TfL to cut speed limit to 20mph

[Ian789]

That is dead weird. That you assume that if I might support some policies that aim at levelling up of opportunity (in this case by aiming to reduce the harm to which the most vulnerable people are disproportionately exposed) I must therefore be some kind of closet Marxist.

That sounds just as odd as maybe saying that someone who espouses right-of-centre views must necessarily be a crypto-fascist.

Progressive attempts at levelling of opportunity have been completely mainstream in British governments, of both parties, since the war. Are free school meals for less well-off children a Marxist policy? Or was the banning of leaded petrol born out of a hatred of motorists?

In any case, here we're talking here about a relatively small change in speed limits, as a public safety measure. I suppose you can see that as some kind of left wing conspiracy if you want.

A 33.3% reduction. Is relatively small ?

 

[Velma's Dad]

A 33.3% reduction. Is relatively small ?

I guess it depends which way you look at it.

It's practically impossible to average 30mph in urban areas (let's leave aside some through-routes, if I may), I'd say you might manage to average 25 in light traffic - and Google tells me the average traffic speed in outer London is 19-20mph.

So, just playing with those numbers, a typical urban journey of say 3 miles might take about two minutes longer in a 20mph limit.

Given the modelled numbers of lives that would be saved by reducing maximum (not average) speeds, that seems to me a very acceptable trade off. But that said I don't live in a city or have to drive in them very often.

 

[Amarillo]

A 33.3% reduction. Is relatively small ?

I live in a 20mph London Borough. You very quickly get used to the lower limit. When I drive in a neighbouring borough with a 30 limit, even driving at 25mph feels dangerously fast.

That said, yesterday the police were out on our road en-masse with a speed gun. I tootled over to them for a chat. There were two real coppers, the other six were trainees learning to use the speed gun and how to write tickets.

At a guess I would say that 75% of the drivers were doing 25mph or over, the threshold at which they were tugging them. The fastest while I was standing there was 29mph, an eye-watering 45% over the speed limit.

 

[Skiver]

Looks like pedestrian education would be better than penalising the innocent motorist again.

Table 5: Contributory factors allocated to pedestrians and vehicles involved in fatal or serious collisions with pedestrian, GB: 2016 to 2021

Pedestrian contributory factor Count
Pedestrian failed to look properly 13,377
Pedestrian careless, reckless or in a hurry 4,918
Pedestrian failed to judge vehicle`s path or speed 4,425
Crossing road masked by stationary or parked vehicle 2,969
Pedestrian impaired by alcohol 2,841
Pedestrian wearing dark clothing at night 1,761
Dangerous action in carriageway (eg. playing) 1,536
Pedestrian wrong use of pedestrian crossing facility 1,399
Pedestrian disability or illness, mental or physical 1,003
Pedestrian impaired by drugs (illicit or medicinal) 497

I live in Central London and i am already subject to the 20mph limit and I think it works really well. Although most of the time I am wondering around drunk and in dark clothes. I rarely use a crossing - no point everyone is driving around really slowly.

God bless TfL !

 

[Ian789]

I guess it depends which way you look at it.

It's practically impossible to average 30mph in urban areas (let's leave aside some through-routes, if I may), I'd say you might manage to average 25 in light traffic - and Google tells me the average traffic speed in outer London is 19-20mph.

So, just playing with those numbers, a typical urban journey of say 3 miles might take about two minutes longer in a 20mph limit.

Given the modelled numbers of lives that would be saved by reducing maximum (not average) speeds, that seems to me a very acceptable trade off. But that said I don't live in a city or have to drive in them very often.

Well I can't think of another situation where a reduction of 33.3% would be called relatively small can you.?

I've no issue with most traffic calmng measures or 20mph speed limits but I'd luke to see a more detailed breakdown of the accident and casualty stats to ensure the measures are better targeted.

It might be more effective ifor certain hot spots / dangerous junctions etc to have even stronger restrictions/calming measures rather than an across the board approach. Or for certain vehicles to be specifically targeted if they disproportionately are involved.

