Car tax price Welsh v English

[morqthana]

My position is to apply appropriate limits as appropriate, whereas you are supporting what the Welsh assembly did:

"Fook everything up, then go around doing piecemeal fixes here and there".

No - not "Fook everything up," etc.

Make an appropriate change to the default speed limit for restricted roads and then make some exceptions to return some roads to 30mph where appropriate in exactly the same way that some restricted roads have exceptions making them 40mph instead of the default.

And you really do seem not to grasp that, because what the end result will be is 20mph where 20mph is appropriate, 30mph where 30mph is appropriate, 40mph where 40mph is appropriate, and so on, rather than the current situation of 30mph where 20mph is appropriate.

In other words, your position exactly. "Appropriate limits as appropriate".


The appropriate thing really is to make most urban roads 20mph. To make the default limit for restricted roads 20mph. To make every road which currently has a 30mph default limit 20mph. And look to see if some can be given a non-default 30mph limit.

It really, REALLY, REALLY is.

Study after study after study shows that it results in reduced pollution, fewer accidents, less severe accidents, fewer casualties.

Study after study after study shows that it results in people being more prepared to walk or cycle

Study after study after study shows that it does not significantly lengthen journey times.

Study after study after study shows that it is actually a popular move.

100's of millions/billions of drivers get on with it perfectly well.

So just how "special" are you? Why couldn't you get on with it?

(Removed)

 

[Avocet]

The new speed limit is a bit daft, that's what happens when Labour are in charge,

 

[Avocet]

There are plenty of 30mph dual carriageways, but only in built-up areas. I have covered many miles in Wales since the law change and not yet travelled on a 20mph dual carriageway, but if there are any, they would be in a previously 30mph area.

You make it sound as if Welsh dual carriageways are restricted to 20mph along their entire lengths.

If you think about your average journey along 30mph roads, a large proportion of that would be driven at or below 20mph anyway. It really isn't a big deal to drop to 20.

Imagine the limit in a built-up area had always been 20 instead of 30. You wouldn't have an issue with it. 20 makes sense.

If you want to drive fast, go on a private road or track.

But in so doing, you erode the benefits that the motor car can bring. All the arguments for a 20 limit work even better for a 10 limit, and better still for a 5. If the aim is to make car use impractical because you're anti-car, then fair enough, but there are also downsides to slowing everything down.

 

[Avocet]

No - not "Fook everything up," etc.

Make an appropriate change to the default speed limit for restricted roads and then make some exceptions to return some roads to 30mph where appropriate in exactly the same way that some restricted roads have exceptions making them 40mph instead of the default.

And you really do seem not to grasp that, because what the end result will be is 20mph where 20mph is appropriate, 30mph where 30mph is appropriate, 40mph where 40mph is appropriate, and so on, rather than the current situation of 30mph where 20mph is appropriate.

In other words, your position exactly. "Appropriate limits as appropriate".


The appropriate thing really is to make most urban roads 20mph. To make the default limit for restricted roads 20mph. To make every road which currently has a 30mph default limit 20mph. And look to see if some can be given a non-default 30mph limit.

It really, REALLY, REALLY is.

Study after study after study shows that it results in reduced pollution, fewer accidents, less severe accidents, fewer casualties.

Study after study after study shows that it results in people being more prepared to walk or cycle

Study after study after study shows that it does not significantly lengthen journey times.

Study after study after study shows that it is actually a popular move.

100's of millions/billions of drivers get on with it perfectly well.

So just how "special" are you? Why couldn't you get on with it?

(Removed)

When you say "popular move", it caused the biggest petition yet seen, from people opposing it, and has (arguably) cost the man responsible his job!

 

[Avocet]

Many other countries have lower speed limits than us in built up areas. In some places the limit is 20kph, less than 12.5mph. Hundreds of millions, possibly billions, of drivers are in places with a 30kph/18.6mph limit.

And clearly, it must work, because all those countries have fewer road deaths and serious injuries than we do?

johnny2007 and Mottie ought to think about the fact that those drivers do not find that their quality of life has been so destroyed that they take their own lives. They don't regard it as an attack on their rights as free people and rise up with flaming torches and pitchforks.

