Car tax price Welsh v English

[Brigadier]

You stick to your lane, and I'll stick to mine.

Now bore off

 

[morqthana]

Don't worry Brigadier (and this goes for Avocet too) - 20mph limits are going to spread and spread, either piecemeal (until it's decided that the cost of doing it that way compared to a UK-wide default change are stupidly high) or via much larger, or country-wide, schemes.

And there won't be a damn thing you can do about it, any more than you could get the existing 30mph limit raised to 40.

 

[morqthana]

It's all part of the "demonising the opposing view" strategy. It doesn't look half so dramatic to take someone to task over their feeling that in many cases, a 30 MPH limit might be more appropriate than a 20, that sounds far too reasonable! So what you have to do, is paint everyone who opposes that view, as being some extreme kind of "Mr. Toad" character, whose only while in life is to roar through urban areas as fast as possible, terrorising vulnerable (don't forget to stress the "vulnerable" bit, it sounds much better) road users into submission, leaving them cowering in the gutter - which, after all, is their proper place if they can't afford a motor car). (...Assuming you deign to allow them to live in the first place, of course...)

It's generally the mark of a weak argument, backed up by desperation and hysteria, that won't stand up to rational debate on its own merits.

I shall respond to it later...

You have responded to it:

That's exactly what we need. A bit more "can-do" British engineering ingenuity and a bit less British "oh there's no point, why can't we just carry on doing what we've always done, it'll never work" lethargy...

 

[Avocet]

I think that's a fair description for drivers who think that ignoring speed limits which are beneficial and popular just because they don't like them is the right thing to do.

Now answer the question... All you've done there, is shout out your existing prejudices. In fact, not only am I going to ask you to point out where I've said it's a "monstrous" idea, I'm now also going to ask you to point out where I've said I ignore them! You're a great one for shooting your mouth off, without even establishing the truth first, aren't you?

Only in the minds of those who are so desperate to not have their driving speeds curtailed when it is of such wide benefit that they become deranged at the prospect.

No, you claimed it was 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." (which you didn't). All you have done, is make some claims, and then resorted to childish insults when challenged.

Would you like a quote from that?

"There is an established positive relationship between vehicle speed and collisions – the higher the speed, the more collisions and where
collisions do occur, the higher the risk of a fatal injury at higher speeds."

It's a lovely quote, but was it specifically talking about speeds between 20 and 30 MPH?

That report looked at data from schemes where traffic was already slow, so, surprise surprise, reducing the speed limit doesn't make traffic already travelling at the slower speeds go any slower, nor do much for accident figures.

How slow? Did it only look at speeds of 20 MPH or less?

You didn't quote this:

"The study shows that 20mph limits are generally supported and there is little call for the
limit to be changed back to 30mph; even though most residents and users do not perceive vehicle speeds to
have changed. Local residents and other road users generally perceive the 20mph limits as beneficial for
local residents, pedestrians and cyclists. From a driver perspective, they make driving at a slower speed
more acceptable."

No I didn't. But if you want to go into details, how about starting with the methodology?

As you can see, it was a very specific study of particular schemes either in residential streets or city centres. (Not a country-wide indiscriminate lowering of pretty much anything that used to be a 30 limit. In fact, it even says:

"The area-wide residential case studies considered within this study typically exclude major streets such as strategic routes (A and B-class roads), key bus routes, distributor roads, and streets with non-residential frontages. In some of these locations, the road’s function and the mix of traffic it carries means that motor traffic is the primary consideration."

Which, strangely, is the position I have already stated - that if we are to realise the benefits of motorised traffic, a degree of compromise (not to mention common sense) is needed. And the returning of certain roads to 30 MPH in Wales suggests that the authorities there, are starting to realise this too. Who knows? Perhaps one day, even you might?!

As the quote you have chosen confirms - limits in small scale areas, where traffic speeds are already low, don't have much of an effect, and the report urges consideration of the scale of implementation.

Interesting, is it not, that you didn't quote the part where the report compared the small-scale Belfast implementation "to the recent city-wide intervention in Edinburgh which showed significant reductions in road traffic speed, collisions and casualties. Large scale implementation of 20 mph speed limit interventions may be an important factor for effectiveness."

In Edinburgh they observed a city-wide reduction in collisions which resulted in injury of 38%, a 41% reduction in slight collisions, a 23% reduction in killed or seriously injured, a 39% reduction in injuries to children, 21% to the elderly, 31% to cyclists, 53% to motorcyclists, and 37% to pedestrians.

It would seem the real way to make 20mph limits a success is to implement them over large areas. One might term that a "blanket implementation".

