London pollution & ULEZ

[Rroff]

Flip side of that argument is that when all residential areas are 20, not only will there be no confusion as to what the limit is (did I miss a signpost?), but drivers will also be more practiced at driving at 20 mph

Also, I think this has to be considered as part of an overall strategy, including more pedestrianisation, better public transport, greener cars, etc.

While not every driver will do it - when I see a 20 limit in a school zone for instance I'll straight away be thinking - will a kid run out from behind a parked car?, the hazards of buses unloading or loading kids, etc. those will be at the forefront of my mind and actively scanning for those hazards and similar for other areas where there is a specific reason for a 20 - the average driver will have a heightened sense for the specific reason for that 20. If 20s become common place you lose that.

 

[FoxEye]

I’ve not once made any argument for 20-30mph zones. Now you’re just making things up. Having lots of driving experience in lots of different types of cars in different areas would give you some insight past the experience of having cars drives past you in Cornwall.

The last two pages have been all about your claim that driving at 20 is or can be dangerous. You said that drivers being concerned over their speed probably contributed to the increased % of accidents in residentials zones with 20/30 speed limits.

When I asked you to clarify or explain why this should be, and noted that people have to control their speeds to pass their driving test, you said that "people were more distracted these days".

I'm not sure I can go on with this utterly ridiculous conversation, tbh.

 

[jigger]

Flip side of that argument is that when all residential areas are 20, not only will there be no confusion as to what the limit is (did I miss a signpost?), but drivers will also be more practiced at driving at 20 mph

Also, I think this has to be considered as part of an overall strategy, including more pedestrianisation, better public transport, greener cars, etc.

Lol, a sign on a lamp post isn’t going to do a great deal. People and vehicles should be separate as much as possible.

 

[jigger]

The last two pages have been all about your claim that driving at 20 is or can be dangerous. You said that drivers being concerned over their speed probably contributed to the increased % of accidents in residentials zones with 20/30 speed limits.

When I asked you to clarify or explain why this should be, and noted that people have to control their speeds to pass their driving test, you said that "people were more distracted these days".

I'm not sure I can go on with this utterly ridiculous conversation, tbh.

Nope, not what I said. People not being focussed is a major issue in road safety. All people, including sheltered Cornish cyclists.

 

[FoxEye]

While not every driver will do it - when I see a 20 limit in a school zone for instance I'll straight away be thinking - will a kid run out from behind a parked car?, the hazards of buses unloading or loading kids, etc. those will be at the forefront of my mind and actively scanning for those hazards and similar for other areas where there is a specific reason for a 20 - the average driver will have a heightened sense for the specific reason for that 20. If 20s become common place you lose that.

Whilst there will be a lot of kids around schools at pickup up and dropping off times, there will also be kids (or could be) everywhere else other than a school (in a residential area). A lot of kids walk home even from primary schools. Therefore the routes to and from their schools to wherever they live (typically in the same residential area) must also be considered a risk for children in the road.

I think drivers should be of a mindset that a child could jump out into the road anywhere in a residential area. Admittedly kids don't really play in the streets anymore, but they still walk from A to B. Therefore, if it wouldn't be safe to drive that way past a school, it really isn't safe to drive that way down any other residential road.

Hence the plan to impose a blanket 20mph across residential areas.

 

[Rroff]

Whilst there will be a lot of kids around schools at pickup up and dropping off times, there will also be kids (or could be) everywhere else other than a school (in a residential area). A lot of kids walk home even from primary schools. Therefore the routes to and from their schools to wherever they live (typically in the same residential area) must also be considered a risk for children in the road.

I think drivers should be of a mindset that a child could jump out into the road anywhere in a residential area. Admittedly kids don't really play in the streets anymore, but they still walk from A to B. Therefore, if it wouldn't be safe to drive that way past a school, it really isn't safe to drive that way down any other residential road.

Hence the plan to impose a blanket 20mph across residential areas.

It isn't like drivers stop thinking about the possibility of a child jumping out into the road away from schools but there is a difference between in how the brain processes hazards depending on the uniqueness of the situation - you make everything 20 and that is going to dull the response in the areas where the danger is the highest.

 

[FoxEye]

The last two pages have been all about your claim that driving at 20 is or can be dangerous. You said that drivers being concerned over their speed probably contributed to the increased % of accidents in residentials zones with 20/30 speed limits.

