How Wireless EV Charging Works

[JohnW2]

Agreed. I believe on speed awareness courses they tell you a lower speed is safer than a higher one, KE proprtionbal to V^2 and all that, but that logic applies all the way down to zero speed, and as you say, in real life there has to be a compromise.

Quite so. There's obviously an analogous way in which one could eliminate all deaths and injuries due to electric shock
... or those due to the use of ladders ... or power tools ... or kitchen knives or .....

 

[morqthana]

Do you know where that 'evidence' can be found, and exactly what it relates to?

I take it you didn't bother to read the document I linked to.

One certainly has to take the behaviour of insurers very seriously, for the reasons you mention. However, I'm pretty surprised since, even if one lives in/near a 20 mph area, I doubt that driving on 20 mph roads constitutes much of a proportion of the driving they do.

You seem to be surprised by much of the evidence relating to 20mph speed limits.

It would be interesting to know the nature of the claims upon which one assumes the behaviour of insurers is based.

You can read as well as I that insurers are seeing reduced numbers of claims and reduced values of the ones they do see.

 

[JohnW2]

I take it you didn't bother to read the document I linked to.

Ooops! I should have (given it's appearance), but didn't, twig that the text you quoted was actually a link Watch this space!

You seem to be surprised by much of the evidence relating to 20mph speed limits.

I am (surprised), at least in terms of the area in which I live. As I wrote, more than once, the 20 mph limits around me have nearly all appeared in places where there were so few significant/serious 'collisions' with 30 mph limits that there really was minimal scope for any change to reduce the number appreciably. Maybe it's different in other parts of the country?

If one is talking about a small village where there have been few, if any,'road traffic collisions' in decades, changing the speed limit sounds rather like a solution to a non-existent problem

You can read as well as I that insurers are seeing reduced numbers of claims and reduced values of the ones they do see.

That one I did realise was a link but I haven't yet had time to look at it (but intend to). When I wrote "It would be interesting to know the nature of the claims..." I should have written "It will be interesting to discover the nature of the claims ..." (assuming, that is,that the linked report tells me!) - so, again, "watch this space"!

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

Ooops! I should have (given it's appearance), but didn't, twig that the text you quoted was actually a link Watch this space!

I've had an initial quick look. There's an awful lot there, the great majority of which does not relate to the issue I was addressing (the effect if 20mph vs. 30mph speed limits on casualties). I'll need a fair bit of time to try to see the wood through the trees., but time is not something I have a lot of at the moment!

One thing I did notice is that, in a good few of the studies reviewed, figures are given for the effect of reducing speed limit from 30 mph to 20 mph on average traffic speeds, and, in most cases, the effect of the change in limit was to reduce average speed by between 0.5 mph and 2 mph. It's probably a bit optimistic to expect such a small reduction to have much effect on anything!

That one I did realise was a link but I haven't yet had time to look at it (but intend to). When I wrote "It would be interesting to know the nature of the claims..." I should have written "It will be interesting to discover the nature of the claims ..." (assuming, that is,that the linked report tells me!) - so, again, "watch this space"!

That newspaper article does not say very much. However, it seems that just one insurance company has decreased premiums as a result of a reduced number and size of claims in the 3 months following a widespread and much-publicised decrease to 20 mph limits in Wales.

I would suggest that they need to wait a good while before drawing any conclusions, and that is perhaps what most insurance companies are doing. In the period immediately following such a widespread, publicised and discussed change, drivers are likely to be thinking more about such things and maybe 'driving more carefully'. However, once they have 'got used to' the new limits, that might cease to be the case, so I think that everyone, including insurance companies, probably need to wait for a yearor three to see if any initial apparent responses to the change actually persist.

However, returning to the general issue, I still stick with what I've said before - that solutions should only be implemented to address problems. If, in a particular area, there are a significant number of road casualties then, sure, try reducing the speed limit (even if it is already 20 mph!). However, in an area where there are virtually no such casualties, then it is hard to see any justification for meddling with speed limits (to have an impact on casualties). However, as I've said, I'm only considering the collisions and casualties. The report you linked to talked about all sorts of other alleged benefits of reducing speed limits, ad am not considering them

 

[Harry Bloomfield]

However, returning to the general issue, I still stick with what I've said before - that solutions should only be implemented to address problems. If, in a particular area, there are a significant number of road casualties then, sure, try reducing the speed limit (even if it is already 20 mph!). However, in an area where there are virtually no such casualties, then it is hard to see any justification for meddling with speed limits (to have an impact on casualties). However, as I've said, I'm only considering the collisions and casualties. The report you linked to talked about all sorts of other alleged benefits of reducing speed limits, ad am not considering them

Not just statistics - A reduction to 20 locally, as reduced noise, made the village generally a much nicer place to live, and it feels less stressful being out and about. Unfortunately, there is no enforcement, so the ones who ignored the 30, continue to ignore the 20.

