3 & 4 ... I already anticipated those with my "... (other than, as you go on to say, discouraging people from driving at all)"
I find it telling that you present an increase in the number of journeys done by walking or cycling as
discouraging people from driving rather than
encouraging them to walk or cycle.
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.
If you only "hear" things in the sort of echo chambers where people believe in things like "the war on motorists", then you will of course generally only hear moans.
Try looking at p10 of this:
https://assets.publishing.service.g...tional-travel-attitudes-study-2019-wave-1.pdf
Or this
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.
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.
Well, no, that isn't why average speed isn't affected much.
If the amount of time a vehicle can spend at speeds between 20 & 30mph is already quite short, then capping the speed at 20 is not going to have a significant effect on journey times. If the portion of the journey covered at a mean of 25mph (i.e. assuming linear acceleration between 20 & 30) is relatively small then the extra time taken to cover that distance at 20mph is also relatively small.
It's pretty obvious.
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 ...
Yes - I know all about that, and that we have average speed
measurement to deal with the problem of drivers slowing down as they pass cameras, but be in no mistake that the limit is not an average. You could genuinely have an average of, say, 55mph along a given stretch of a 60mph road, but should you be detected doing 75mph at any point along it, you would not find that you "average compliance" counted for anything.
The point I was trying to make when you said "the implication must be that it 'barely affects' average speeds - which makes one wonder what it does achieve?" is that it achieves what any speed limit does (in theory) which is to limit the maximum speed, as average speeds are not what speed limits deal with.
So what? I was talking about the impossibility of having an 'evidential basis' for a decision as to how many deaths and serious injuries is "acceptable"
Well I don't know why you were, as it's a bizarre response to me saying that I don't know what the evidence is for even lower speed limits, or prioritisation of cycling, etc.
Evidence that such measures are beneficial in terms of casualties could easily exist but opinion could be that the benefits are not worthwhile and the measures not implemented.
Evidence and public opinion are not the same thing, and often totally unrelated.
But you were trying to deny the
possibility that there could be empirical evidence that lower limits than 30kph are beneficial.
Quite, totally impractical, hence the question about the 'acceptable' number of deaths and injuries arises.
If it's totally impractical, why say "
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?"
By allowing motorists and non-motorists to share the same 'roads' one is effectively doing the same as a zoo keeper who decided to house animals and their potential prey in the same enclosure. Again, fatalaties will be inevitable - so, again, the 'acceptable' number of such events would have to be decided.
Indeed - such is the nature of many "safety regulations".
I cannot for the life of me work out what point you are trying to make.
If you think that KSI figures associated with the current 30mph system are acceptable, and that the reductions brought about by changing to a 20mph system, for which there is evidence, are not worthwhile then just say so,
... it's not a matter of 'not looking at the road', since established drivers of cars with manual boxes change gear without having to 'take their eye off the road',
If it's not a matter of 'not looking at the road' why did you write "
but who wants to have to 'fiddle with the lever' (another 'distraction' from looking at the road)"?
You surely cannot in all seriousness be claiming that drivers of manual cars can use their gear selector lever without having to take their eye off the road, but drivers of automatic cars can't do the same with theirs?
but it would be difficult to argue against a suggestion that it is safer to have both hands on the steering wheel for something approaching 'all the time', wouldn't it?
Actually, no, it wouldn't be difficult, because it would be a fatuous suggestion to make in the context of operating a gear lever.
). I may be soon (if it's ever completed!) have a similar experience, since my present house is only 100 yards or so from the path of HS2!
