Kilometres or miles

[kwackers]

What doesn't it "fit"?
We have speedometers/odometers in miles/miles per hour, we have speed signs in miles per hour, we have signposts in miles, it works perfectly fine.

Using the old emotional "should spend the money on doctors, nurses, social care" nonsense doesn't work on me. I'm frankly bored of it being touted out ever time someone suggests spending money on something that someone doesn't like the sound of.
Society is a vast collection of different things not all of which have instant gratification. The local council are spending more than a few quid updating cycle paths near me - they'll never get that money back, perhaps they should spend it on nurses, doctors and social care? (I'm pretty sure if you trawl the comments section of the local rag someone will be suggesting exactly that).

As for age related slurs, I'm an old duffer too - but an old duffer who realistically knows that we as a group hold the world back, we're too conservative and so there's a huge social benefit to our demise and the churn of population.
There's a good reason for the age split with the brexit vote and it's the same reason some of us cling to imperial. Us oldies are the real barrier to change.

If we ever "cure" death then it'll be the end, we'll stagnate and disappear as a species.

Anyway if money is the issue then we can save vastly more by getting people out exercising, if we were really bothered about social stuff we'd ban crap foods and make exercise compulsory.
You could halve the number of doctors and nurses and save tens of billions in the process.

[Bmblbzzz]

Actually, that would put British speed limits more in line with other countries that have very low KSI / million km, such as the Netherlands, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, etc.

According to data I can find only Sweden has safer roads than the UK.

https://www.worldlifeexpectancy.com/cau ... y-country/

In general we don't have unsafe roads in this country, in fact we have some of the safest roads in the world.

I didn't suggest otherwise. By saying *other* countries with very low KSI... I implied that the UK has very low KSI / million km. Is there some reason that we shouldn't strive to improve that?

All of Europe has safe roads by world standards. The roads in UK are safe even by European standards but one of the differences between safe roads in the UK and safe roads in eg Scandinavia, at least the urban and minor rural ones, is who's using them. One of the ways UK has made its roads safe is by scaring away the users and uses which are more likely to be injured or killed; not just pedestrians and cyclists but also motorcyclists, for instance.

[The utility cyclist]

As a cyclist and a driver...no. 60kph is ludicrously slow. They've just lowered a NSL road near to where I live to 40mph and it is just a bit silly really.

What is silly is allowing barely qualified people to "control" lethal vehicles at such speeds on public roads. There is little wonder many people are afraid to use the roads, or let their children go outside.

I used to live in a village where the limit was reduced from 40 to 30. A work colleague was complaining that this was way too slow, greatly extended the time of his commute and might even make him late for work. I did a calculation and slowing to the new limit would take an extra 18 seconds to pass through the entire village. I suggested setting his alarm one minute earlier but he would have to plan as to find some task to fill the huge extra 42 seconds he had gained so he wasn't kicking his heels.

Nice one
I used to drive up to my folks every 6 weeks or so, a journey of 155 miles (185 avoiding the toll bridge), at 70mph on the circa 127 miles that it's legal to do so, it would be 108m51s, at 60mph it'd be 127mins, a difference of 18m9s, however the actuality would be less than that,slowing down and accelerating more from the higher speed. On top of that the higher speed makes for a significant increase in fuel cost/pollution, I usually average about 53-55mph over the whole trip.

[Mike Sales]

According to data I can find only Sweden has safer roads than the UK.

https://www.worldlifeexpectancy.com/cau ... y-country/

In general we don't have unsafe roads in this country, in fact we have some of the safest roads in the world.

For who?

[Bmblbzzz]

Pertinent point. ^^

Nice one
I used to drive up to my folks every 6 weeks or so, a journey of 155 miles (185 avoiding the toll bridge), at 70mph on the circa 127 miles that it's legal to do so, it would be 108m51s, at 60mph it'd be 127mins, a difference of 18m9s, however the actuality would be less than that,slowing down and accelerating more from the higher speed. On top of that the higher speed makes for a significant increase in fuel cost/pollution, I usually average about 53-55mph over the whole trip.

Is it only me that glanced at this and saw "fuel constipation"?

[ANTONISH]

All metric for me. If I have to convert to miles I divide by 9, multiply by 5 and add 32.

I'll try not to get heated about that

[ANTONISH]

Before I retired I had students who professed to know nothing about imperial measurements.
When asked their height they gave it in feet and inches, they would give their weight in stones and pounds.
Some had great difficulty in giving height or weight in metric units .