So it would be here. The refuseniks would be in the same position as the ones today who will not comply with the 30 limit.

Except that's not actually true, is it? The 20 MPH limits have been something of a clusterf%^$, with a great deal of back-tracking now taking place, after widespread compliant.

 

[Avocet]

I see no problem with society deciding that what was considered OK in the past is no longer considered that.

Except "society" hasn't decided that. A relatively tiny number of people decided that, and one of them stood down when he saw the mess it caused and the strength of opposition to it. There is now an embarrassing row-back on some of the limits that were inappropriately imposed.

The objectives can be achieved by enforcement.

Only to the extent that the objectives of every other speed limit can be achieved by enforcement. (Which is very little, as about half of drivers exceed speed limits). I believe that vast majority of them in the 20 MPH Welsh limits are also doing so?

If you were sitting on 9 points because you'd been caught 3 times exceeding a 20mph limit because you thought it was "inappropriate", would you go out and risk another 3?

Because nobody on 9 points ever got done for speeding... right...?

Best though, if people comply without enforcement because they are good citizens. Think of those dozens of countries and hundreds of millions if not billions of drivers where there's a 20mph/30kph limit in urban areas - is there mass disobedience?

Yes.

Who are the outliers - them, or asocial people like you?

Appropriate road engineering can help too.

Are there any other laws which you think we shouldn’t have on the grounds that people inclined to break them take no notice?

How about drink-driving? Between 2010-2020 there were on average nearly 42,000 convictions for drink-driving each year. So on average at least 115 bad drivers every day don’t care about the law.

Shall we not have it, then?

What about murder? Every day 1 or 2 bad people break that law. Another candidate for abolition in the strange world inside your head where we don’t have laws because some people ignore them?

A lot of "whataboutism" going on there. Speed limits are (and have always been) a very blunt instrument. For well over a decade now, the nation's road death and serious injury figures have been stubbornly static, despite increasingly draconian automated enforcement of speed limits (...followed by widespread reduction of speed limits and then even more enforcement of the reduced limits). At what point are the "speed kills" brigade going to stop and think about whether they might be barking up the wrong tree?

 

[RandomGrinch]

I'm not going to say much more on this - so much was already said on Motorbikings thread, when the change had just happened.

My personal viewpoint, from someone living in the Cardiff commuter belt...

The WAG have been pretty blatant about this from the start; I can't remember the exact wording, but part of the policy was to prioritise and increase the use of public transport, over private cars - the 20mph change was part of this strategy.
This may unfairly bias my area of Wales, that has good rail and bus links, over more rural parts, where these services are lacking.

As a pedestrian in an urban area, I am in favour of the change - when people are obeying the limit (and the majority seem to be, or thereabouts), it is easier to cross the road and it is a less intimidating experience having cars pass you at a lower speed, on narrow pavements.

As a motorist, I am in favour of the change - this may be because my LA did things quite well to begin with.
Despite people claiming it was a 'blanket' reduction to the limit, the LAs always had the authority to retain/change the limits on certain roads.
In our case, this has maintained 30mph corridors leading to the 20mph zones in the higher risk areas.
Travel time hasn't greatly increased.
In rush hour, commuting time is the same; traffic doesn't move. In some rare places, traffic speed has improved - a 20mph limit allows cars to pull out into smaller gaps, keeping traffic flowing and reducing choke points.

Since the 'backtrack', none of my local roads have reverted to 30mph; a couple of roads that were originally left at 30, have actually been reduced to 20, at the residents request.

I've seen it mentioned, that at a lower speed, people get complacent and don't concentrate as much - this is definitely not true, you concentrate as much as you did at 30; the level of concentration depends very much on the person driving, rather than the speed limit.

Having to perform an emergency stop, to avoid a dog running out into the road at 20mph, is still a nerve wracking experience.

After getting used to the 20 limit in Wales, travelling through some villages in England at 30, seemed way too quick.

Yes, I have missed some 20mph signs and was driving at 30 when I shouldn't have been. Signage isn't always great, can be confusing and in some places has been contradictory.