So thank you for pointing everyone at this report - it really strengthens the case for widespread 20mph limits.

If only the Welsh authorities agreed with you, eh?

Not really.

If you cared about the interests of road users other than motorists like you, you wouldn't be opposed to a measure which has proven benefits to those road users, which is popular with them, and which becomes even more popular with them after implementation.

So... just remind me, (what with this being popular before, and even more popular afterwards)...

...why are the authorities returning some of the roads to 30 limits?

You can read an analysis of that petition here: https://www.20splenty.org/w_faq08

I hope you do, because one of the things it covers is motive. It's interesting to note that it was signed by about 16% of the adult population of Wales.

I did. It's hilarious! Not that I would have expected anything else from a hysterical, single issue pressure group, of course. I particularly liked the bit where they claimed that: "In fact after the first two weeks of the 20mph limit being set daily signatures dropped hugely as shown by this graph of daily signings. In February 2024 the average number of daily signatures added was just 16. This is hardly a sign of rising anger but merely rising boredom by those that weren't triggered into signing in the first few weeks."

I mean... obviously... right? Like... there's no possibility that pretty much everyone who wanted to sign it had signed it by then, is there? Next you'll be telling me that after 6 million signed the petition to stop Brexit, the fact that hardly anyone is signing it today must mean that they actually think it's a great idea now? What a joke!

Mind you, At least they were decent enough to publish this:
Note, final signatory numbers were:-

Wales	441,287
Rest of World	28,283
Total	469,570

So that at least shoots down those seeking to try ad dismiss the petition as having mostly been signed by people from outside Wales...

...bet that stuck in their throats...

And we saw from a chart I posted earlier we know that about 14% of people are opposed to 20mph speed limits.


They may have been. We already have roads which would be 30mph were it not for the fact that they were made exceptions from the 30mph default for restricted roads.

I'd not be surprised to learn that when the 30mph default was introduced some roads were later made exceptions because it was decided that the 30 limit was inappropriate.

Would you?

And if you did, would you claim that the whole idea of a default 30mph limit for restricted roads was therefore so deeply flawed that it should never have been done?


And 2.2 million did not sign it. I think that 2.2 million vs 430 thousand is overwhelming support, just like the year after year after year UK-wide surveys on transport attitudes shows 71% support vs 14% opposition.



What is there to dwell on? Of course it's better.

I think you might be of the opinion that having something signed by 16% of a country's adult population means that the remaining 84% are absolutely in favour? Like having 6 million sign a petition against Brexit must mean that the remaining 50 million are right behind it?

You don't really understand "petitions", do you...?

Here's one that might interest you:

We want the Welsh Government to keep the excellent 20mph law

Petition: We want the Welsh Government to keep the excellent 20mph law I agree with the new 20mph speed limit in towns and cities across Wales. It will make our streets a lot safer for pedestrians and cyclists. petitions.senedd.wales

completed

5399​

19/09/2023 12:09​

I make that about... (rounding up, to be generous...) 0.25% of the adult population of Wales? So using your logic, that must mean 99.75% of the adult population of Wales is NOT in favour of the new 20 MPH limits... right...?

( didn't look into it in any greater depth to see how many of those 5399 people were from outside Wales...)

How does believing in the rule of law make me entitled?

As for democracy, 60% of people in Wales voted in the 2021 Senedd election for parties that had a national 20mph default limit in their election manifestos, and the measure followed all due democratic processes through Senedd.

Yeah... so did Brexit....

 

[morqthana]

In summary, Avocet, I no longer GAS about any of your mewling.

It is abundantly clear that you have a principled objection to being told that you may no longer drive at the speeds you used to on certain roads, despite the popularity of such a reduction, and despite the proven benefits which include fewer people dying in accidents.

You are never, EVER, going to understand that your desires do not trump the safety and convenience of wider society.

 

[Avocet]

In summary, Avocet, I no longer GAS about any of your mewling.

Thank Heaven for that! It was getting pretty tedious rebutting your pseudo-arguments and calling-out your prejudices...

It is abundantly clear that you have a principled objection to being told that you may no longer drive at the speeds you used to on certain roads, despite the popularity of such a reduction, and despite the proven benefits which include fewer people dying in accidents.

Only "obvious" to someone with a completely closed mind, who has never troubled himself to even ask what my "objections" might be - principled, pragmatic, or otherwise! You've "gone off on one", completely half-cocked, having made a huge number of assumptions bout what my views on the topic might be, and now you're left looking like a bit of a fool...

You are never, EVER, going to understand that your desires do not trump the safety and convenience of wider society.

and, it seems, you are never EVER going to understand what my desires actually are...