[Peter F]

According to data I can find only Sweden has safer roads than the UK.

https://www.worldlifeexpectancy.com/cau ... y-country/

In general we don't have unsafe roads in this country, in fact we have some of the safest roads in the world.

european_ch_ped_kld_who_2015_v2_720.png

For who?

Ok, but that is a different question.

The UK has a somewhat poor attitude to pedestrians and cyclists compared to other countries.

Assuming that data is correct though, it's interesting that despite having roads that are overall safer we are worse on child pedestrian safety. It would be interesting to dig more into the background those stats.

[Mike Sales]

Ok, but that is a different question.

The UK has a somewhat poor attitude to pedestrians and cyclists compared to other countries.

Assuming that data is correct though, it's interesting that despite having roads that are overall safer we are worse on child pedestrian safety. It would be interesting to dig more into the background those stats.

Assessing "safety" by per population casualties is misleading.
By that measure the most dangerous animal in Australia is not the Great White Shark, the Crocodile, the Funnel Web Spider or the Box Jellyfish. It is the horse.
Britain kills fewer cyclists than the Netherlands, but is not safer for us.
A better criterion is per exposure. Miles ridden or walked, and on which roads.
Children in GB have less freedom than most in Europe, but are still more at risk.
Cyclists and pedestrians take more care, avoid certain roads and generally react to the dangerous conditions by withdrawing from them.
I really dislike this boast that the Highwaymen make, that we have the safest roads, it justifies their current practice of designing for motors and designing us off the roads.
It would be possible to eliminate cyclist casualties by eliminating cyclists.

[The utility cyclist]

Pertinent point. ^^

Nice one
I used to drive up to my folks every 6 weeks or so, a journey of 155 miles (185 avoiding the toll bridge), at 70mph on the circa 127 miles that it's legal to do so, it would be 108m51s, at 60mph it'd be 127mins, a difference of 18m9s, however the actuality would be less than that,slowing down and accelerating more from the higher speed. On top of that the higher speed makes for a significant increase in fuel cost/pollution, I usually average about 53-55mph over the whole trip.

Is it only me that glanced at this and saw "fuel constipation"?

Pretty much what I was trying to do, if I could have run the motor on human waste I would have done

[The utility cyclist]

What doesn't it "fit"?
We have speedometers/odometers in miles/miles per hour, we have speed signs in miles per hour, we have signposts in miles, it works perfectly fine.

Using the old emotional "should spend the money on doctors, nurses, social care" nonsense doesn't work on me. I'm frankly bored of it being touted out ever time someone suggests spending money on something that someone doesn't like the sound of.
Society is a vast collection of different things not all of which have instant gratification. The local council are spending more than a few quid updating cycle paths near me - they'll never get that money back, perhaps they should spend it on nurses, doctors and social care? (I'm pretty sure if you trawl the comments section of the local rag someone will be suggesting exactly that).

As for age related slurs, I'm an old duffer too - but an old duffer who realistically knows that we as a group hold the world back, we're too conservative and so there's a huge social benefit to our demise and the churn of population.
There's a good reason for the age split with the brexit vote and it's the same reason some of us cling to imperial. Us oldies are the real barrier to change.

If we ever "cure" death then it'll be the end, we'll stagnate and disappear as a species.

Anyway if money is the issue then we can save vastly more by getting people out exercising, if we were really bothered about social stuff we'd ban crap foods and make exercise compulsory.
You could halve the number of doctors and nurses and save tens of billions in the process.

So it's nonsense to take away vast sums from important matters to slake the thirst of a few and for something that doesn't improve anything, you either work within the EU or are just an out of touch remainer who thinks nothing of piddling away our money on vanity projects.

[Bmblbzzz]

Road signs are a highly visible but actually rather small part of measurements.

[Peter F]

Ok, but that is a different question.

The UK has a somewhat poor attitude to pedestrians and cyclists compared to other countries.

Assuming that data is correct though, it's interesting that despite having roads that are overall safer we are worse on child pedestrian safety. It would be interesting to dig more into the background those stats.

Assessing "safety" by per population casualties is misleading.
By that measure the most dangerous animal in Australia is not the Great White Shark, the Crocodile, the Funnel Web Spider or the Box Jellyfish. It is the horse.
Britain kills fewer cyclists than the Netherlands, but is not safer for us.
A better criterion is per exposure. Miles ridden or walked, and on which roads.
Children in GB have less freedom than most in Europe, but are still more at risk.
Cyclists and pedestrians take more care, avoid certain roads and generally react to the dangerous conditions by withdrawing from them.
I really dislike this boast that the Highwaymen make, that we have the safest roads, it justifies their current practice of designing for motors and designing us off the roads.
It would be possible to eliminate cyclist casualties by eliminating cyclists.