Yes you can call me a hypocrite - I drive at an indicated 22-23 mph through the 20 zones; although one of my concerns was that you would get constantly tailgated, if you stick to the new limit - this rarely seems to be the case. People might want to travel faster, but they don't blame you for sticking to the limit.

Those that perpetually travel faster than the limit, seem to be those that would have broken the 30 limit anyway; although even then, their speed seems to have (slightly) reduced (judging by the number of racers coming down our one way terrace, at 1 in the morning!).

Again, this is my personal view, it seems to suit me and my family, living in an urban area of Wales.
It might not suit everyone.

 

[ericmark]

Those that perpetually travel faster than the limit, seem to be those that would have broken the 30 limit anyway

Yes very true, even with 30 MPH limit few exceeded 20 MPH through our village, it made sense.

"A" roads in the main should be 30 MPH except past schools and the like, and in the main past schools we had part-time limits, which were in the main obeyed, as they clearly made sense, but when we got the blanket 20 MPH limit, these part-time signs were removed, so where there is a good reason to do 20 MPH, it is now ignored, and this uncertainty of is a car doing 20 or 30, means

As a pedestrian in an urban area, I am in favour of the change - when people are obeying the limit (and the majority seem to be, or thereabouts), it is easier to cross the road and it is a less intimidating experience having cars pass you at a lower speed, on narrow pavements.

Does not work, as so often not obeyed.
As to

But in so doing, you erode the benefits that the motor car can bring. All the arguments for a 20 limit work even better for a 10 limit, and better still for a 5. If the aim is to make car use impractical because you're anti-car, then fair enough, but there are also downsides to slowing everything down.

Yes, the red flag and someone walking in front would reduce accidents further. But when the safety cars can't keep up with the bicycles, it shows how daft, tractors and push-bikes can still do 30 MPH but cars 20 MPH that makes no sense.

However, this does not answer why road tax higher for Welsh readers. There is a problem with the Welsh language, in that many rules and regulations are linked to a British Standard, and the BS is only written in English so many Welsh rules are as a result invalid, it seems we are just Araf, we see it written in many places, specially on the road.

 

[morqthana]

When you say "popular move", it caused the biggest petition yet seen, from people opposing it, and has (arguably) cost the man responsible his job!

People, no doubt, whipped into an ignorant, Luddite, hidebound, oh-we-cant-possibly-ever-change-anything-as-that-will-destroy-us frenzy by deplorable libertarian and partisan newspapers, and by idiots shouting lies on social media.

Try looking at p10 of this: https://assets.publishing.service.g...tional-travel-attitudes-study-2019-wave-1.pdf

 

[Avocet]

People, no doubt, whipped into an ignorant, Luddite, hidebound, oh-we-cant-possibly-ever-change-anything-as-that-will-destroy-us frenzy by deplorable libertarian and partisan newspapers, and by idiots shouting lies on social media.

Try looking at p10 of this: https://assets.publishing.service.g...tional-travel-attitudes-study-2019-wave-1.pdf

View attachment 359266

Ah... A 2019 survey, asking a question specifically about residential streets, of a mere 1300 people, doubtless whipped into an ignorant, hidebound frenzy of nimbyism by a government with an anti-car agenda, egged-on by hysterical mob of mindless "speed kills" automatons who haven't realised that their short-sighted fixation on just one aspect of road safety has utterly failed to deliver the desired results for well over a decade now, but who, when confronted with the medicine not working, can only think of doubling the dose...?

(There, you see? You're not the only one who can try to dismiss an argument you find awkward, by throwing a lot of disdainful words at it...)

 

[Koolpc]

There is talk that they may be reverting back to 30 mph on some roads. I hope so.....20 mph outside schools etc is a good idea but the vast majority of roads are not geared for 20mph.

 

[morqthana]

And clearly, it must work, because all those countries have fewer road deaths and serious injuries than we do?

I made that point to counter the claims from the entitled and selfish people that having a lower default speed limit on restricted roads is a monstrous idea. I made it to show that it is the accepted norm for enormous numbers of drivers. I made it to show that it is the shouty, how-dare-you-tell-me-I-must-not-do-30mph-don't-you-realise-how-essential-it-is-that-I-get-my-way snowflakes are the outliers.

