Khan Can

[Cyker]

It's because it's another attack that takes the choice away from the driver - As you say, good drivers will naturally slow down when they feel 30mph is not appropriate, but that isn't the same as saying 20mph is the the correct speed everywhere. Have you ever tried driving on a deserted 3-lane wide road with no obstructions and good visibility at the dead of night at 20mph? I have and it feels incredibly wrong and dangerous. (Esp. since the vast majority don't obey and drive at the speed they feel it's safe to drive at!)

Such low speeds are appropriate during e.g. rush hour where the traffic is heavy, and there are pedestrians everywhere running across the road, but not *all* the time. Drivers need to be allowed the agency and empowered to make these decisions.

As I said above, good drivers understand the limit is not a target, and will drive appropriately. For the drivers that don't, those need to be targeted and retrained or banned.

I personally feel all this nannying is making drivers worse - It increasingly removes their ability to use their brain to make appropriate decisions. Eventually we'll stop thinking and just blindly follow signs and then people will die because a sign is missing or something. And 20mph is really slow - When I'm plodding on a lightly trafficked road at 20mph for miles and miles, my concentration starts to waver and I start to get drowsy, which is a perfectly natural response when you're used to 30+.

We should be working to improve driver standards, not reduce them by taking away their ability to make decisions and making everyone a sign-following robot.

It's like one of the arguments against autonomous cars - If the car does 90% of the driving, the driver's skill will atrophy, and they will be set up to fail when the car suddenly decides it doesn't want to drive one instant and throws control back to the driver, and they crash because they weren't expecting it and/or no longer have the experience or skill to deal with the situation.

 

[Bper]

1 hour ago, Cyker said:

It's because it's another attack that takes the choice away from the driver - As you say, good drivers will naturally slow down when they feel 30mph is not appropriate, but that isn't the same as saying 20mph is the the correct speed everywhere. Have you ever tried driving on a deserted 3-lane wide road with no obstructions and good visibility at the dead of night at 20mph? I have and it feels incredibly wrong and dangerous. (Esp. since the vast majority don't obey and drive at the speed they feel it's safe to drive at!)

Such low speeds are appropriate during e.g. rush hour where the traffic is heavy, and there are pedestrians everywhere running across the road, but not *all* the time. Drivers need to be allowed the agency and empowered to make these decisions.

As I said above, good drivers understand the limit is not a target, and will drive appropriately. For the drivers that don't, those need to be targeted and retrained or banned.

I personally feel all this nannying is making drivers worse - It increasingly removes their ability to use their brain to make appropriate decisions. Eventually we'll stop thinking and just blindly follow signs and then people will die because a sign is missing or something. And 20mph is really slow - When I'm plodding on a lightly trafficked road at 20mph for miles and miles, my concentration starts to waver and I start to get drowsy, which is a perfectly natural response when you're used to 30+.

We should be working to improve driver standards, not reduce them by taking away their ability to make decisions and making everyone a sign-following robot.

It's like one of the arguments against autonomous cars - If the car does 90% of the driving, the driver's skill will atrophy, and they will be set up to fail when the car suddenly decides it doesn't want to drive one instant and throws control back to the driver, and they crash because they weren't expecting it and/or no longer have the experience or skill to deal with the situation.

 

If this 20mph speed restriction is not just confined to specific areas and roads and makes its way to reduced motorway speeds then what is the future for building cars that are capable of higher speeds. 

Surely manufacturers will be forced to just build smaller engines with for example 30-40mph max speed capabilitys. This does feel like its inevitable that this will happen.☹️

[Yugguy1970]

https://www.dailypost.co.uk/news/north-wales-news/went-sunday-drive-20mph-felt-27731005

[Haliotis]

What is “good visibility at dead of night”?  It cannot be equated as being similar to good daylight conditions.  Also, whilst it is agreed that good drivers will adjust their speeds according to conditions, we see daily that there are many drivers on our roads who simply do not do that.  Shortly after my last missive, I was a passenger in a car that was being driven in a built-up area. Another driver in a BMW overtook at speed in a 40 mph limit and switched lanes to pass other vehicles that were obeying the limit.  Further on, he crossed three lanes, from right to left, at the last minute to take a left fork onto another road, travelling much faster than other traffic around him.

