20mph zones "More dangerous."
-
thirdcrank
- Posts: 36740
- Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm
20mph zones "More dangerous."
I don't think this has been discussed on the forum but it seems fundamentally important to me.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/12 ... il-admits/
Briefly, it's suggested that the introduction of 20mph zones leads to an increase in serious casualties, with the implication that driving more slowly is somehow dangerous. Apart from what I believe still to be the policy that these limits are not routinely enforced, so it does not follow that 20mph limits = traffic at 20 mph max, it's based on the reality that casualties are reduced when roads are manifestly too dangerous for vulnerable users.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/12 ... il-admits/
Briefly, it's suggested that the introduction of 20mph zones leads to an increase in serious casualties, with the implication that driving more slowly is somehow dangerous. Apart from what I believe still to be the policy that these limits are not routinely enforced, so it does not follow that 20mph limits = traffic at 20 mph max, it's based on the reality that casualties are reduced when roads are manifestly too dangerous for vulnerable users.
- Heltor Chasca
- Posts: 3016
- Joined: 30 Aug 2014, 8:18pm
- Location: Near Bath & The Mendips in Somerset
Re: 20mph zones "More dangerous."
I believe the Bath Chronicle was the rag whose invalidated and anecdotal findings somehow managed to get into the Telegraph. The BC is currently taking quite a bit of flack from local activists because of this.
Lazy and irresponsible journalism.
Lazy and irresponsible journalism.
-
Cyril Haearn
- Posts: 15213
- Joined: 30 Nov 2013, 11:26am
Re: 20mph zones "More dangerous."
No statistics for *KSI*
K is one thing and SI is quite another
K is one thing and SI is quite another
Entertainer, juvenile, curmudgeon, PoB, 30120
Cycling-of course, but it is far better on a Gillott
We love safety cameras, we hate bullies
Cycling-of course, but it is far better on a Gillott
We love safety cameras, we hate bullies
Re: 20mph zones "More dangerous."
There is an interesting thread over on YACF about this.
This is one of the posts:
This is one of the posts:
http://www.20splenty.org/banes-report takes the lack of statistical rigour apart very nicely.
Re: 20mph zones "More dangerous."
A frequently claimed, and equally often disproved claim by opponents of these systems
Re: 20mph zones "More dangerous."
LollyKat wrote:There is an interesting thread over on YACF about this.
This is one of the posts:http://www.20splenty.org/banes-report takes the lack of statistical rigour apart very nicely.
Lack of statistical rigour is an understatement. The total injuries went down significantly. By breaking the region up into small sections the report found that the injuries went up in more sections than they went down; mostly by random fluctuation given the very small numbers per section.
-
Annoying Twit
- Posts: 962
- Joined: 1 Feb 2016, 8:19am
- Location: Leicester
Re: 20mph zones "More dangerous."
Isn't there an Independent Press Standards Organisation that a complaint could be sent to if the statistics are dodgy and misleading?
-
profpointy
- Posts: 528
- Joined: 9 Jun 2011, 10:34pm
Re: 20mph zones "More dangerous."
Not commented on the article which may well be click bait, or standard cycle hating, or both, or neither...
but on a fairly busy shoppi g road near me where they introduced 20mph a while back it does seem, paradoxically, harder to cross the road now, than it did when the limit was 30. I think the smoother traffic flow of the slower speed means there are fewer gaps, and also you can't quite be sure the traffic is actually doing 20 rather than 30 so you don't gain as much as you'd think by crossing when cars are closer. It's Whiteladies road in Bristol I'm refering to.
That said, I broadly approve of 20mph in many town roads, but even so, it doesn't necessarily solve everything
but on a fairly busy shoppi g road near me where they introduced 20mph a while back it does seem, paradoxically, harder to cross the road now, than it did when the limit was 30. I think the smoother traffic flow of the slower speed means there are fewer gaps, and also you can't quite be sure the traffic is actually doing 20 rather than 30 so you don't gain as much as you'd think by crossing when cars are closer. It's Whiteladies road in Bristol I'm refering to.