Have more detailed statistics been published?

 

[Ian789]

I live in a 20mph London Borough. You very quickly get used to the lower limit. When I drive in a neighbouring borough with a 30 limit, even driving at 25mph feels dangerously fast.

That said, yesterday the police were out on our road en-masse with a speed gun. I tootled over to them for a chat. There were two real coppers, the other six were trainees learning to use the speed gun and how to write tickets.

At a guess I would say that 75% of the drivers were doing 25mph or over, the threshold at which they were tugging them. The fastest while I was standing there was 29mph, an eye-watering 45% over the speed

 

[Ian789]

Obviously any restrictictions need to be enforced.

Glad to know that the Met take this as seriously as the other crime that happens in the capital.

2 real coppers ? Bodge and Doyle ? Couldn't they be better employed elsewhere and civilians used to train in the use of speed cameras? I mean I'm no expert but how difficult are they to use/write tickets?

Or is this not the Met ?

 

[Borris]

The scrapping of the Red Flag Man was the end of road safety being taken seriously. If every car had a Red Flag Man jogging ahead now pedestrian road deaths would be close to zero.

What utter nonsense!

The speed limit was 4mph back then and still pedestrians managed to get themselves killed.

"Mrs Bridget Driscoll of Old Town, Croydon became the first motoring fatality on 17 August 1896, when she was run over by a Roger-Benz car at Crystal Palace, London. Employed by the Anglo-French Motor Co, Arthur Edsell was driving at 4mph/6.44kph when he hit Mrs Driscoll, fracturing her skull in the process".

The fact that there were hardly any cars on the roads in 1896 may have been a factor in this case. Today there are 33.2 million cars on british roads. You said "If every car had a Red Flag Man jogging ahead now pedestrian road deaths would be close to zero". I think not!

If every car had a person preceding it with a red flag then that would keep half the population employed. The other half would be driving the cars. Since the current population of the UK is 67.33 million, then those holding the red flags would need to be those that can't drive due to age or infirmity. How many of those children and old fogeys would be accidentally run over or die of exhaustion having waved their flag all the way up the M1. Besides the country would come to a halt and the population would starve.

Tongue in cheek maybe but let's be serious,

There have been far too many major improvements in road safety to mention since those days including getting rid of the bod with the flag. Here's just a few:

Driving tests
Road Traffic Act
Pedestrian crossings
Making cars safer for pedestrians in an accident
Traffic calming measures
Street lighting
The Tufty Cub
And 20 mph speed limits

Another inescapable fact is that despite the demon motor car apparently inflicting untold carnage on our roads, the stats say otherwise.

The following article states that there were 14 or 15 cars on the roads in 1895. So when poor Mrs Driscoll became the first pedestrian to be killed by a motor vehicle on British roads in 1896 the ratio was 1 death per fifteen cars.

What was the first motor car to run on the British Highway? - National Motor Museum

A What was the first motor car to run on the British Highway? There are a number of claims and...

nationalmotormuseum.org.uk

There were 19,039 pedestrian deaths on British roads in 2022 with the number of cars on British roads currently being 33.2 million. Therefore todays ratio is one pedesrian death to every 1744 cars on our roads. Yes still way too many and further measures are undoubtedly necessary but serious road safety measures taken throughout the last 126 years have definitely made pedestrians safer.

A major improvement to these figures could surely still be made if all pedestrians were to look after their own safety by paying attention to their surroundings and hazards to their well being. To name a few: excessive alcohol use, mobile phones, music producing earphones, the wearing of dark clothing at night and just not paying attention have almost certainly contributed to these tragic figures. Whilst the car driver bears the initial responsibility for any fatality, the enquiry that follows often shows other factors have contributed that may be either partially or wholely to blame. Without giving details, I know from painful experience.

I wonder how many people were killed by horse drawn vehicles prior to the advent of the motor car?

 

[Amarillo]

What utter nonsense!