 

[JohnW2]

Not just statistics - A reduction to 20 locally, as reduced noise, made the village generally a much nicer place to live, and it feels less stressful being out and about. Unfortunately, there is no enforcement, so the ones who ignored the 30, continue to ignore the 20.

Fair enough. As I wrote (and you quoted) ...

.... The report you linked to talked about all sorts of other alleged benefits of reducing speed limits, ad am not considering them

So, yes, there are considerations other than collisions and casualties.

However, in terms of the issue you mention, as I've said before, if one lives close to a busy road or railway (I've done both,m and got both T-shirts ), one rapidly comes to 'be totally unaware' of any noise (it';s only 'visitors' who notice!) - and 30 mph traffic doesn't make that much noise, anyway. Of the many possible arguments for decreasing speed limits, I would personally think this is one of the weaker ones.

 

[ericmark]

The A458 I hear no traffic at either 30 or now 20 MPH, the B4389 yes due to how steep, but the train with a speed limit of 15 MPH which runs alongside the A458 yes we hear the whistle quite often. Before they can move, they must blow the whistle.

Nothing like an ECE, forget ICE.

 

[morqthana]

Agreed. I believe on speed awareness courses they tell you a lower speed is safer than a higher one, KE proportional to V^2 and all that, but that logic applies all the way down to zero speed,

Logic is something in very short supply in the arguments people make against 20mph limits.

Last time I was done for speeding was about 16 years ago, and there was no way I was going to sit through that, I took the 3 points!

And talking of logic – you’d rather take points on your licence and pay more for insurance for several years than spend half a day on a speed awareness course.

Wow.

 

[morqthana]

There are an increasing number of 20 mph limits around my area, but nearly all of them in small villages which when the limit was 30 mph, had roughly zero collisions, and even closer to zero the number of collisions which resulted in serious injury or death (which events invariably get reported in local newspapers in these rural areas). There would therefore seem to have been very little scope for "statistically significant reductions".

Well – if you pick small enough areas you could probably find one that has never seen a single accident since the dawn of motoring, but it’s hard to see how that could support an argument for no speed limits at all.

Of course for a reduction to be 'statistically significant' says nothing about the magnitude or 'meaningfulness' of the reduction

But it seems that the reductions in KSI brought about by reductions to 20mph are meaningful.

Again, it would be interesting to see that 'evidence'. Per the above, in relation to the many villages around me which have fairly recently implemented 20 mph limits, I recall very very few reports of significant casualties during the pasth 35 or so years- so, as above, not much to 'reduce'.

Logic says that you (the collective “you” – the local population) should therefore lobby for speed limits to be increased until a non-zero but still acceptable number of casualties is reached, in order that people could drive as fast as can be afforded.

One certainly has to take the behaviour of insurers very seriously, for the reasons you mention. However, I'm pretty surprised since, even if one lives in/near a 20 mph area, I doubt that driving on 20 mph roads constitutes much of a proportion of the driving they do. It would be interesting to know the nature of the claims upon which one assumes the behaviour of insurers is based.

I think one thing we can rely on is that if it’s one insurer taking a punt, then all the rest will watch closely to see how it works out for them.

If it’s solidly based, actuarially (is that a word?) speaking, then they’ll have a competitive advantage until all the rest follow suit.

They have no emotions when it comes to this.

I've got an idea - let's reduce speed limits to zero, then there will be no road accidents (maybe).

...So perhaps one could leave speed limits unchanged and simply "ban HGVs"?

Appeal to ridicule - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Exactly. As I've said, although it's not something that politicians etc. like to talk, or even think, about, in the final analysis it comes down to a decision as to what is an "acceptable number of deaths and serious injuries" to balance the obvious desire to have private motor vehicles and HGVs moving people and goods around.

It's just 'swings and roundabouts', but people get uncomfortable or 'squeamish' when one of them is human lives or suffering.

They do, and more so when financial costs and benefits are discussed.

But like it or not we do ascribe a cost to deaths, and to injuries. And on that basis alone the Welsh scheme is in profit – less has been spent on signage and publicity than has been saved by fewer KSI.