That said, I broadly approve of 20mph in many town roads, but even so, it doesn't necessarily solve everything
-
Bonefishblues
- Posts: 11374
- Joined: 7 Jul 2014, 9:45pm
- Location: Near Bicester Oxon
Re: 20mph zones "More dangerous."
Annoying Twit wrote:Isn't there an Independent Press Standards Organisation that a complaint could be sent to if the statistics are dodgy and misleading?
As opposed to the analysis of a pressure group which lobbies for the measure. I sense their dilemma.
-
Annoying Twit
- Posts: 962
- Joined: 1 Feb 2016, 8:19am
- Location: Leicester
Re: 20mph zones "More dangerous."
Bonefishblues wrote:Annoying Twit wrote:Isn't there an Independent Press Standards Organisation that a complaint could be sent to if the statistics are dodgy and misleading?
As opposed to the analysis of a pressure group which lobbies for the measure. I sense their dilemma.
If the total number of injuries and deaths went down, then I don't think there is any need to rely on analysis. The simple figures will speak for themselves.
-
Cyril Haearn
- Posts: 15213
- Joined: 30 Nov 2013, 11:26am
Re: 20mph zones "More dangerous."
Annoying Twit wrote:Bonefishblues wrote:Annoying Twit wrote:Isn't there an Independent Press Standards Organisation that a complaint could be sent to if the statistics are dodgy and misleading?
As opposed to the analysis of a pressure group which lobbies for the measure. I sense their dilemma.
If the total number of injuries and deaths went down, then I don't think there is any need to rely on analysis. The simple figures will speak for themselves.
Lumping K +SI together is no good, KSI = 10 might mean 10 K or 10 SI
Plenty of SI make a full recovery
Entertainer, juvenile, curmudgeon, PoB, 30120
Cycling-of course, but it is far better on a Gillott
We love safety cameras, we hate bullies
Cycling-of course, but it is far better on a Gillott
We love safety cameras, we hate bullies
Re: 20mph zones "More dangerous."
Annoying Twit wrote:Isn't there an Independent Press Standards Organisation that a complaint could be sent to if the statistics are dodgy and misleading?
According to 20's Plenty, the original (with devious summary) report was from Bath council, which the local press picked up on, helped by a local politician. AKA more fake news
"42"
-
Cyril Haearn
- Posts: 15213
- Joined: 30 Nov 2013, 11:26am
Re: 20mph zones "More dangerous."
K:SI
Probably there were no K
Maybe the maximum speed limit could be changed to 30 kmh not 30 mph
BTW one should write about *lower speeds* not *slower speeds*
Probably there were no K
Maybe the maximum speed limit could be changed to 30 kmh not 30 mph
BTW one should write about *lower speeds* not *slower speeds*
Entertainer, juvenile, curmudgeon, PoB, 30120
Cycling-of course, but it is far better on a Gillott
We love safety cameras, we hate bullies
Cycling-of course, but it is far better on a Gillott
We love safety cameras, we hate bullies
-
Bonefishblues
- Posts: 11374
- Joined: 7 Jul 2014, 9:45pm
- Location: Near Bicester Oxon
Re: 20mph zones "More dangerous."
squeaker wrote:Annoying Twit wrote:Isn't there an Independent Press Standards Organisation that a complaint could be sent to if the statistics are dodgy and misleading?
According to 20's Plenty, the original (with devious summary) report was from Bath council, which the local press picked up on, helped by a local politician. AKA more fake news
Your use of both "fake news" and "devious summary" carries an obvious implication that it was deliberate and deceptive. I can think of no reason why they would want it be so - do you have some insight on this?
Re: 20mph zones "More dangerous."
How many councillors are are cyclists and how many are motorists?