The speed limit was 4mph back then and still pedestrians managed to get themselves killed.

"Mrs Bridget Driscoll of Old Town, Croydon became the first motoring fatality on 17 August 1896, when she was run over by a Roger-Benz car at Crystal Palace, London. Employed by the Anglo-French Motor Co, Arthur Edsell was driving at 4mph/6.44kph when he hit Mrs Driscoll, fracturing her skull in the process".

The fact that there were hardly any cars on the roads in 1896 may have been a factor in this case. Today there are 33.2 million cars on british roads. You said "If every car had a Red Flag Man jogging ahead now pedestrian road deaths would be close to zero". I think not!

If every car had a person preceding it with a red flag then that would keep half the population employed. The other half would be driving the cars. Since the current population of the UK is 67.33 million, then those holding the red flags would need to be those that can't drive due to age or infirmity. How many of those children and old fogeys would be accidentally run over or die of exhaustion having waved their flag all the way up the M1. Besides the country would come to a halt and the population would starve.

Tongue in cheek maybe but let's be serious,

There have been far too many major improvements in road safety to mention since those days including getting rid of the bod with the flag. Here's just a few:

Driving tests
Road Traffic Act
Pedestrian crossings
Making cars safer for pedestrians in an accident
Traffic calming measures
Street lighting
The Tufty Cub
And 20 mph speed limits

Another inescapable fact is that despite the demon motor car apparently inflicting untold carnage on our roads, the stats say otherwise.

The following article states that there were 14 or 15 cars on the roads in 1895. So when poor Mrs Driscoll became the first pedestrian to be killed by a motor vehicle on British roads in 1896 the ratio was 1 death per 15 vehicles.

What was the first motor car to run on the British Highway? - National Motor Museum

A What was the first motor car to run on the British Highway? There are a number of claims and...

nationalmotormuseum.org.uk

There were 19,039 pedestrian deaths on British roads in 2022 with the number of cars on British roads currently being 33.2 million. Therefore todays ratio is one pedesrian death to every 1744 cars on our roads. Yes still way too many and further measures are undoubtedly necessary but serious road safety measures taken throughout the last 126 years have definitely made pedestrians safer.

A major improvement to these figures could surely still be made if all pedestrians were to look after their own safety by paying attention to their surroundings and hazards to their well being. To name a few: excessive alcohol use, mobile phones, music producing earphones, the wearing of dark clothing at night and just not paying attention have almost certainly contributed to these tragic figures. Whilst the car driver bears the initial responsibility for any fatality, the enquiry that follows often shows other factors have contributed and may be either partially or wholely to blame . Without giving details, I know from painful experience.

I wonder how many people were killed by horse drawn vehicles prior to the advent of the motor car?

I’m afraid your statistical analysis of the hapless Mrs Driscoll’s untimely demise when Mr Edsell ploughed into her at 4mph is flawed.

For over one million years prior to that event, no pedestrian had been killed by a motorist, so a true death rate of pedestrians per motor vehicle cannot be calculated by that single death in isolation. You need a sample size greater than one.

However, the sample size you give of 19,039 in 2022 on British roads, if true, is carnage. 52 pedestrians per day wiped out. I am left wondering if that is pedestrians injured rather than just those killed (which averages about one per day).

=====
In 2021, 361 pedestrians were killed in Great Britain, whilst 5,032 were reported to be seriously injured (adjusted) and 11,261 slightly injured (adjusted).
=====
Source: gov.uk

 

[Velma's Dad]

For over one million years prior to that event, no pedestrian had been killed by a motorist, so a true death rate of pedestrians per motor vehicle cannot be calculated by that single death in isolation. You need a sample size greater than one.

No you are confusing the dependent and independent variables. The sample size as cited was 15 ie the number of cars on the road at that time. (In the preceding million years there were no cars, just pterodactyls chasing Racquel Welsh** in a deerskin bikini, so the question of road accidents over history and prehistory is moot).

[EDIT: sp. Welch not Welsh. Perhaps I wasn't looking at the, errm, spelling.)

