Fuck Cars
A place to discuss problems of car centric infrastructure or how it hurts us all. Let's explore the bad world of Cars!
Rules
1. Be Civil
You may not agree on ideas, but please do not be needlessly rude or insulting to other people in this community.
2. No hate speech
Don't discriminate or disparage people on the basis of sex, gender, race, ethnicity, nationality, religion, or sexuality.
3. Don't harass people
Don't follow people you disagree with into multiple threads or into PMs to insult, disparage, or otherwise attack them. And certainly don't doxx any non-public figures.
4. Stay on topic
This community is about cars, their externalities in society, car-dependency, and solutions to these.
5. No reposts
Do not repost content that has already been posted in this community.
Moderator discretion will be used to judge reports with regard to the above rules.
Posting Guidelines
In the absence of a flair system on lemmy yet, let’s try to make it easier to scan through posts by type in here by using tags:
- [meta] for discussions/suggestions about this community itself
- [article] for news articles
- [blog] for any blog-style content
- [video] for video resources
- [academic] for academic studies and sources
- [discussion] for text post questions, rants, and/or discussions
- [meme] for memes
- [image] for any non-meme images
- [misc] for anything that doesn’t fall cleanly into any of the other categories
Recommended communities:
view the rest of the comments
It's still not the right way to go about it. If you want to make a 20 mph road, then build a 20 mph road - complete with traffic calming measures, as per the official recommendations. Just slapping a 20 sign on a road that feels like a 30 is only going to increase noncompliance (currently measured at ~85% for 20 roads). That's not to mention traffic light systems that have been timed to 30 mph roads, these are never updated when the speed limit changes.
If you want people to change how they drive, then they need training, not altered roads. Hell, even just doing your ROSPA and IAM isn't perfect, because if you don't keep up your training you'll develop bad habits over time.
Big assumption, one that doesn't hold up. Travelling at 20 mph takes 50% longer than travelling at 30 mph.
Possibly, in a select few areas. These areas should be identified and addressed properly, which may well save more lives.
The difference in fuel consumption between driving at 20 and 30 is negligible. The main economy difference is acceleration, and slowing down and accelerating for 20 areas increases fuel consumption. Hell, the government white paper on speed bumps mentions higher fuel consumption leading to fuel tax revenue as a benefit.
Probably not, but that's not the concern here. The concern is about impeding progression when there is no traffic and no good reason, ie an empty road through town in quiet times with few cars or people about.
I'm sure there are some areas that will benefit from a reduction to 20 limits, but a blanket change from 30 to 20 is just poorly thought out political pandering.
The thing is, nobody plans to crash their car into a pedestrian. So how does it keep happening? One reason is from people driving faster than they should because they wrongly believe a road is empty. Slower limits help with this, because when drivers are going around with incorrect beliefs about whether roads are empty or not, there is more time to react and less energy to cause injury
I can't disagree with anything that you're saying here. All I can say is that there is always a balance to be struck between road users - pedestrians, cyclists, cars, everyone (even animals).
It happens because road users aren't properly segregated. If you look at large construction sites, they have barriers everywhere and it's generally extremely safe. They still have fatal accidents between vehicles/plant and people. The only way to be completely safe is to be separate - but that isn't reasonably practicable everywhere.
My issue here isn't with 20 mph roads. My issue is with a blanket change of all 30 mph roads to 20 mph, without making those roads suitable for 20 mph. Maybe some of these roads already should be 20 mph, but many aren't and shouldn't be, and the ones that aren't will encourage further noncompliance everywhere else.
You can do the maths to work out percentages of a small number. Perhaps check the killed and seriously injured specs, and whilst online, the other technical assessments. Give me more than uninformed view to consider.
I can do the maths, but apparently you refuse to. You're going by what you've been taught about speeding on the motorway, how 80 mph is really very close to 70 mph in terms of time. That doesn't hold true between 20 and 30.
You're not considering anything, you're not arguing the points I've presented, you're just trying to fight me. It isn't working.
If you have evidence that backs up your side of the argument then please present it, like I have with the government's compliance statistics. Don't try to pass off the work for making your argument onto me.
Perhaps this will help
So their key points:
Don't really relate to 20 all that much.
If you want 20 mph roads, then build 20 mph roads. If you want drivers to drive better, train them.
Just in general, can I ask what you're hoping to get from this thread? I mean, you're in the Fuck Cars community asking everyone to agree with you that today's driving is okay, that there aren't benefits from slowing down motor traffic and that we shouldn't expect people to act legally. It seems a strange battle to choose.
I'm just calling out bullshit political pandering in a blanket speed limit reduction as what it is: bullshit political pandering that doesn't even really achieve the goals it sets out to do.
I'm not against 20 limits, I'm not against increasing safety of vulnerable road users, I'm not against reducing the use of cars. I want those things to be done appropriately and effectively. This is not that.
That whole study is specifically aimed at 20mph. It does reduce speed but not exactly by 10mph. It’s going to reduce traffic time, casualities, pollution and increase walking and public transport use.
There is a lot to like and for the places that it doesn’t apply people can always put up a sign for 30. Ideally this is supported by traffic calming measures but that’s a longer more costly.
Also, if you want to refer to that blog post as a "study", we should look only at its sourced claims.
This is specifically about Bristol, a city with narrow roads.
I'm sure Germany have implemented speed limits efficiently, but the UK has a history of compelling local councils to implement traffic measures that increase fuel consumption and thereby increase fuel tax revenue. Regardless, Germany have not changed all of their 50 kph zones to 30 kph, like this law proposes.
Urban traffic flow. This law covers everywhere.
This experiment was from 1950.
Urban design, referring to handling specific zones of congestion.
None of these points apply to changing the national speed limit for Wales from 30 to 20.
[^1]: Cycling City project and Active Bristol / Monitoring by Bristol City Council http://www.betterbybike.info/sites/default/files/attachments/Cycling%20City%20end%20of%20project%20report.pdf [^2]: An illustrated guide to traffic calming. by Dr Carmen Hass-Klau (1990) [^3]: Link to a copy of the COBA 2002 manual – Traffic Flow plots are in Chapter 9: http://www.leics.gov.uk/part_5.pdf [^4]: http://www.freeflowuk.net/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=73&Itemid=59 [^5]: Improving traffic behaviour and safety through urban design. Proceedings of Institute of Civil Engineering. Ben Hamilton Baillie, Phil Jones May 2005 http://www.icevirtuallibrary.com/content/article/10.1680/cien.2005.158.5.39
Also check out this fancy markdown citation function!
If they put up a ton of 30 signs then it probably would be alright. Eg, the main road through a village or town could stay 30, while the main high street and side roads would all be default 20. But that requires more than just a change in law to say "what was 30 is now 20", and they don't seem to be doing this. They're expecting financially strapped local councils to go through a process of assessing and assigning 30 limits themselves, at their own expense. It likely won't happen in most places, they simply can't afford it.