Like it or not, it is these drivers who generate the decisions by authority that we [all drivers] must be controlled in how we use our vehicles.  Those of us that are sensible and careful drivers thus have to pay the price of being curtailed, because carnage on our roads cannot be condoned under any circumstances.  Admittedly, there are some pundits who would stifle the driving fraternity but, in general, it is the behaviour of the unruly drivers that prompt “authority” to rein us in.

I would rather live with these controls than have the idiots develop our roads into unbridled anarchy.

[Cyker]

1 hour ago, Haliotis said:

What is “good visibility at dead of night”?

Area flood lit with the sort of excessively bright LED street lamps I've complained about before

 

1 hour ago, Haliotis said:

 Also, whilst it is agreed that good drivers will adjust their speeds according to conditions, we see daily that there are many drivers on our roads who simply do not do that.

Agreed, and THOSE are the ones that should be targeted instead of the rest of us being punished.

You and the powers that be also need to realize that those drivers are the ones least likely to pay attention to such limits, and that will widen the speed disparity between law abiding drivers and non.

And as I've said before, this idea that speed=danger is very disingenuous - Speed on its own is not dangerous; It's large differences and changes in speed that are, and this just widens that gap.

If you combine it with the increased probability for pedestrians to try and cross because they see you driving slowly, it just increases the risk they will get hit by a bad driver.

 

I think drivers are generally pretty safe, but there is a distinct lack of enforcement for the few that are smeg pots; In some places, esp. where speed limits are excessively low, I see drivers increasingly flouting speed limits, and even ignoring red lights if they think it's clear, esp. at road works, and judging by how it's increasing it's clear there is no real enforcement going on.

What there are a lot of is speed and bus lane cameras that automatically generate fines.

 

I can't help feel that safety is not the goal, but rather revenue generation is - It feels every change they've made to the road network lately has been cited for safety or pollution reasons, yet has either been to cut costs or generate revenue without actually increasing safety or reducing pollution.

[AndyN01]

I've posted before that speed in itself doesn't kill.

Otherwise everyone who participates in Motorsport would be dead as would all our RAF fighter jet pilots.

Inappropriate speed coupled to other factors such as space (or the lack of it) kills and the skill, knowledge, experience and attitude of the person in control is a huge factor in what determines an appropriate or inappropriate speed.

Andy.

 

[Guest]

Well, voting for Labour, what do you expect? 

Whilst I agree everything they want is good (more money for NHS, new schools, green laws, more favourable workers rights) - they forget that it all costs M O N E Y. And just because it isn't coming out of one pocket, you bet it's coming out of others. 

Unfortunately, in most cases, that's tax payers. In this case, car owners. 

Yeah, sure, in an ideal world we'll all drive EVs with 500 mile ranges and be able to afford to buy a new car twice as often when the Battery dies in 6 years - and support loads of jobs, in our ideally UK located factories, keeping big payouts and bonuses coming...  but this just isn't reality.  Most of the people driving these dirty old diesels, or polluting petrols from the early 2000s are the average working class people and it's not their fault they've been born into, grown up in and now live in London and they're the ones being forced out of having private transport or being able to put modest amounts of fuel into their cars to drive into town each day. 

If there's one thing that doesn't deter the rich, huge-supercar and Range Rover driving upper class, it's taxes and money penalties. They will gladly still own a collection of cars, line the governments pockets with the eco-charges and flaunt their wealth. If you calculate environmental damage per person.. it's these folks you'd need to change the tune of.  There might be more of the lower income people, but they aren't burning their fuel for fun... more like... keeping their homes warm... getting to work, taking their kids to school - earning a living.

So tell me Sadiq, just who needs to be 'less selfish and think about the planet', really? And whose wallet needs to take a kicking? 

Honestly say what you want about the Tories. But they're keeping the country alive. Credit crunch, Covid, etc - that's all global. Every other country struggled and most came out a lot worse than us.  Obviously, like I said above, we all want new schools, hospitals, stellar pay for people who look after us in the NHS etc, but it costs m o n e y. And the idealists go blank when you try to ask them where they'll get it from.

Truly, only my generation and below (I'm 27) can be stupid enough to actually support modern Labour in the hopes that they have a magical source of money, and to really believe the folks in power now could fix it, but choose not to... because they're evil Tories who want to kill the lower classes!  Honestly.  Sadiq and his ULEZ plan really is living proof of the opposite. 