Moreover, the 'sample' was actually the universe (ie that 15 was all the cars on the road) so no sampling error or confidence level assumptions are relevant and the fatality rate of approx 7 percent is completely reliable.

I knew my Quantitative Methods course (1981) would come in useful, thank you Borris and Amarillo.

 

[WelshGas]

I’m afraid your statistical analysis of the hapless Mrs Driscoll’s untimely demise when Mr Edsell ploughed into her at 4mph is flawed.

For over one million years prior to that event, no pedestrian had been killed by a motorist, so a true death rate of pedestrians per motor vehicle cannot be calculated by that single death in isolation. You need a sample size greater than one.

However, the sample size you give of 19,039 in 2022 on British roads, if true, is carnage. 52 pedestrians per day wiped out. I am left wondering if that is pedestrians injured rather than just those killed (which averages about one per day).

=====
In 2021, 361 pedestrians were killed in Great Britain, whilst 5,032 were reported to be seriously injured (adjusted) and 11,261 slightly injured (adjusted).
=====
Source: gov.uk

And over 400+ people died awaiting a transplant in 2022.

Patient deaths on organ transplant waiting list in the UK 2021 | Statista

This statistic displays the number of patients who died while on the organ transplant waiting list in the United Kingdom (UK) from 2019 to 2021, by organ.

www.statista.com

 

[Amarillo]

No you are confusing the dependent and independent variables. The sample size as cited was 15 ie the number of cars on the road at that time. (In the preceding million years there were no cars, just pterodactyls chasing Racquel Welsh** in a deerskin bikini, so the question of road accidents over history and prehistory is moot).

[EDIT: sp. Welch not Welsh. Perhaps I wasn't looking at the, errm, spelling.)

Moreover, the 'sample' was actually the universe (ie that 15 was all the cars on the road) so no sampling error or confidence level assumptions are relevant and the fatality rate of approx 7 percent is completely reliable.

I knew my Quantitative Methods course (1981) would come in useful, thank you Borris and Amarillo.

The first automobile appeared in 1672. The first automobile capable of human transportation in 1769. The first gasoline powered automobile in 1886.

But this isn’t a history lesson, it is an analysis of Boris’ dodgy statistics. Implicit is his figure of one pedestrian death per fifteen automobiles per year. This is because he compares the figure for 1896 with 2022, and one death in 1896 with no previous recorded deaths, and the date of the second death not given, is insufficient to give a figure with any accuracy.

To put it another way, after the first confirmed coronavirus death in Wuhan, no one would be able to predict to any accuracy the mortality rate. The best they could say with certainty is that catching coronavirus risked death.

 

[Borris]

I’m afraid your statistical analysis of the hapless Mrs Driscoll’s untimely demise when Mr Edsell ploughed into her at 4mph is flawed.

For over one million years prior to that event, no pedestrian had been killed by a motorist, so a true death rate of pedestrians per motor vehicle cannot be calculated by that single death in isolation. You need a sample size greater than one.

However, the sample size you give of 19,039 in 2022 on British roads, if true, is carnage. 52 pedestrians per day wiped out. I am left wondering if that is pedestrians injured rather than just those killed (which averages about one per day).

=====
In 2021, 361 pedestrians were killed in Great Britain, whilst 5,032 were reported to be seriously injured (adjusted) and 11,261 slightly injured (adjusted).
=====
Source: gov.uk

My mistake, the figure I gave appears to be for casualties not pedestrian fatalities.

However, that's rather beside the point. I know your statements were tongue in cheek but surely you must acknowledge that great strides have been made in relation to pedestrian road safety since the advent of the motor vehicle. Also having someone preeceeding every car with a red flag would create a whole new category of additional casualties.

Reducing speed limits to 20mph will help but unless it is effectively policed then I doubt if it will have much effect. The next village to us recently had a 20mph limit imposed. This road is a main arterial road for commuters. So far, most drivers don't appear to have adjusted their speed accordingly. When keeping strictly to the new limit you invariably get someone harrying you from behind to speed up.

