20mph speed zones cut road injuries by 40%, study says

I don't mind 20mph zones where they are appropriate.

However; the whole of Ambleside is not an appropriate place for a 20mph zone.

I also detest speed bumps, the kind found in 20mph zones are usually extra tall examples of those square ones, which are very difficult to navigate with my sump, sometimes impassable. Even small speed-bumps destroy suspension, and ruin fuel economy.
 
Great, when kids think its safer, they looks even less before stepping into the road and casualty rates rise again, they can make 10mph speed limits!

:rolleyes:
 
This is a lose lose situation for drivers. The only unendorsable way to avoid this would be to drive at 15MPH and hit everyone crossing the road. Then when questioned say 'Sorry Officer, I was carefully monitoring my speed'. :(
 
I'll remember that. If I am doing 30 and a kid steps out infront of me I'll do as I always have done and hit the brakes. If I'm doing 20 then meh, I rate their chances after they've bounced off the bonnet ;)
 
stockhausen said:
At 20mph, it is estimated only one in 40 pedestrians is killed in a crash.

This compares with a one in five chance for someone hit at 30mph.
​
NEXT!
Click to expand...

You do realise that there is a difference between impact speed and travelling speed, right?

It amazes me that people still completely fail to understand that 30 year old piece of research and it is so frequently misquoted...

Indeed, a simple look at accidents within 30 and 40mph zones highlights this error entirely...

I don't, however, have any problem with appropriate 20mph zones, provided that in other places where it is easy and appropriate, more effective steps (such as sectioning off the pavement physically) are used as well.
 
Last edited:
I suppose you don't get many pedestrians travelling at 20MPH of their own accord head-on into an oncoming vehicle for a combined impact speed of 40MPH !! :D
 
My V70 isn't geared to stay at 20 for long periods of time. It may not kill children but it definitely kills bunnies with all that CO2.

Who do you care about?

chav.jpg


Or

cutebunny.jpg
 
Travelling slower causes less injuries in the event of a crash. Well, duh.

Are there any details on the actual number of accidents being lowered? I'd be more impressed of they'd managed to cut that by 40%. We could cut road injuries by 100% if we reduced the speed limit to 3MPH, but then no one would get anywhere and we may as well just return to walking. Driving is always going to be a risky endeavour and I'd much rather we concentrate on reducing the risk of hitting anyone in the first place, rather than lowering the speed limits across the board.
 
Last edited:
Conscript said:
Travelling slower causes less injuries in the event of a crash. Well, duh.

Are the re any details on the actual number of accidents being lowered? I'd be more impressed of they'd managed to cut roadthat by 40%. We could cut road injuries by 100% if we reduced the speed limit to 3MPH, but then no one would get anywhere and we may as well just return to walking. Driving is always going to be a risky endeavour and I'd much rather we concentrate on reducing the risk of hitting anyone in the first place, rather than lowering the speed limits across the board.
Click to expand...

I totally agree :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom