my 'trusty ' car pre-dates any such new-fangled technology, and I only rarely use satnav!
You could always upgrade your Model T
my 'trusty ' car pre-dates any such new-fangled technology, and I only rarely use satnav!
One day I might have toYou could always upgrade your Model T
All inevitably true but, as I've said, in my case a very slow process, and I'm far from convinced that I will personally 'get used to it' before my 'driving career' comes to its end.But you can/will get used to them - hundreds of millions of drivers in other countries manage it. ... I'm not a fan of any arguments like that. Logically the same applies to any speed, so if you can manage to drive at 30mph without staring at the speedo you can do it at 20. And the more widespread 20mph limits become, more people will get used to it, and sooner.
I've tried that one, but it relies on assumptions that are (currently) often not true. When I have travelled 'at the same speed as the line of traffic in front of me', when I've eventually looked at the speedo it's indicated nearer to 30 mph than 20 mphAnd even if you remain an outlier, if everyone around you is doing 20 all you have to do is to avoid running into the car in front of you.
If yiou mean that it would hasten the 'getting used to it' process, then, yes, that would be true if everything became 20 mph and no 30 mph was left.Simply changing the default for restricted roads from 30 to 20 nation-wide has a lot of merit.
I'm talking about automatics, which obviously don't stall when one brakes and, more specifically, about the car of a family member - which, once it gets going, will often try to 'idle' at more than 20 mph, particularly if there is the slightest of downwards inclines. There is also an issue, with both manual and automatic cars, of deciding what gear to be in when travelling at 20 mph - and the car I'm talking about does a lot of 'gear changing' at around that speedAnd I must admit I'm unfamiliar with any cars which need constant braking like that. The implication is that you're having to bring the engine speed down below idle - do you get problems with it stalling?
As I've said, I think one of the psychological issues is that 20mph is 'unnaturally slow for a motorised vehicle. We are used to the concept that a motor vehicle travels faster than any unaided human being could, and although even olympic athletes cannot not achieve 30 mph, there was a day (a long long time ago) when I could approach 20 mph over a short distance (100 yards)!
I've tried that one, but it relies on assumptions that are (currently) often not true. When I have travelled 'at the same speed as the line of traffic in front of me', when I've eventually looked at the speedo it's indicated nearer to 30 mph than 20 mph
If yiou mean that it would hasten the 'getting used to it' process, then, yes, that would be true if everything became 20 mph and no 30 mph was left.
On the other hand, if you are saying that what 'has a lot of merit' is the reduction of speed limits from 30 to 20 mph, per se, then, if you are thinking soley of the consequences of impacts, then you are again right. However, it then becomes a question of 'where to draw the line' (that line being between swings and roundabouts) , since a reduction to 10 (or 5, or whatever) mph would 'have even more merit'. Politicians/legislators don't like (being seen to) talking in such terms, but it inevitably comes down to the question of what is an 'acceptable' number of deaths and serious injuries (to balance against the benefits of faster road travel)
I'm talking about automatics, which obviously don't stall when one brakes and, more specifically, about the car of a family member - which, once it gets going, will often try to 'idle' at more than 20 mph, particularly if there is the slightest of downwards inclines.
There is also an issue, with both manual and automatic cars, of deciding what gear to be in when travelling at 20 mph - and the car I'm talking about does a lot of 'gear changing' at around that speed
I've certainly never been competition for Usain Bolt but, back in my mid-teens, I very briefly held my school's age- related ("under 15" or "under 16" I imagine) record of 11.2 secs for 100 yards - I reckon that's about 18.26 mph, which I would say was 'in the ballpark' of 20 mph. My point was simply that whilst 20 mph was just about credible for an unaided human, 30 mph isn't, and probably never will be.Even Usain Bolt could only average a tad over 23mph in his world record 100m (I accept that the peak speed would have been higher). There are no world class athletes who have ever managed to average even 20mph over distances greater than 400m, so in practical terms, with ordinary people, 20mph is considerably faster than unaided people can travel.
Yes, I've agreed with that.It's true that much more needs to be done to increase the observance of 20mph limits. Making them the default, and as ubiquitous as the 30mph limit currently is for restricted roads would help.
I'm not sure what these 'other benefits' are (other than, as you go on to say, discouraging people from driving at all) but I'm surprised by the suggestion that 20 mph limits are 'popular' (other than in the eyes of those other than drivers of motorised vehicles) - all I tend to hear about them (from drivers of such vehicles, who are the majority users of 'roads') tends to be moans!Studies show that there are benefits from 20mph limits, and that those benefits extend beyond simply lower accident and casualty rates. They show that 20mph limits are popular, and that their popularity increases after implementation, implying that some people's fears fail to materialise.
I would imagine that the majority of 'domestic' urban journeys are predominantly in 30 mph (or 20 mph) roads. If it is the case that reducing the limit from 30 to 20 mph 'barely affects' journey times, then the implication must be that it 'barely affects' average speeds - which makes one wonder what it does achieve? (and I'm not talking about short bits of 20 mph 'outside school gates' etc.).And they show that journey times are barely affected.
I can't see how there can be an 'evidential basis' other than 'evidence' of public opinion - but, just as with the politicians/legislators, I think that even the general public are likely to be uncomfortable expressing a view about an "acceptable" levels of deaths and serious injuries..... I don't know what the evidential basis is for those, or what their "acceptable" level of accidents is ...
If I understand you correctly, is there not a case for questioning whether the 'other road users' should be sharing roads with fast moving havy motor vehicles which can (and do) kill and injure?, but it comes down to a recognition that it isn't just about the acceptable KSI threshold when setting limits for motor traffic, but that other road users have interests too, and need to be prioritised more than they are now.
Indeed - but who wants to have to 'fiddle with the lever' (another 'distraction' from looking at the road) just because of a speed limit?Every automatic I've driven has had a means to take it out of fully automatic mode and lock in a maximum gear. When I had automatic cars without cruise control I had no problem with pulling the selector out of D and into 3 or 2 when going downhill so that I didn't need to use the brakes to keep within the speed limit.
Same here, but they're much less prone to it at 30 mph than 20 mphAnd I've driven automatics prone to hunting at 30mph.
On the other hand, if you are saying that what 'has a lot of merit' is the reduction of speed limits from 30 to 20 mph, per se, then, if you are thinking soley of the consequences of impacts, then you are again right.
I'm not actually convinced that it would make much difference to quietness and niceness, but if you want to think in such terms, maybe we should ban motor vehicles completely?There are potentially other benefits, such as it being a much nicer, quieter place to live, alongside a road where the limit has been reduced to 20mph.
I'm not actually convinced that it would make much difference to quietness and niceness, but if you want to think in such terms, maybe we should ban motor vehicles completely?
Maybe they can invent some sort of car whose engine doesn't make any significant noise!Banning, motor vehicles is not possible, but we can reduce their impact on life considerably, by limiting their speeds in populated areas.
It seems that they already have . I've lost count of the number of times I have, when crossing roads on foot, been 'taken by surprise' by an EV that I hadn't 'heard' coming. This must be worrying for those who are visually impaired.Maybe they can invent some sort of car whose engine doesn't make any significant noise!
I've certainly never been competition for Usain Bolt but, back in my mid-teens, I very briefly held my school's age- related ("under 15" or "under 16" I imagine) record of 11.2 secs for 100 yards - I reckon that's about 18.26 mph, which I would say was 'in the ballpark' of 20 mph. My point was simply that whilst 20 mph was just about credible for an unaided human, 30 mph isn't, and probably never will be.
I'm not sure what these 'other benefits' are (other than, as you go on to say, discouraging people from driving at all)
but I'm surprised by the suggestion that 20 mph limits are 'popular' (other than in the eyes of those other than drivers of motorised vehicles)
- all I tend to hear about them (from drivers of such vehicles, who are the majority users of 'roads') tends to be moans!
I would imagine that the majority of 'domestic' urban journeys are predominantly in 30 mph (or 20 mph) roads. If it is the case that reducing the limit from 30 to 20 mph 'barely affects' journey times, then the implication must be that it 'barely affects' average speeds - which makes one wonder what it does achieve?
I can't see how there can be an 'evidential basis' other than 'evidence' of public opinion
If I understand you correctly, is there not a case for questioning whether the 'other road users' should be sharing roads with fast moving havy motor vehicles which can (and do) kill and injure?
Indeed - but who wants to have to 'fiddle with the lever' (another 'distraction' from looking at the road) just because of a speed limit?
It seems that they already have . I've lost count of the number of times I have, when crossing roads on foot, been 'taken by surprise' by an EV that I hadn't 'heard' coming.
This must be worrying for those who are visually impaired.
1... As I've agreed, it goes without saying that the slower the traffic, the fewer and less serious the casualties and damage, and that continues to be the case when speed is reduced below 20 mph. So, as I've said, someone has to decide what is an 'acceptable' level of deaths, injuries and damage.1...Fewer casualties.
2...Cheaper car insurance.
3...More people walking instead of driving.
4...More people cycling instead of driving.
3 & 4 ... I already anticipated those with my "... (other than, as you go on to say, discouraging people from driving at all)"2... (2) id simply a consequence of (1) (providing insuraers 'pass on' reductions due to lowered speed limits - but I don't think I'll hold my breath )
I wasn't talking about whether the moans are justified, or whether I want to know if they are justified - I was merely expressing surprise that I generally only hear 'moans' about something you reported to be popular.And when you hear those moans, do you dismantle every argument they use to "justify" their moaning? You could if you wanted to. ... Perhaps you don't want to. Confirmation bias I think it's called.
If the change in speed limit reduces maximum speeds but 'barely affects' average speed (hence journey times), then the change in speed limit probably also increases minimum speed (or, at least, shift the distribution of lower speeds in that direction). Is that what you believe happens.It reduces maximum speeds.
We don't have legislated 'average speed limits' as such (the imposed limits always relate to 'instantaneous speed') but, as you must be aware, there are many examples of speed limits 'policed' by average speed cameras - such that they are effectively policing an 'average speed limit'. As We obviously have countless temporary ones, but there are also a good few permanent ones, such as explained here ...We don't have average speed limits.
Average speed cameras were rolled out across parts of Birmingham and the Black Country a few years ago in response to concerns there was barely any deterrent to speeding in the West Midlands. The busiest speed cameras are all in the Black Country. The location where the highest number of drivers were caught in Birmingham was the A4540 Belgrave Middleway/Leebank Middleway, towards Five Ways.
Quite, totally impractical, hence the question about the 'acceptable' number of deaths and injuries arises.Well, if they shouldn't, then we either have to ..... So feel free to question whether any non-motorist road users should be sharing the roads with motor traffic, but I doubt you'll get far.
No, but I suppose one could argue that such should happen....Can we look forward to you starting a petition to get manual gearboxes banned? They must be a huge safety problem, given how many times a driver gets distracted from looking at the road by having to fiddle with the gear lever every time he needs to change gear.
If you need to find a tradesperson to get your job done, please try our local search below, or if you are doing it yourself you can find suppliers local to you.
Select the supplier or trade you require, enter your location to begin your search.
Are you a trade or supplier? You can create your listing free at DIYnot Local