In an attempt to correct my previous post, here are the Governments figures for pedestrian fatalities in 2021.

Reported road casualties Great Britain: pedestrian factsheet 2021

www.gov.uk

361 pedestrian fatalities to 33,000,000 cars works out at a ratio of 1 : 91,412.

 

[Amarillo]

And over 6000 people died awaiting a transplant in 2022.

Organ Donation Statistics | organdonor.gov

How many people are waiting for a transplant? Who receives organs, and what organs are most needed? Explore data from the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network.

www.organdonor.gov

This is quite possibly the most absurd argument against cutting speed limits. I find your suggestion that innocent pedestrians should be sacrificed for body parts repugnant.

 

[Amarillo]

My mistake, the figure I gave appears to be for casualties not pedestrian fatalities.

However, that's rather beside the point. I know your statements were tongue in cheek but surely you must acknowledge that great strides have been made in relation to pedestrian road safety since the advent of the motor vehicle. Also having someone preeceeding every car with a red flag would create a whole new category of additional casualties.

Reducing speed limits to 20mph will help but unless it is effectively policed then I doubt if it will have much effect. The next village to us recently had a 20mph limit imposed. This road is a main arterial road for commuters. So far, most drivers don't appear to have adjusted their speed accordingly. When keeping strictly to the new limit you invariably get someone harrying you from behind to speed up.

In an attempt to correct my previous post, here are the Governments figures for pedestrian fatalities in 2021.

Reported road casualties Great Britain: pedestrian factsheet 2021

www.gov.uk

361 pedestrian fatalities to 33,000,000 cars works out at a ratio of 1 : 91,412.

Yes, I agree that there have been advances in pedestrian road safety over the years. There have been even bigger strides in driver road safety. Seat belts, air bags and crumple zones are three examples which benefit drivers’ safety but do nothing or little to benefit pedestrians.

I live on a 20mph road, and have lived here since it was 30mph. Anecdotally I have noticed the difference. The council claim average speeds have dropped by 2mph.

When there is effective enforcement there really is a difference. Compare the speed of drivers on smart motorways with the speed of drivers on dumb motorways.

 

[andyinluton]

For over one million years prior to that event, no pedestrian had been killed by a motorist, so a true death rate of pedestrians per motor vehicle cannot be calculated by that single death in isolation. You need a sample size greater than one.

But in that million years prior to the first death by motor vehicle, pedestrians still died, whether that was by being eaten by a sabre tooth tiger or trampled by a woolly mammoth doesn't matter they still died.

That proves that it isn't the motor car at fault so why try and blame them?

 

[WelshGas]

This is quite possibly the most absurd argument against cutting speed limits. I find your suggestion that innocent pedestrians should be sacrificed for body parts repugnant.

If the many who don’t observe the sensible advice published in the Highway Code then they “personally” should take responsibility for their actions. Why should others have to bare the responsibility for their stupidity?

So you are quite happy for 6000+ transplant patients to die each year v 361 pedestrians many who brought about their own demise because they didn’t look both ways.

So I presume you don’t subscribe to the concept “ for the greater good “.

greater good - Wiktionary, the free dictionary

en.wiktionary.org

 

[SimonC]

If the many who don’t observe the sensible advice published in the Highway Code then they “personally” should take responsibility for their actions. Why should others have to bare the responsibility for their stupidity?

So you are quite happy for 6000+ transplant patients to die each year v 361 pedestrians many who brought about their own demise because they didn’t look both ways.

So I presume you don’t subscribe to the concept “ for the greater good “.

greater good - Wiktionary, the free dictionary

en.wiktionary.org

Why should improving road safety in London affect the number (6000+ apparently) of transplant patients that die in the US?

 

[WelshGas]

Why should improving road safety in London affect the number (6000+ apparently) of transplant patients that die in the US?

My mistake 400+ U.K. patients died awaiting a Transplant in 2021 and the number is rising. Likewise in Europe .