Trying to compare accident statistics between different countries is pointless because of the number of factors which vary.

But it you want to remove all those other factors by looking at one particular country, I suggest you do not try to deny the correlation between speed and accidents, nor the data from UK 20mph zones showing lower accident rates and reduced casualties.

I suggest that because I know you really, really don't want it to be true, and the truth might upset you. And as you are a driver who cares about nothing other than the speed you may drive at, we can't have you upset, can we.

Except that's not actually true, is it? The 20 MPH limits have been something of a clusterf%^$, with a great deal of back-tracking now taking place, after widespread compliant.

Genuine complaint?

Reasoned, fact-based complaint which takes into account majority support, the benefits to the environment, the proven reduction in casualties, etc?

Or just confected, ignorant rage stoked by deplorable libertarian and partisan newspapers, and by idiots shouting lies on social media?

Except "society" hasn't decided that. A relatively tiny number of people decided that, and one of them stood down when he saw the mess it caused and the strength of opposition to it. There is now an embarrassing row-back on some of the limits that were inappropriately imposed.

Inappropriate 20mph limits can be revised in just the same way that inappropriate 30mph ones have been in the past. But you don't want to know that.

And as for society - year after year after year, surveys show a supportpposed ratio of 6 or 7 to one. I get that you don't want to know that, ut how credible do you think your denials are going to be?

Only to the extent that the objectives of every other speed limit can be achieved by enforcement. (Which is very little, as about half of drivers exceed speed limits). I believe that vast majority of them in the 20 MPH Welsh limits are also doing so?

Obviously it is better for society if people obey laws willingly.

But for the outliers who refuse to accept the legitimacy of laws which they personally dislike, I see no reason why enforcement cannot be used more widely, and more forcefully.

Put it this way - if all the drivers in the 500,000 who signed that petition in Wales systematically defied the law then I would regard the scenario where each and every one lost their licence as ideal.

Because nobody on 9 points ever got done for speeding... right...?

I'm sure they do.

I'm equally sure that for most people, as they start racking up penalties for ignoring a 20mph speed limit because it used to be 30mph and they cannot tolerate it changing, the penny will drop that no, it really isn't up to them, and ignoring it really is not an OK thing to do.

Think of those dozens of countries and hundreds of millions if not billions of drivers where there's a 20mph/30kph limit in urban areas - is there mass disobedience?

Yes.

Proof, please.

A lot of "whataboutism" going on there.

The "whataboutism" was designed to show how fatuous the argument is that we shouldn't have laws because some people disrespect them.

Speed limits are (and have always been) a very blunt instrument.

There is no better one. However much you wish it were not so there is a positive correlation between speed and the incidence and severity of accidents. The one place where we can see what happens when drivers are left to their own devices to determine what is an appropriate speed vs not, with all other possible contributory factors cancelled out, are German autobahns.
According to the German Federal Statistical Office, fast driving is the main cause of collisions on autobahns. An evaluation by the German Road Safety Council showed that in 2016 statistically 26% fewer people died on autobahns with a speed limit per kilometer than on autobahns without. A similar trend could be observed in the number of serious injuries.

And as you know (but may well be utterly desperate to deny) there is a reduction in both the number and severity of accidents when 20mph zones are introduced in the UK.

For well over a decade now, the nation's road death and serious injury figures have been stubbornly static, despite increasingly draconian automated enforcement of speed limits (...followed by widespread reduction of speed limits and then even more enforcement of the reduced limits).

The trend is downwards when you consider the increase in traffic volumes

At what point are the "speed kills" brigade going to stop and think about whether they might be barking up the wrong tree?

At what point are you going to stop thinking that your "right" to drive at 30mph on busy urban roads trumps the interest of every single other person using the roads to walk, or cycle, or take their children to school, or allow them to go there unaccompanied?

 

[morqthana]

"A" roads in the main should be 30 MPH except past schools and the like,

What about "A" roads through villages and towns where there are no schools, but there are shops, with pedestrians crossing from one side to another? Where there are buses pulling in and out and people getting on and off? Where there are cars parking and moving off? Where people might prefer to walk or cycle, but are dissuaded because of the speeds cars travel at? Do their wants count for nothing? Must everything only and always be about what car drivers want?