When I asked you to clarify or explain why this should be, and noted that people have to control their speeds to pass their driving test, you said that "people were more distracted these days".

I'm not sure I can go on with this utterly ridiculous conversation, tbh.

Nope, not what I said. People not being focussed is a major issue in road safety. All people, including sheltered Cornish cyclists.

Le sigh. OK, let's do this. I'll help you remember how the last two pages went. Firstly, I was talking about 20/30 zones being statistically where the most fatal and serious accidents occur.

Issuing motorists tickets for 22mph in a 20mph is probably a factor. People too focused on not getting booked rather than what’s going on around them. I’d much prefer to see motorist punished more severely for hitting pedestrians along with parent’s neglecting children's safety because they’re glued to mobile phones. I see this way to often.

I've re-read your post a couple times and I believe you are saying that people watching the speedo are partially responsible (to a statistically significant degree) for the prevalence of accidents in residential areas.

Would that be a fair summary or your argument?

I find people are very distracted today. Too distracted IMO.

Do you hold a full driving license? Have passed your car driving test?

And then you started asking if I drive. And around and around in circles we went. What fun we didn't have.

You brought up people being ticketed for 22 in 20, and how that would play on the minds of drivers, and distract them by taking their eyes off the road - the only possible way I can see that manifesting itself is watching the speedo more closely.

Anyway, this is now a terrible thread, and I'm sorry for my part in prolonging its agony.

 

[FoxEye]

It isn't like drivers stop thinking about the possibility of a child jumping out into the road away from schools but there is a difference between in how the brain processes hazards depending on the uniqueness of the situation - you make everything 20 and that is going to dull the response in the areas where the danger is the highest.

I don't think it's beyond the wit of humanity to adapt to more uniform (and consistent) speed limits. Any driver who cannot at all times take reasonable care - because the speed limits aren't continually changing around them or the situation isn't somehow unique - well, they shouldn't be driving. And perhaps that's the nub of it. Perhaps we're a lot less suited for driving these incredibly dangerous machines than some future AI controlling all cars like a swarm. To be blunt, we all know that some drivers are a liability. Not just the boy racers, but also those who think speed limits don't apply to them at that place at that time. Because they don't agree with the limit they won't obey it. I personally see it all the time*.

But in the meantime, I don't think asking people to pay attention to both their speed and their surroundings is genuinely a bad thing. Nor to cut their speed from 30 to 20 in residential areas. If I can manage it then I'm pretty sure most people should be able*.

*May not be true as I may not actually drive

 

[jigger]

Le sigh. OK, let's do this. I'll help you remember how the last two pages went. Firstly, I was talking about 20/30 zones being statistically where the most fatal and serious accidents occur.



And then you started asking if I drive. And around and around in circles we went. What fun we didn't have.

You brought up people being ticketed for 22 in 20, and how that would play on the minds of drivers, and distract them by taking their eyes off the road - the only possible way I can see that manifesting itself is watching the speedo more closely.

Anyway, this is now a terrible thread, and I'm sorry for my part in prolonging its agony.

Good. Your ideal world scenarios and lack of actual driving experience are counter productive.

 

[FoxEye]

Good. Your ideal world scenarios and lack of actual driving experience are counter productive.

I shall say that this is entirely your assumption, but one that I'm not bothered to challenge.

It's funny that you're resorting to stating your assumption as fact because you simply cannot stand by or elaborate upon your own argument, when I presented it back to you.

All you've got is your assumption about my own personal circumstances, which is disappointing but also amusing.

 

[jigger]

I don't think it's beyond the wit of humanity to adapt to more uniform (and consistent) speed limits. Any driver who cannot at all times take reasonable care - because the speed limits aren't continually changing around them or the situation isn't somehow unique - well, they shouldn't be driving. And perhaps that's the nub of it. Perhaps we're a lot less suited for driving these incredibly dangerous machines than some future AI controlling all cars like a swarm. To be blunt, we all know that some drivers are a liability. Not just the boy racers, but also those who think speed limits don't apply to them at that place at that time. Because they don't agree with the limit they won't obey it. I personally see it all the time*.

But in the meantime, I don't think asking people to pay attention to both their speed and their surroundings is genuinely a bad thing. Nor to cut their speed from 30 to 20 in residential areas. If I can manage it then I'm pretty sure most people should be able*.