[Guest]

16 minutes ago, AndyN01 said:

Inappropriate speed coupled to other factors such as space (or the lack of it) kills and the skill, knowledge, experience and attitude of the person in control is a huge factor in what determines an appropriate or inappropriate speed.

 

I mean, sure, in theory maybe. But no...  The most skilled driver in the world still can't anticipate what's around every corner in a new town he hasn't driven in before to be able to make his judgement about driving 60 on that country road...  And as you touched on, he also can't anticipate or compensate for every other driver on the road who might.. actually, who WILL neglect the basic rules that impact his path. They are expecting a set speed on a road, and for the 'skilled' driver to be doing double that, would lead to disaster.  And public roads are massive pools of people of mixed ability, usually toward the lower - sometimes shockingly - due to not following the rules or paying attention. 

High skill, high experience drivers lower the chance of self inflicted mistakes leading to an accident. But they largely mean nothing without repetitive practice, on a track...or in a performance car... the real world roads are too spontaneous for that to actually apply realistically. 

By all means, what you're saying sounds really cool. But in practice it barely could stand up to all of the real world factors and unpredictable factors that are constantly at play. It might mitigate some factors but even then, you turn that volume control up by allowing them to speed and even with all factors calculated out perfectly, you're still increasing the likelihood of the expert driver still having a crash, and a severe one.  Why should even that small marginal increase be allowed on our roads? If it goes from killing 10 to 1 driver a year, why still have that one death if keeping lower speeds would avoid it?  

Tl;dr - increasing speed still increases risks and severity of accidents, no matter how skilled a driver is 

[Guest]

22 minutes ago, AndyN01 said:

Otherwise everyone who participates in Motorsport would be dead as would all our RAF fighter jet pilots.

 

Just to add to my other post, yes, they would be - if they did motorsport on normal roads, in normal cars, with normal accident response times. 

And RAF fighter jets, try navigating them down your main street... the sky is NOT the road.  their training is so specific, their environment so much different to the road, their company up there, all highly skilled, highly monitored and tracked peers. 

If every driver had the same level of specific, local training and experience hours going around every bend.. ever manouvere - and everyone else on the road did too, with ambulances waiting at every turn, mechanics checking and fixing their cars on their driveways every day, then yes, high speed and low death figures could entail... 

But that's not reality. is it? 

[Yugguy1970]

It doesn't help that driving is seen as a right, so we end up with many drivers for whom the skill just isn't natural, they don't understand how or why a car behaves it does.

 

[Haliotis]

51 minutes ago, AndyN01 said:

I've posted before that speed in itself doesn't kill.

Otherwise everyone who participates in Motorsport would be dead as would all our RAF fighter jet pilots.

Inappropriate speed coupled to other factors such as space (or the lack of it) kills and the skill, knowledge, experience and attitude of the person in control is a huge factor in what determines an appropriate or inappropriate speed.

Andy.

 

Now you are getting to the point, Andy.  I would not compare motorsport to ordinary road driving - here, all drivers are of a high standard of skill, plus everyone is going in the same direction.

Drivers on public roads have widely varying degree of skill - in some cases perhaps little skill at all - and there is a great variation in how closely drivers follow the rules laid down in the Highway Code.  Add to this that many drivers are over-optimistic in how well they can drive, plus the differences in degree of roadworthiness of individual vehicles.

With all these variations, the authorities are left to find a median with which to apply their regulations for how the roads are used.  They, in turn, will consult with various “safety groups” who may, or may not, be as knowledgeable as they claim.  We know that a lot of extremist views get carried into some of the decisions made but, I would ask you in all honesty, “Would you wish to have the responsibility for deciding what speeds are safe in the wide variations of road situations and variable congestion times, bearing in mind that you would be liable for criticism from the whole spectrum of public opinion?”    I have my own personal views, but would they be the same if I were to be held to account for traffic control decisions?

[AndyN01]

I said that speed in itself doesn't kill.

The "examples" were about something that goes fast and the "participants" aren't dead just from going fast.

I wasn't suggesting that it should be a free for all

I accept the other comments but just going fast doesn't kill you.

Ever been on a derestricted Autobhan? I have at nearly twice our legal limit and (1) I'm still here and (2) it was me who rolled the throttle off as I wasn't comfortable at that speed two up with two contact patches the size of a credit card. Oh, and I was still "in the way" of several big Mercs BMW's & Audi's who were significantly quicker. I made the decision to slow down.

