nothing, just as there's nothing to stop them getting into a car whilst drunk. I agree with Poly on his deterance points but still think that fines related to income and wealth would help and the car being autmatically confiscated for a minimum of six months whoever the owner a serious deterant for many.
The leniency shown by courts in the past doesn't help. If it was clear 12 oints meant no licence for a year whatever your circumstances fewer would flaunt it. The little deterance there is has been eroded.
The leniency shown by courts in the past doesn't help. If it was clear 12 oints meant no licence for a year whatever your circumstances fewer would flaunt it.
It's really disappointing that there's nothing explicit in the road safety strategy about ending 'exceptional hardship'. I assume given previous campaigning on this, Cycling UK will be saying so in its response to the consultation.
The leniency shown by courts in the past doesn't help. If it was clear 12 oints meant no licence for a year whatever your circumstances fewer would flaunt it.(its a 6 month ban in current law). I think it probably does still have quite a strong incentive - the data would be interesting, what proportion of people who were on a trajectory where 12 points might be expected suddenly manage to stop offending (or at least getting caught) before they get to 12. The majority of people who get 12 points DO get a 6 month ban. The criteria don't appear to be consistently applied (at least from press reports) but anytime there's an absolute sentence there is always an exception where you think - that seems disproportionate.
It's really disappointing that there's nothing explicit in the road safety strategy about ending 'exceptional hardship'. I assume given previous campaigning on this, Cycling UK will be saying so in its response to the consultation.Intuitively people on 12 points are likely to be more risky (and certainly insurers hike premiums) but it would be interesting to know if they actually cause proportionally more serious accidents.
What seems bizzare is that someone who passes their test, messes up their first insurance renewal and accidentally gets caught driving with no insurance has to retake both theory and practical tests and get their license back with those 6 points, but someone who had had a licesne for >2 years and keeps making errors gets banned but after not driving for 6 months just gets their license back clean. Again though it would be a much stronger argument if there was data showing the re-offending rates for new drivers who retake their test v's experienced drivers who tot up and get back their clean license.