What about roads which are not A-roads, and don't have schools, but are just roads, not on any "through route", where people live?

Why do people (so many that it seems wilful) not understand that we have/had a system where restricted roads have/had a 30mph speed limit by default (the blanket speed limit, if you want to use that term), and some roads have a higher limit if appropriate, and that changing the default (blanket) to 20mph does NOT mean that ALL roads become 20mph, it means that SOME do where 20mph is more appropriate than 30mph? It may take some months to work through establishing the new non-defaults, but FGS - does that really matter?

and in the main past schools we had part-time limits, which were in the main obeyed, as they clearly made sense, but when we got the blanket 20 MPH limit, these part-time signs were removed, so where there is a good reason to do 20 MPH, it is now ignored,

Sorry, Eric, but just how morally bankrupt do people have to be to argue that we can't have laws which lawbreakers ignore?

If we can't educate people into obeying the law, then the alternative is to hit them harder and harder and harder, with bigger and bigger and bigger sticks until they get the f-in message, or until they are banned from driving.

The answer is NOT to not lower the speed limit when that is appropriate, when it reduces pollution, when it reduces accidents and casualties, and when it is popular with everybody except the drivers who think that nothing and nobody matters except them.

and this uncertainty of is a car doing 20 or 30,

How can that be uncertain? Cars have speedometers - every driver knows how fast he is going, just like he knows what the speed limit is on the bit of road he is on.

means

tractors and push-bikes can still do 30 MPH but cars 20 MPH that makes no sense.

Unless you've got a non-mechanically propelled tractor it is subject to speed limits.

And if it is shown that there is a problem with cyclists speeding, then the law could be changed to encompass them.

We probably don't need to worry about the few world-class sprinters who can run at over 20mph

 

[morqthana]

Ah... A 2019 survey, asking a question specifically about residential streets, of a mere 1300 people, doubtless whipped into an ignorant, hidebound frenzy of nimbyism by a government with an anti-car agenda, egged-on by hysterical mob of mindless "speed kills" automatons who haven't realised that their short-sighted fixation on just one aspect of road safety has utterly failed to deliver the desired results for well over a decade now, but who, when confronted with the medicine not working, can only think of doubling the dose...?

(There, you see? You're not the only one who can try to dismiss an argument you find awkward, by throwing a lot of disdainful words at it...)

So you've decided to ignore the graphic showing consistent, overwhelming support for 20mph limits on residential streets in 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018....

OK.

And you can show that the people expressing that view were whipped into a frenzy by the government, can you?

As for "nimbyism", it's actually the total opposite - it is people who want it in their streets. You just don't have a clue what you are talking about.

And "a government with an anti-car agenda" is utter swivel-eyed, deranged, paranoid, conspiracy-fantasy rubbish.

Speed reductions in Wales show attitudes to 20mph limits are 'beginning to change', minister says

While data shows average speeds are down from before the rollout, Lee Waters says there's still "a way to go".

news.sky.com

A new independent public attitude survey, conducted by Beaufort Research on behalf of the Welsh Government, shows the majority of respondents support a new lower speed limit.

Almost two-thirds of people surveyed said they would support a 20mph speed limit where they lived and 62% said they wanted everyone to slow down on the roads.

When asked about safety, 64% of people said that 20mph speed limits “makes it safer for pedestrians”; 57% agreed that 20mph means “fewer serious collisions on the roads” and almost half (47%) thought 20mph would make it safer for cyclists.

This is worth reading. I wonder if you will.

https://www.20splenty.org/critique_of_the_anti-20mph_senedd_petition

 

[Brigadier]

At what point are you going to stop thinking that your "right" to drive at 30mph on busy urban roads

I never once advocated this position, just to be absolutely clear.
I was abundantly clear that, regardless of the posted limit, I will often "trundle" at well below that posted limit, based on my own assessment of the risk profile present.
I was abundantly clear - on more than one occasion - that I am all in favour of speed limits that are appropriate for the situation.
I was abundantly clear that the application of a default, fell-swoop reduction did - inevitably - capture roads where 20 mph is not appropriate.


You are throwing this in as a strawman.