It's the cumulative effects of the individual, specific, circumstances that lead to a situation where something happens, someone makes a "poor" decision and someone gets hurt or dies.

Andy.

 

 

[Guest]

1 hour ago, AndyN01 said:

I said that speed in itself doesn't kill.

The "examples" were about something that goes fast and the "participants" aren't dead just from going fast.

I wasn't suggesting that it should be a free for all

I accept the other comments but just going fast doesn't kill you.

Ever been on a derestricted Autobhan? I have at nearly twice our legal limit and (1) I'm still here and (2) it was me who rolled the throttle off as I wasn't comfortable at that speed two up with two contact patches the size of a credit card. Oh, and I was still "in the way" of several big Mercs BMW's & Audi's who were significantly quicker. I made the decision to slow down.

It's the cumulative effects of the individual, specific, circumstances that lead to a situation where something happens, someone makes a "poor" decision and someone gets hurt or dies.

Andy.

Autobahn is comparable to our motorways only, and our motorways are as safe / suitable for speeds in excess of 70mph, despite that being the legal limit.  I would guess that the geography of Germany and the expansive distances / lengths of Autobahn versus our typical motorway stretches / close together junctions and usual build ups would make it much less enjoyable, even if we could go double the speed limit today.  I would seriously love Germany / the EU to eat its own words given the amount of ridiculous rules and policies and restrictions it enforces 'because climate change', when they are recreationally burning much more fuel in their cars for the sake of speed and fun... doesn't seem very eco-conscious to me..

I don't know the figures on the deaths / accidents on UK motorways versus Germany, but I can promise you a crash at 140mph is fatal 99% of the time in any model of BMW , Audi or other road car. Let alone the consequences to other cars, even ones going slower around it on that Autobahn versus, the already dire survival rates of being in a 70mph crash on our motorways.  Personally to me (and seemingly our law makers) that's bad enough, and realistically a fair compromise between going fast enough to make motorways useful, but reasonable enough to keep accidents / survival rates as high as we can too without going too much over-the-top in making the speed slower. 

I mean speed in itself doesn't kill, just like guns don't kill, right? Should we loosen our rules on that in the UK?  - sorry to sound so rude or argumentative, but arguments like 'speed doesn't kill', whilst technically correct, lack quite a bit of the substance of any discussion that applies to things like road traffic accidents / laws. In the same way that someone in the US might proclaim 'guns don't kill', as a way to end any discussion on how to combat gun crimes / deaths. I think it's quite a fair comparison. 

 

[Haliotis]

Andy said, “It’s the cumulated effects of the individual, specific, circumstances that lead to a situation where something happens, someone makes a ‘poor’ decision and someone gets hurt or dies.”

This is very true. But the speed at which this happens affects (a) the seriousness of the outcome, (b) the ability for those immediately involved to take remedial action to avoid a collision, and (c) how successful the wider public can also be in avoiding involvement.

If all users of the public highway were fully capable of, and could be trusted to use restraint, it could be argued that no speed limits were necessary at all. But we all know from experience that this is never going to be the case.  When the M1 was first opened, there were no crash barriers, the central reservation was grass with just standard kerbing, and there was no speed limit.  I drove on that first section soon after it was opened to the public.  At the time, my car was capable of a top speed of about 74 mph, which I attained.  Large, powerful cars shot by me as if I were crawling along.  A red Daimler sports car shot by like a bullet.  When I reached the Watford Gap services, the driver of this Daimler had a front wheel off due to a puncture, and the curvature of the cross section of the tyre had reversed to be concave, and the rubber was molten and sticky to the touch.  Best of all - the car was a new one being delivered to the customer!!!

Compare those days to the modern motorway - 70mph speed limit, crash barriers, and the hard shoulder so dangerous that, if you are broken down, advised to get over the barrier and as far from the road as possible.

There is no such thing as a dangerous road - only dangerous people on it.

[Basil-BarryC]

Khan’s latest comments at a US climate conference “ULEZ possible as Londoners educated on health and climate change” - Guess I must have missed that day at school !

I wonder how he travelled to the States, that super green non air polluting shiny jet I suppose that took off from within his ULEZ zone at Heathrow!
 

