TfL to cut speed limit to 20mph

[Velma's Dad]

@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.

This thread is nothing about how many people sadly can't get transplant organs yet you are clearly trying to imply that "stupid" pedestrians are less worthy of life and we should somehow hold off on efforts to protect their safety so they can at least provide an organ supply for some more meritable people awaiting transplants. That's the sort of comparative moral debate some of us we might have attempted when we were about fourteen, but most of us have got past that and comprehend instinctively why it's utterly repellent.

The government's road accident statistics summary says this, which I believe has already been cited in this thread: "the most common contributory factor allocated to pedestrians in fatal or serious collisions (FSC) with another vehicle was ‘Pedestrian failed to look properly’. The most common factor allocated to the vehicles involved was ‘Driver or rider failed to look properly’."

It's essential to note the word contributory and the stats allocate more than one factor in each case recorded. Road accidents almost never have a single-factor cause: if a pedestrian steps out negligently, then an alert driver, driving defensively, will often be able to avoid or mitigate the collision. This happened to my daughter, who is blind and who incautiously stepped out at a junction on one occasion. Fortunately the low speed of the driver meant that her injuries were only minor.

By the way I'm not inviting you to explain your views on which categories of pedestrian are more or less worthy of safeguarding, I doubt we would find them edifying.

 

[WelshGas]

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.

Because they weren't in the figures and the discussion was about pedestrians.
Also cyclist deaths are not listed according to who is responsible. Eg: how many accidents caused by riding through red lights, not observing pedestrian crossings , as detailed in the recent survey of London floating bus stops.

 

[WelshGas]

This thread is nothing about how many people sadly can't get transplant organs yet you are clearly trying to imply that "stupid" pedestrians are less worthy of life and we should somehow hold off on efforts to protect their safety so they can at least provide an organ supply for some more meritable people awaiting transplants. That's the sort of comparative moral debate some of us we might have attempted when we were about fourteen, but most of us have got past that and comprehend instinctively why it's utterly repellent.

The government's road accident statistics summary says this, which I believe has already been cited in this thread: "the most common contributory factor allocated to pedestrians in fatal or serious collisions (FSC) with another vehicle was ‘Pedestrian failed to look properly’. The most common factor allocated to the vehicles involved was ‘Driver or rider failed to look properly’."

It's essential to note the word contributory and the stats allocate more than one factor in each case recorded. Road accidents almost never have a single-factor cause: if a pedestrian steps out negligently, then an alert driver, driving defensively, will often be able to avoid or mitigate the collision. This happened to my daughter, who is blind and who incautiously stepped out at a junction on one occasion. Fortunately the low speed of the driver meant that her injuries were only minor.

By the way I'm not inviting you to explain your views on which categories of pedestrian are more or less worthy of safeguarding, I doubt we would find them edifying.

So education is the byword.
As you said, your daughter incautiosly stepped out into the road, why?
The driver was travelling at a low speed, in a 20mph zone staring at his Speedometer or driving cautiously as he/she was in a built up zone and aware of what was going on around the vehicle.
Education and Common Sense for ALL road users is the key, not more and more regulation for the one group who have to be licensed and hence identifiable.
Whether you like it or not there is a valid relationship between RTA deaths and organ donation/transplants , I know having spent 40 odd years carrying out brain stem tests and switching off ventilators , preparing relatives and supervising organ donations, retrievals and transplants. Very rarely were such patients not partially or totally responsible for their own demise either through their own actions or inactions.

 

[SimonC]

Because they weren't in the figures and the discussion was about pedestrians.
Also cyclist deaths are not listed according to who is responsible. Eg: how many accidents caused by riding through red lights, not observing pedestrian crossings , as detailed in the recent survey of London floating bus stops.

Not true. The discussion is about TfL reducing speed limits from 30mph to 20mph. TfL describe that as reducing the risk to pedestrians and cyclists. Re. data, gov.uk has equivalent data on fatalities and contributory factors (not "who is responsible") for both pedestrians and cyclists.

 

[WelshGas]

Not true. The discussion is about TfL reducing speed limits from 30mph to 20mph. TfL describe that as reducing the risk to pedestrians and cyclists. Re. data, gov.uk has equivalent data on fatalities and contributory factors (not "who is responsible") for both pedestrians and cyclists.

Post it then.

 

[SimonC]

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.

Have you thought about getting someone to read through this stuff before you post it?
For example, your statement "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" is obviously nonsense. Before writing such things you might want to consider the many roads without pavements. You might also want to research the number of pedestrians killed by vehicles driving onto pavements.