 

[Borris]

Yes, I agree that there have been advances in pedestrian road safety over the years. There have been even bigger strides in driver road safety. Seat belts, air bags and crumple zones are three examples which benefit drivers’ safety but do nothing or little to benefit pedestrians.

How many pedestrian over bridges, underpasses, safety islands, zebra and pelican crossings etc, separation railings and traffic lights would you have found on the roads in 1896. None.

What was street lighting like in those days and not just in London.? Non existent or very poor.

How many pedestrians had the luxury of pavements to walk on, pavements with built in facilities for the visually and physically impaired?

What road safety education was offered to either pedestrians or drivers in those early days?

Road calming measures in 1896 consisted of amongst other things, kids playing in the street and farmers herding their stock.

As in the case of Mr Toad, drivers received little or no driver instruction before inflicting themselves on the uneducated and unsuspecting pedestrian public. So there have been very many improvements, too many to mention, since those pioneer days.

As for car safety advances not benefiting pedestrians, you are wrong. Today all vehicle manufacturers have to design cars to absorb energy in the event of a car/pedestrian collision, thus helping to reduce levels of injury inflicted. I believe one or two even have pedestrian airbags. In addition, many new cars feature either radar assisted automatic braking or emergency brake assist or even both, thereby helping to prevent contact altogether. Other advances such as those involving tyre technology enabling shorter stopping distances, dual circuit servo assisted disc brakes, LED lighting, infra red night vision etc have all, assisted in affording greater protection to pedestrians. To assume that these features are there purely to benefit the driver would be wrong.

Things have come on leaps and bounds since the days of this video clip:

 

[WelshGas]

@Amarillo , I’m sad you find it funny that Transplant Patients are dying waiting for the call that never comes, while we debate lowering the speed limit to cut the death toll of stupid pedestrians who are unable to follow the simple advice published in the Highway Code.

 

[Amarillo]

@Amarillo , I’m sad you find it funny that Transplant Patients are dying waiting for the call that never comes, while we debate lowering the speed limit to cut the death toll of stupid pedestrians who are unable to follow the simple advice published in the Highway Code.

The funny bit was you squirming when it was discovered you were touting bogus figures. Everyone makes mistakes, but it was particularly pleasurable that it was you.

I find your argument for not reducing speed limits sickening.

 

[Georgeo]

This is quite possibly the most absurd argument against cutting speed limits. I find your suggestion that innocent pedestrians should be sacrificed for body parts repugnant.

Well maybe we should target guilty pedestrians.

 

[SimonC]

My mistake 400+ U.K. patients died awaiting a Transplant in 2021 and the number is rising. Likewise in Europe .

While you are checking your data, why do you underplay the number of road fatalities? For example you mention the 361 pedestrians killed in 2021 but ignore the 111 cyclists.

 

[WelshGas]

The funny bit was you squirming when it was discovered you were touting bogus figures. Everyone makes mistakes, but it was particularly pleasurable that it was you.

I find your argument for not reducing speed limits sickening.

The figures were accurate for the USA.
Last Saturday I was driving on a local A road which is unlit . At 10 pm there were 5 pedestrians walking on the otherwise of the road with the flow of traffic, all dressed in dark clothing, hoodies up, Walking in the road 2 abreast . My headlights picked out their faces from their dark clothing. Anyone driving on that side of the road wouldn't have seen their faces nor would have they have seen the car coming up behind them. Fortunately the traffic was sparse on their side.
Why should the driver be held responsible for their stupid behavior which is totally against the advice in the Highway Code or any modicum of common sense.
Likewise a few nights previous a cyclist in black clothing, no lights on an unlite A road at 11pm.
A driver should not have to be responsible for their stupid behaviour.
A road is a shared space and all users should obey the required regulations and take responsibility for their own actions.
If a pedestrian doesn't step into a roadway without ensuring that it is safe to do so then they will never be involved in an accident nor injured no matter how fast the vehicle is travelling.