Hmmm...
Firstly the data about dangerous animals in Australia is incredibly useful. We all assume that Sharks are very dangerous but they account for an incredibly small number of fatalities, because exposure is incredibly important. There are two elements to assessing the risk something poses, consequence and likelihood.

You need to support your assertions with data. Are children in Europe more free? Is it that other countries segregate traffic better?
Much of Europe was destroyed in the war and they rebuilt it. The UK wasn't and so many of our towns and cities streets are simply not wide enough for decent segregation.
There is data for relative risk per distance travelled for different modes of transport in the UK. Is there similar data for European countries.
Population density is also important. How do we compare to Europe and how does the distribution of pedestrian and cycling fatalities fit with population density?

To fix a problem you need to define it and understand it first. Risk assessment, and risk mitigation is part of my job and the number of times I've seen people fix the wrong problem is depressingly often.

[kwackers]

So it's nonsense to take away vast sums from important matters to slake the thirst of a few and for something that doesn't improve anything, you either work within the EU or are just an out of touch remainer who thinks nothing of piddling away our money on vanity projects.

Out of touch with whom? My old duffer peers? Not really.
I just find it quite sad the way they cling to the "old ways" like they're a life raft. Hunkering down in the familiar instead of embracing change...

I also think that there's no reason to have two measuring systems - I think of the removal of one as "modernisation".
One persons piddling away money is another's investment.

Keep on "taking back control". It does make me laugh when I see how much BoJo and us are taking it up the bum from the U.S and the E.U.
If out of touch means understanding why you can't take back control from the big kids in the playground when you're 'billy-no-mates' and they're having your trousers down then I'm definitely out of touch.

I can't wait to be a vassal state of the U.S, I'm even considering stopping being a veggie so I can enjoy a bit of chlorinated chicken.
Mind you, with MPH signs we're almost American so perhaps you're right and that brexitear nonce is paying dividends.

[Mike Sales]

Ok, but that is a different question.

The UK has a somewhat poor attitude to pedestrians and cyclists compared to other countries.

Assuming that data is correct though, it's interesting that despite having roads that are overall safer we are worse on child pedestrian safety. It would be interesting to dig more into the background those stats.

Assessing "safety" by per population casualties is misleading.
By that measure the most dangerous animal in Australia is not the Great White Shark, the Crocodile, the Funnel Web Spider or the Box Jellyfish. It is the horse.
Britain kills fewer cyclists than the Netherlands, but is not safer for us.
A better criterion is per exposure. Miles ridden or walked, and on which roads.
Children in GB have less freedom than most in Europe, but are still more at risk.
Cyclists and pedestrians take more care, avoid certain roads and generally react to the dangerous conditions by withdrawing from them.
I really dislike this boast that the Highwaymen make, that we have the safest roads, it justifies their current practice of designing for motors and designing us off the roads.
It would be possible to eliminate cyclist casualties by eliminating cyclists.

Hmmm...
Firstly the data about dangerous animals in Australia is incredibly useful. We all assume that Sharks are very dangerous but they account for an incredibly small number of fatalities, because exposure is incredibly important. There are two elements to assessing the risk something poses, consequence and likelihood.

You need to support your assertions with data. Are children in Europe more free? Is it that other countries segregate traffic better?
Much of Europe was destroyed in the war and they rebuilt it. The UK wasn't and so many of our towns and cities streets are simply not wide enough for decent segregation.
There is data for relative risk per distance travelled for different modes of transport in the UK. Is there similar data for European countries.
Population density is also important. How do we compare to Europe and how does the distribution of pedestrian and cycling fatalities fit with population density?

To fix a problem you need to define it and understand it first. Risk assessment, and risk mitigation is part of my job and the number of times I've seen people fix the wrong problem is depressingly often.

You are agreeing with me about how the raw casualty figures are a poor guide to danger. People take more care when they perceive danger, and, as I did say, this changes exposure. I am glad we can agree there, but I am not sure why you needed to restate what I said.
The classic book on child independent mobility is One False Move by Hillman, Whitelegg and Adams.
My copy is not accessible at the moment, but it is available on Amazon, or a pdf is at
http://john-adams.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2007/11/one%20false%20move.pdf

No doubt you are aware of the difficulty usually ignored by road engineers: if the risks of an action are changed, human beings tend to change their behaviour. Making cars more crashworthy results in driver behaviour changing in a way which maintains their chosen level of risk. Frustrating.
Have you identified the right problem to solve in road safety?
Have you read John Adams's or Wilde's work on risk?