*May not be true as I may not actually drive

Lol, ok here is a scenario. You are driving a Tesla down a really busy road full of predestination many standing between lanes in a horrible rush. Some are really keen to cross and capable of impressive acceleration and manoeuvring, others standing behind are distracted but when one goes the others will likely step forward. You have a Range Rover following 50cm behind, cyclists at your side and a mobile speed trap ahead. You have noticed the driver of the Range Rover looking down at their lap every couple of seconds and keeps taking a hand off the steering wheel What do you do?

A, pull as close to the car in front as possible to increase the gap between you and the Range Rover.

B, make a quick brake check and hope the driver of the Range Rover gets off the phone and keeps a reasonable distance.

C, Stop the car and wait the driver to finish playing with their phone.

D, Pull into the bus lane and speed off in righteous anger.

E, put your hazard lights on and sound the horn.

F, stop and wave the pedestrians across.

I’ve seen all that and more.

 

[Rroff]

I don't think it's beyond the wit of humanity to adapt to more uniform (and consistent) speed limits. Any driver who cannot at all times take reasonable care - because the speed limits aren't continually changing around them or the situation isn't somehow unique - well, they shouldn't be driving. And perhaps that's the nub of it. Perhaps we're a lot less suited for driving these incredibly dangerous machines than some future AI controlling all cars like a swarm. To be blunt, we all know that some drivers are a liability. Not just the boy racers, but also those who think speed limits don't apply to them at that place at that time. Because they don't agree with the limit they won't obey it. I personally see it all the time*.

But in the meantime, I don't think asking people to pay attention to both their speed and their surroundings is genuinely a bad thing. Nor to cut their speed from 30 to 20 in residential areas. If I can manage it then I'm pretty sure most people should be able*.

*May not be true as I may not actually drive

Frankly I was more and more questioning if you actually drove as I read your post.

It isn't about taking not taking reasonable care - people will adapt their processing of what is going on around them as to the level of presence of different hazards - very few people can drive at a level where they are constantly on the ball for every possible hazard and the danger of children running out increases massively around a school even compared to a residential area. 20 limits around schools don't just exist because of the lesser physical danger but also to focus people on specific dangers to a higher level through that section than people can maintain generally.

People generally have poor self-discipline/control - loads of people for instance know they are tailgating, know they shouldn't but still do it until remonstrated with - I had someone badly tailgating me the other night and they clearly knew what I was hinting at when I blipped my hazards and immediately backed off and maintained a normal distance but only after I made a point of it... and then they overtook me and started tailgating an ambulance which was a few hundred yards further up the road which reacted by slowing down significantly LOL. Ironically the vehicle belongs to, though I couldn't see in the dark if it was him driving, someone who has been sounding off locally about boy racers blasting through the village :s

 

[FoxEye]

Lol, ok here is a scenario. You are driving a Tesla down a really busy road full of predestination many standing between lanes in a horrible rush. Some are really keen to cross and capable of impressive acceleration and manoeuvring, others standing behind are distracted but when one goes the others will likely step forward. You have a Range Rover following 50cm behind, cyclists at your side and a mobile speed trap ahead. You have noticed the driver of the Range Rover looking down at their lap every couple of seconds and keeps taking a hand off the steering wheel What do you do?

A, pull as close to the car in front as possible to increase the gap between you and the Range Rover.

B, make a quick brake check and hope the driver of the Range Rover gets off the phone and keeps a reasonable distance.

C, Stop the car and wait the driver to finish playing with their phone.

D, Pull into the bus lane and speed off in righteous anger.

E, put your hazard lights on and sound the horn.

F, stop and wave the pedestrians across.

I’ve seen all that and more.

You're right. I don't have any idea where you're going with this or what it has to do with anything in this thread. So, um... I'd wind down the window leaving a letterbox sized gap at the top to poo through, whilst releasing Queen Wasps from the wing mirrors. I hope that's the correct answer!

 

[FoxEye]

Frankly I was more and more questioning if you actually drove as I read your post.

It isn't about taking not taking reasonable care - people will adapt their processing of what is going on around them as to the level of presence of different hazards - very few people can drive at a level where they are constantly on the ball for every possible hazard and the danger of children running out increases massively around a school even compared to a residential area. 20 limits around schools don't just exist because of the lesser physical danger but also to focus people on specific dangers to a higher level through that section than people can maintain generally.