It would have been even more in profit if criminals hadn’t damaged signs.

So we have a measure which is popular and has been consistently popular for years, and remains popular when no longer just an abstract notion.

We have a measure which produces meaningful reductions in accidents, deaths and injuries.

We have a measure which saves society more money than it costs to implement, and lowers the cost of motoring.

We have a measure which people find produces other quality of life improvements, and tends to improve public health.

We have a measure which does all of this without making motorised vehicles significantly, or meaningfully, less useful.

And yet a very vocal minority of people, sometimes cynically and hypocritically encouraged by politicians for party-political reasons, make large amounts of noise trying to deny the truth.

 

[fixitflav]

Logic is something in very short supply in the arguments people make against 20mph limits.

Can't you see the logic in that argument - from a KE viewpoint any lower speed is safer than a higher one? I've nothing against speed limits, even 20 mph where appropriate, and they have to be enforced, but I'm not impressed by that argument.

And talking of logic – you’d rather take points on your licence and pay more for insurance for several years than spend half a day on a speed awareness course.

As it happens, my premium didn't change, but if it had, I could afford it, and it's my choice.
Do they really last half a day? If so, I'm more convinced I made the right choice.

I've got an idea - let's reduce speed limits to zero, then there will be no road accidents (maybe).

Can't you recognise a joke when you see it?

 

[JohnW2]

Can't you recognise a joke when you see it?

Don't you realise that it was not really a joke but, rather, a reminder of the reality - that the argument goes all the way down to zero - so that, no matter what the speed limit (even if already 20 mph, or even 10 mph), the number of collisions would reduce if the limit was reduced even further?

 

[Harry Bloomfield]

Don't you realise that it was not really a joke but, rather, a reminder of the reality - that the argument goes all the way down to zero - so that, no matter what the speed limit (even if already 20 mph, or even 10 mph), the number of collisions would reduce if the limit was reduced even further?

Yes, but with diminishing returns, the lower the limit goes, so it's a compromise.

 

[JohnW2]

Yes, but with diminishing returns, the lower the limit goes, so it's a compromise.

Indeed. "Diminishing returns" is really a variant on what I have said - that the less the 'problem', the less scope there is for any 'solution' to reduce that problem. Furthermore, in terms of the physics, even a fairly large decrease in a 'low' speed limit has much more effect on kinetic energy (hence capacity to injure/kill) than does a fairly small decrease in a higher speed limit.

The sensible amongst us have agreed that it all comes down to a 'compromise' (and that that compromise requires a decision about the "acceptable number of deaths/injuries"). However, there will always be some who say "one death is one death too many" -and that is no sort of 'compromise'. I don't know if I mis-heard but just a couple of days ago I think I heard on TV that one of the Scandinavian countries (Sweden?) has declared a policy of 'eliminating' road deaths - which, if true, is surely just plain silly?

I also find it a little odd that this move to reduce 30 mph limits to 20 mph does not seem optimal in terms of the 'big picture'. Only about 30% of road deaths are on 30 mph roads and, probably more to the point (as above) a reduction from 30 to 20 mph will reduce kinetic energy by less than would, say, reduction from 70 mp[h to 66 mph.

 

[JohnW2]

Well – if you pick small enough areas you could probably find one that has never seen a single accident since the dawn of motoring, but it’s hard to see how that could support an argument for no speed limits at all.

True, but I wasn't talking about just one 'small area'. Rather, I was talking about many (mostly small) villages, observed over a period of a few decades.

In some senses you highlight the issue I was discussing. Nation-wide, the speed limit reduction might have a measurable effect, but from the POV of those in one of these small communities, where one road death might, on average, occur once every few decades, the need for measures to reduce that tiny incidence even further might be regarded as questionable.

In any event, as I have just written, I wonder a little why there is this concentration on (reducing) 30 mph limits, when there are more deaths on roads with higher limits and, probably more to the point, much more scope for reducing kinetic energy (with modest reductions in speed limits) where the speed limit is higher.

 

[JohnW2]

Logic says that you (the collective “you” – the local population) should therefore lobby for speed limits to be increased until a non-zero but still acceptable number of casualties is reached, in order that people could drive as fast as can be afforded.

Your tongue in probably firmly in your cheek but, as you say, that would actually be a totally logical approach.

Indeed, once these changes to 20 mph limits has become very widespread, then maybe there would then be a stronger argument for trying the 'empirical' approach you suggest, by increasing those (lowered) limits until one got close to the 'acceptable number of casualties"