 

[WelshGas]

Have you thought about getting someone to read through this stuff before you post it?
For example, your statement "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" is obviously nonsense. Before writing such things you might want to consider the many roads without pavements. You might also want to research the number of pedestrians killed by vehicles driving onto pavements.

A vehicle driving onto a pavement injuring pedestrians will not be affected by a 20 mph speed limit, it could happen whatever the speed limit and frequently those drivers weren't observing the speed limit anyway.
I suggest you re-evaluate your statement. If a pedestrian doesn't step into the path of an oncoming vehicle then they would not be involved in the collision. It is beholding on them to follow the Highway Code as much as the driver.

 

[Amarillo]

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.

I find your continued victim blaming pretty sickening. It is a motor vehicle driver who can cause the most harm, they must bare most responsibility when they do. It is not for motorists to dictate what clothing pedestrians should or should not wear. (But cyclists, which you also cite, must by law have lights at night.)

Highway code Rule H1
Everyone suffers when road collisions occur, whether they are physically injured or not. But those in charge of vehicles that can cause the greatest harm in the event of a collision bear the greatest responsibility to take care and reduce the danger they pose to others. This principle applies most strongly to drivers of large goods and passenger vehicles, vans/minibuses, cars/taxis and motorcycles.

In other words, if driving at night and you cannot see clearly enough ahead to determine whether or not the road ahead is clear of pedestrians in your stopping zone, you should slow down to a speed where you can see if the road ahead is clear of pedestrians in your stopping zone.

 

[Velma's Dad]

Highway code Rule H1

Ah, my suspicion is that the people most likely to cite the Highway Code on internet forums are men over the age of 50. They are also the least likely people to have actually read it.

 

[WelshGas]

I find your continued victim blaming pretty sickening. It is a motor vehicle driver who can cause the most harm, they must bare most responsibility when they do. It is not for motorists to dictate what clothing pedestrians should or should not wear. (But cyclists, which you also cite, must by law have lights at night.)

Highway code Rule H1
Everyone suffers when road collisions occur, whether they are physically injured or not. But those in charge of vehicles that can cause the greatest harm in the event of a collision bear the greatest responsibility to take care and reduce the danger they pose to others. This principle applies most strongly to drivers of large goods and passenger vehicles, vans/minibuses, cars/taxis and motorcycles.

In other words, if driving at night and you cannot see clearly enough ahead to determine whether or not the road ahead is clear of pedestrians in your stopping zone, you should slow down to a speed where you can see if the road ahead is clear of pedestrians in your stopping zone.

Suggest you read the Highway Code regarding Pedestrian Responsibilities.

The Highway Code​

From:Department for TransportPublished1 October 2015Updated:27 July 2022, see all updates
Search this manual
Search

1. Contents

Rules for pedestrians (1 to 35)​

Rules for pedestrians, including general guidance, crossing the road, crossings, and situations needing extra care.
Show all sections

General guidance (rules 1 to 6), Hide​

Rule 1​

Pavements and footways (including any path along the side of a road) should be used if provided. Where possible, avoid being next to the kerb with your back to the traffic. If you have to step into the road, look both ways first. Always remain aware of your environment and avoid unnecessary distractions. Always show due care and consideration for others.

Rule 2​

If there is no pavement, keep to the right-hand side of the road so that you can see oncoming traffic. You should take extra care and

• be prepared to walk in single file, especially on narrow roads or in poor light
• keep close to the side of the road.

It may be safer to cross the road well before a sharp right-hand bend so that oncoming traffic has a better chance of seeing you. Cross back after the bend.

Rule 3​

Help other road users to see you. Wear or carry something light-coloured, bright or fluorescent in poor daylight conditions. When it is dark, use reflective materials (eg armbands, sashes, waistcoats, jackets, footwear), which can be seen by drivers using headlights up to three times as far away as non-reflective materials.

 

[WelshGas]

Ah, my suspicion is that the people most likely to cite the Highway Code on internet forums are men over the age of 50. They are also the least likely people to have actually read it.

Extremely ageist remark, but to be expected.

In case you cannot find your vintage copy of your Highway Code, I’ve provided a link for you.

The Highway Code

The Highway Code is essential reading for all road users, including pedestrians, mobility scooter users, cyclists, horse riders, drivers and motorcyclists.

www.gov.uk

 

[Digger]

Extremely ageist remark, but to be expected.