God help us if he gets re-elected !

I wonder if the central London congestion charge will then be rolled out to cover the inside of North & South circular roads, then he’ll probably push the Congestion charge to cover all the London boroughs to make even more money, after all the cameras will already be in place ( Unless they’ve been vandalised )

But it’s not about the money is it ? It’s about clean air 🤔

[AndyN01]

20 hours ago, SB1500 said:

Autobahn is comparable to our motorways only, and our motorways are as safe / suitable for speeds in excess of 70mph, despite that being the legal limit.  I would guess that the geography of Germany and the expansive distances / lengths of Autobahn versus our typical motorway stretches / close together junctions and usual build ups would make it much less enjoyable, even if we could go double the speed limit today.  I would seriously love Germany / the EU to eat its own words given the amount of ridiculous rules and policies and restrictions it enforces 'because climate change', when they are recreationally burning much more fuel in their cars for the sake of speed and fun... doesn't seem very eco-conscious to me..

I don't know the figures on the deaths / accidents on UK motorways versus Germany, but I can promise you a crash at 140mph is fatal 99% of the time in any model of BMW , Audi or other road car. Let alone the consequences to other cars, even ones going slower around it on that Autobahn versus, the already dire survival rates of being in a 70mph crash on our motorways.  Personally to me (and seemingly our law makers) that's bad enough, and realistically a fair compromise between going fast enough to make motorways useful, but reasonable enough to keep accidents / survival rates as high as we can too without going too much over-the-top in making the speed slower. 

I mean speed in itself doesn't kill, just like guns don't kill, right? Should we loosen our rules on that in the UK?  - sorry to sound so rude or argumentative, but arguments like 'speed doesn't kill', whilst technically correct, lack quite a bit of the substance of any discussion that applies to things like road traffic accidents / laws. In the same way that someone in the US might proclaim 'guns don't kill', as a way to end any discussion on how to combat gun crimes / deaths. I think it's quite a fair comparison. 

 

The gun analogy is interesting.

Guns, like cars, are just a lump of engineering. They are inanimate so cannot cause any hurt or injury until a human gets involved.

Should we loosen our gun rules in the UK? No, we should tighten the rules on poor driving and I'm NOT talking about speed cameras as they have no consideration of the myriad of variables that led to the speeding. But, of course, that takes fully trained people and lots of them and, say, on board camera footage to be reviewed and assessed and then admin and delivery of whatever education/punishment is considered appropriate, etc. etc.

AFAIK and from what we saw the Germans have a different attitude to risk and a very different attitude to observing the law. Mind you, their patrol cars are 911's and the officers carry guns + "larger" ones on board.

What message do you consider is taken on board by "drivers" who "speed" and nothing happens? They don't die, there's no accident or collision, nothing. So, for them, does speed kill? No. So the message is perceived to be false time and time again until it is simply disregarded as "Crying Wolf." Worse, all similar information is disregarded which starts the string of events that leads to nasty things happening.

I'll personally vouch for HGV's ignoring a "Red Cross" on Lane 1 of a Motorway while we were changing a wheel in the refuge area following a puncture. Truly scary but I don't blame the HGV drivers as I've travelled many, many miles of M'way with "Red crosses" and there's absolutely nothing there and no sign that there ever has been. So, it's no surprise that folks that see "nothing" day in, day out get to the point where they simple don't believe any signage until they can actuality see something or...it's too late.

Just how far do we go to try to prevent "accidents" and "dumb down" the incredibly complex skill of driving?

Andy.

 

 

 

 

[Guest]

46 minutes ago, AndyN01 said:

The gun analogy is interesting.

Guns, like cars, are just a lump of engineering. They are inanimate so cannot cause any hurt or injury until a human gets involved.

Should we loosen our gun rules in the UK? No, we should tighten the rules on poor driving and I'm NOT talking about speed cameras as they have no consideration of the myriad of variables that led to the speeding. But, of course, that takes fully trained people and lots of them and, say, on board camera footage to be reviewed and assessed and then admin and delivery of whatever education/punishment is considered appropriate, etc. etc.

AFAIK and from what we saw the Germans have a different attitude to risk and a very different attitude to observing the law. Mind you, their patrol cars are 911's and the officers carry guns + "larger" ones on board.