People generally have poor self-discipline/control - loads of people for instance know they are tailgating, know they shouldn't but still do it until remonstrated with - I had someone badly tailgating me the other night and they clearly knew what I was hinting at when I blipped my hazards and immediately backed off and maintained a normal distance but only after I made a point of it... and then they overtook me and started tailgating an ambulance which was a few hundred yards further up the road which reacted by slowing down significantly LOL. Ironically the vehicle belongs to, though I couldn't see in the dark if it was him driving, someone who has been sounding off locally about boy racers blasting through the village :s

Well I guess we'll see. Down here we're about to introduce 20mph for just about all towns and residential areas.

Consider it a vast social experiment. If you're correct, accidents should potentially increase and we'll know it was all a huge mistake. Or it might work as intended. Time will tell.

I don't mind being part of a grand experiment with good intentions.

 

[jigger]

You're right. I don't have any idea where you're going with this or what it has to do with anything in this thread. So, um... I'd wind down the window leaving a letterbox sized gap at the top to poo through, whilst releasing Queen Wasps from the wing mirrors. I hope that's the correct answer!

Wouldn’t you be looking for a ULEZ or 20mph sign to keep everyone safe?

 

[Rroff]

Well I guess we'll see. Down here we're about to introduce 20mph for just about all towns and residential areas.

Consider it a vast social experiment. If you're correct, accidents should potentially increase and we'll know it was all a huge mistake. Or it might work as intended. Time will tell.

I don't mind being part of a grand experiment with good intentions.

Personally think it will be like the recent highway code changes as to hierarchy of road users - it might drive down overall accident rates by eliminating more of the mild to moderate incidents but will increase the frequency of serious accidents.

 

[FoxEye]

Wouldn’t you be looking for a ULEZ or 20mph sign to keep everyone safe?

If your criteria to assess any single safety measure is that it should - by itself - prevent world hunger, cure cancer, and keep everybody safe, then no single safety measure will ever meet your expectations.

Normally people just expect safety measures to have a positive impact. Perhaps in tandem with other, similar measures?

 

[jigger]

If your criteria to assess any single safety measure is that it should - by itself - prevent world hunger, cure cancer, and keep everybody safe, then no single safety measure will ever meet your expectations.

Normally people just expect safety measures to have a positive impact. Perhaps in tandem with other, similar measures?

The ULEZ plans will have some positive and negative impacts, just as 20mph enforcement has. What neither will do is make people act more responsibly. Slow moving traffic encourages pedestrians and cyclists to take more risks IMO.

 

[FoxEye]

The ULEZ plans will have some positive and negative impacts, just as 20mph enforcement has. What neither will do is make people act more responsibly. Slow moving traffic encourages pedestrians and cyclists to take more risks IMO.

OTOH, slow moving traffic is less likely to prove fatal to the boy who stumbles off the pavement into the road.

We can't put all the onus on the pedestrian to ensure their own safety. The driver/rider/cyclist must take responsibility as well.

As someone who started their road-user "career" on a motorbike, the one thing that was hammered home to us was to "expect the unexpected". This is mostly true in residential areas. Expect a car door to open. Expect a cat to shoot out from under the van. Expect the boy to cross the road between two cars. Expect a pothole or oil slick. Expect other people to behave dangerously. Compensate.

Compensate, both to keep yourself and other people safe, to the greatest extent humanly possible.

Too often you encounter a very different attitude. "Why should I drive slowly?" "Why should I be responsible for their actions?" "I drive how I want, for my own personal enjoyment and benefit."

Obviously no safety measure can stop people being ducks if they're determined to be so. Enforcement only goes so far; people have to voluntarily embrace these safety measures, and if they don't, they will fail.

 

[Rroff]

Too often you encounter a very different attitude. "Why should I drive slowly?" "Why should I be responsible for their actions?" "I drive how I want, for my own personal enjoyment and benefit."

Obviously no safety measure can stop people being ducks if they're determined to be so. Enforcement only goes so far; people have to voluntarily embrace these safety measures, and if they don't, they will fail.

Somewhat off topic of ULEZ but this is the other problem - for example I live on a blind bend which is sharp and narrow with regular farm traffic - I see the same people approach it taking a lazy line (not off-siding or similar) find a large vehicle coming the other way and **** themselves, near collision, a day later you'll still see them doing the same thing. Apparently in the last few years before we moved here there were 3 serious/fatal accidents there including 2 that took out a section of our wall and numerous minor incidents but for some reason since they've put chevron signs up and made some other adjustments there hasn't been another incident yet.