Also least likely to be involved in a RTC.

 

[andyinluton]

I find your continued victim blaming pretty sickening. It is a motor vehicle driver who can cause the most harm, they must bare most responsibility when they do. It is not for motorists to dictate what clothing pedestrians should or should not wear.

I was going to provide you with the same link that WG has but actually it can be summarised far easier:

The new rules (also known as “H rules”) are designed to remind everyone who uses our roads how important it is to take responsibility for their own safety as well as the safety of others.


The important bit is taking responsibility for your own safety.
Round here, Its called common sense, or self preservation, it costs nothing.

 

[WelshGas]

Maybe I was wrong about the 5 pedestrians on the unlit A Road at night dressed all in black walking in the road 2 abreast , maybe they wanted a Darwin Award.

Darwin Awards: Evolutionary Action

Darwin Awards: Vote for the Award Nominees! The Darwin Awards commemorate the (remains of) individuals who contribute to the improvement of our gene pool by removing themselves from it. Enter this portal for stories from the Darwin Awards.

darwinawards.com

 

[Velma's Dad]

Good grief.

 

[Amarillo]

Good grief.

I suppose he thinks he is being funny.

 

[GrannyJen]

Extremely ageist remark, but to be expected.

and sexist, but at least he's not suggested using grannies to power crematoriums

 

[WelshGas]

and sexist, but at least he's not suggested using grannies to power crematoriums

You never know. I believe there is a difference in combustibility between the sexes.

 

[GrannyJen]

You never know. I believe there is a difference in combustibility between the sexes.

Oh I'm sure there is. All that hot air probably makes blokes burn brighter

 

[WelshGas]

Oh I'm sure there is. All that hot air probably makes blokes burn brighter

The Hot Air might have an effect but I’m afraid it is more fundamental than that.

Body fat percentage - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Amarillo]

I’ve just read that TfL is creating a “Superloop” of express busses around outer London, which will eventually include the X239 through the Silvertown Tunnel.

I wonder how long it would take to complete the 100 mile circuit. I reckon it will be difficult or impossible to complete in a day.

TfL to launch huge new 'Superloop' express bus network all over Outer London

West London will get 'Superloop' first in new plans Sadiq Khan is announcing today

www.mylondon.news

 

[Magic Bus]

My son lives in west London and there are lots of 20mph roads already around where he lives. I just set the cruise control on the van to 20 and don’t find it a problem. On a lot of London roads, traffic is either crawling or at a standstill anyway.

 

[Amarillo]

I’ve just read that TfL is creating a “Superloop” of express busses around outer London, which will eventually include the X239 through the Silvertown Tunnel.

I wonder how long it would take to complete the 100 mile circuit. I reckon it will be difficult or impossible to complete in a day.

TfL to launch huge new 'Superloop' express bus network all over Outer London

West London will get 'Superloop' first in new plans Sadiq Khan is announcing today

www.mylondon.news

The Daily Mail reacts with “fury” at the idea of a bus superloop… declaring it the “latest war on drivers”.

Sadiq Khan unveils £6m 'Superloop' express bus network

The London Mayor's 'Superloop' will be formed of a series of express buses around the outskirts of the capital, including four existing routes - the 607, X26, X140 and X68 - and six new routes.

www.dailymail.co.uk

 

[andyinluton]

The Daily Mail reacts with “fury” at the idea of a bus superloop… declaring it the “latest war on drivers”.

Do you get a special Guardian readers version of Daily Mail articles?

Having just read that , there's no "fury" in there & "latest war on drivers" doesn't appear in the text.


In fact there are a lot of positive comments:
Sam Tarry, Labour MP for Ilford South, said on Twitter: 'Fantastic news that the Superloop will be coming to Ilford. This new network will provide opportunities and connect Ilford to neighbouring towns and communities.'

And Michael Roberts, chief executive of London TravelWatch, told MailOnline: 'We welcome the introduction of new bus services that go around London rather than just into the centre.

'We've been calling for more orbital routes for some time as we know that many people value being able to travel across boroughs where they can connect to local transport interchanges.

'These new bus routes will make it easier for people in outer London boroughs to get around for work, healthcare appointments, schools and shopping trips. We need these extra services to be in place before Ulez is expanded later this year.'

 

[Amarillo]

Do you get a special Guardian readers version of Daily Mail articles?

Having just read that , there's no "fury" in there & "latest war on drivers" doesn't appear in the text.

First word of the headline, “Fury”, last words of the headline, “latest war on drivers.”