What message do you consider is taken on board by "drivers" who "speed" and nothing happens? They don't die, there's no accident or collision, nothing. So, for them, does speed kill? No. So the message is perceived to be false time and time again until it is simply disregarded as "Crying Wolf." Worse, all similar information is disregarded which starts the string of events that leads to nasty things happening.

I'll personally vouch for HGV's ignoring a "Red Cross" on Lane 1 of a Motorway while we were changing a wheel in the refuge area following a puncture. Truly scary but I don't blame the HGV drivers as I've travelled many, many miles of M'way with "Red crosses" and there's absolutely nothing there and no sign that there ever has been. So, it's no surprise that folks that see "nothing" day in, day out get to the point where they simple don't believe any signage until they can actuality see something or...it's too late.

Just how far do we go to try to prevent "accidents" and "dumb down" the incredibly complex skill of driving?

Andy.

Higher speed = need for higher driver skill.

Do you really think increased speed on our roads - given that we can't get a majority of drivers up to the current standard needed - won't result in more accidents and deaths? 

That would be foolish. Honestly, the gun analogy is the exact same as what you're saying. Might as well say "we need more guns, just train more people how to use them" ... 

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Basil-BarryC said:

Khan’s latest comments at a US climate conference “ULEZ possible as Londoners educated on health and climate change” - Guess I must have missed that day at school !

I wonder how he travelled to the States, that super green non air polluting shiny jet I suppose that took off from within his ULEZ zone at Heathrow!
 

God help us if he gets re-elected !

I wonder if the central London congestion charge will then be rolled out to cover the inside of North & South circular roads, then he’ll probably push the Congestion charge to cover all the London boroughs to make even more money, after all the cameras will already be in place ( Unless they’ve been vandalised )

But it’s not about the money is it ? It’s about clean air 🤔

If he cared about the environment he'd attend via video call, and when it stands out / looks odd, he'd use that as a reminder to lead by example on practicing what he preaches. 

He should produce a very focussed report on where the money from ULEZ goes and how it helps normal people / air pollution in London.  Why doesn't he put it toward a fund which, for people living in London, can get up to 50% grant of the value of small EVs - and roll it out in other big cities with air quality issues. Seems fair to me, tax heavily, but use the money to make EVs affordable to those who could benefit from them / locales which might benefit from them. 

Because as far as I can see, EVs are nothing but drawback on every factor, except that the emissions are transferred to the coal fired station which makes the electricity, and not the tailpipe - meaning clean air for lungs of people around them in congested London. ..Maybe I should run for mayor. 

[Haliotis]

Various groups, including the likes of Khan, have worked on ideas to continually punish motorists that they have completely lost the plot.  Cars like hybrids and diesels with Euro6 engines are compliant and meet ULEZ requirements, so by Khan’s own admissions these vehicles are clean and not a toxic threat.

A car travelling at 20 mph is less clean than one travelling at 30 mph, mainly because it will be in a lower gear, so less mpg is achieved.  If drivers are prosecuted at 21 mph (?) then will drivers be concentrating so hard on the speedometer that a pedestrian could go unnoticed?  My 2021 C-HR has a relatively small diameter speedometer, and would probably show the needle to be partly over the marker at 21 mph.   I believe cruise controls are not operative until 20 mph is achieved, so setting the cruise control to avoid “speeding” could be difficult.   Look at tyre wear graphs (e.g., Continental Tyres) and it will show a 3mm tread stops in a shorter distance at 30 mph, than a 1.6mm tread at 20 mph.  I change my tyres at 3mm tread, but how many drivers go down to 1.6mm tread, or close to it?  Brake fluid is hygroscopic, and absorbs moisture over time.  This makes brakes ‘spongy’ and reduces efficiency - my maintenance plan requires fluid change every 2 years, but how common is this procedure across all cars on the road?

These examples indicate just how pointless is the reduction of the the speed limit from 30 mph to 20 mph, when other factors nullify the safety intentions.

[Big_D]

15 minutes ago, Haliotis said:

These examples indicate just how pointless is the reduction of the the speed limit from 30 mph to 20 mph, when other factors nullify the safety intentions.

I was reading an article on the new 20mph speed limits in Wales, which came into effect on Sunday. I was interested to note that this does not apply to bicycles. Odd, as there are many that can exceed the 20 mph limit.

Here is a link to the article https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-62134399 

 

[AndyN01]

6 hours ago, SB1500 said:

Higher speed = need for higher driver skill.

Do you really think increased speed on our roads - given that we can't get a majority of drivers up to the current standard needed - won't result in more accidents and deaths? 

That would be foolish. Honestly, the gun analogy is the exact same as what you're saying. Might as well say "we need more guns, just train more people how to use them" ... 

I'm very happy to debate speed and skill.

I totally agree that the current standard is clearly lacking and there should be much higher driver skill but as everyone has "passed their test" (yes I realise some/many haven't) everyone is already "up to the current standard." So, is that standard failing "us" and do we need a new standard?

In any case as this is a thread about then ULEZ perhaps it should have one of its own?

 

[Cyker]

7 hours ago, SB1500 said:

Higher speed = need for higher driver skill.

Definitely not as simple as that - I'd argue it requires far more skill to drive through the highly congested suicidal pedestrian/cyclist/scooter-ridden London roads I regularly do at 20mph, than it does to drive at 70mph on the motorway.

It's so easy to drive at 70mph on the motorway even 1st generation car AI's can do it, but put them in my London roads and I bet they'd be in an accident almost immediately.

So obviously it's not that clear cut;

It's all situational - This is why I've been saying all along, you can't just change the speed limit on a road by sticking signs up; The road has to be DESIGNED for that speed, then the majority of drivers will naturally speed up or slow down to how that road is designed.

The way they're doing it at the moment, i.e. On the Cheap, as always, it just training drivers to ignore the rules. This is one of the worst things about the Smart Motorway, as it randomly just has incorrect signs on, and people now mostly just ignore them.

It's like the boy who cried wolf - Repeated false information will lead to disaster on the more rare occasion the information is true, because there is little way to tell the difference.

My current pet gripe is Smart lane closure signs - At first, people used to move over when the gantries displayed lane closures, but because they were false so many times at the beginning, now a significant number of drivers will ignore them and fly past everyone else, encouraging others to do so. And they get away with it because a lot of the time it is false, and even when it isn't they just force their way in, sometimes right at the cones, and the Traffic Officers can't do anything other than yell at them because they're busy dealing with the incident, so there is no enforcement or consequence.

 

 

[Haliotis]

I think, Andy, it would be more accurate to say, “everyone is assumed  to be up to the current standard.  Compared to when I passed my test (1953) a new standard was brought in.  I expected to see other, newer drivers ‘showing me the ropes’.  Sadly, this is not the case - it seems that many drivers have no pride in their driving skills, or think it is a weakness to ‘follow the rules’.

I have met elderly drivers, such as myself, who only drive at quiet times and are not truly safe among heavy traffic.  To avoid falling into this category, even though I am retired, I regularly drive at busy periods to keep up with traffic conditions.

As a matter of interest, having recently given up caravanning due to my wife now being a blue Badge holder (she doesn’t drive), and setting up a caravan can be daunting for one person only, we are now looking at motorcaravans with the intention of continuing our pastime. And I haven’t given up the hope to drive in France again. Sorry to have moved further from the topic.🥲

[Cyker]

6 hours ago, Big_D said:

I was reading an article on the new 20mph speed limits in Wales, which came into effect on Sunday. I was interested to note that this does not apply to bicycles. Odd, as there are many that can exceed the 20 mph limit.

Here is a link to the article https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-62134399 

 

Well cyclists have always been a law unto themselves; Cycling without lights, jumping on and off the pavement, running red lights - All can be done with little to no consequence if you're a cyclist.

This is why cyclists are generally the least well regarded of road users. Even motorcyclists and mopeds command greater respect, since they actually had to past a test and are subject to the highway code.

It will be funny seeing the hardcore ones overtaking cars tho' - I was following one down a slow A-road on the weekend and they managed to sustain a bit over 30mph until we got to a hilly bit; I was very impressed!

I reckon I'd struggle to get up to 10 before I'd get palpitations  

 

[Haliotis]

On today’s BBC News: “ Mr Khan said it was not fair that children had stunted lungs, adults had health problems, and that many of the poorest Londoners did not have a car.”

Ha, ha! So he is concerned about the poorest Londoners not  having a car, but he is quite happy to try to drive those who have cars out of theirs. Does he have a special air-conditioned room at home, and has gone giddy due to breathing in over-rich oxygen?