If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Independent)   British government encourages local officials to reduce speed limit to 20 mph. Deaths and injuries in 20 mph zones rise 24%   (independent.co.uk) divider line 52
    More: Fail, Government of the United Kingdom, Dust Bowl, local knowledge, Clare Balding, British Medical Journal, Robert Fisk  
•       •       •

4939 clicks; posted to Main » on 11 Aug 2012 at 3:47 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



52 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-08-11 01:41:43 PM
As a US guy, driving there is confusing and requires the maths. Besides driving on the wrong side of the road, speed limits are in mph, distances are in km.
 
2012-08-11 03:43:06 PM
What was the change in the number of miles driven on 20mph roads?
 
2012-08-11 03:50:32 PM

simplicimus: As a US guy, driving there is confusing and requires the maths. Besides driving on the wrong side of the road, speed limits are in mph, distances are in km.


No they aren't.

No wonder you were confused....
 
2012-08-11 03:51:16 PM
When the amount of road where x was true increased by y miles, a corresponding increase in z occurred. Here's Ric Romero with more.
 
2012-08-11 03:52:49 PM

simplicimus: As a US guy, driving there is confusing and requires the maths. Besides driving on the wrong side of the road, speed limits are in mph, distances are in km.


Actually, no. Road lengths are marked out in km (in 100-metre increments) but distances are always shown at large in miles.
 
2012-08-11 03:53:24 PM
* road lengths on motorways, that is.
 
2012-08-11 03:55:36 PM

Asa Phelps: What was the change in the number of miles driven on 20mph roads?


yup

The number of people killed or injured on roads in built up areas with a speed limit of 20mph totalled 2,262 in 2011, up by 24% from 2010.

Meanwhile casualties on 30mph roads were down by 1% from 2010, recorded at 125,494 in 2011, according to data from the Department of Transport.


if we assume that all newly designated 20mph roads were previously 30mph roads.

.24 * 2262 = 543

-.01 * 125494 = -1255

Δ = -712 fatalities
 
2012-08-11 04:01:45 PM
I don't know the full numbers, but I bet a bunch of the injuries were from people thinking they could run across the 20mph traffic.
 
2012-08-11 04:11:55 PM
Why don't we just make it 0 mph? For safety.
 
2012-08-11 04:12:09 PM
Wow, they have a group advocating 20 mph nationally. Link

That shiat just wouldn't fly in the USA.
 
2012-08-11 04:16:13 PM

simplicimus: As a US guy, driving there is confusing and requires the maths. Besides driving on the wrong side of the road, speed limits are in mph, distances are in km.


What? No they're not! All speed limits and distances are in miles in the UK, and shorter distances are in yards.
 
2012-08-11 04:18:11 PM

Asa Phelps: What was the change in the number of miles driven on 20mph roads?


You'd think that would be the first question to ask (especially since the push to increase the number of 20mph zones), but it doesn't seen to have occurred to the journalist, or subby.
 
2012-08-11 04:21:14 PM
When mathematically inverse relationships go wrong....
 
2012-08-11 04:22:27 PM
Holy frack - there were 125,494 casualties in 2011 ???

FTFA:
Meanwhile casualties on 30mph roads were down by 1% from 2010, recorded at 125,494 in 2011, according to data from the Department of Transport.

That seems like an unreasonable number of deaths in one year. Is there also a war going on in England, a war that is only happening in the 20mph zones?
 
2012-08-11 04:26:58 PM

Telekinesis Kyle: Holy frack - there were 125,494 casualties in 2011 ???

FTFA:
Meanwhile casualties on 30mph roads were down by 1% from 2010, recorded at 125,494 in 2011, according to data from the Department of Transport.

That seems like an unreasonable number of deaths in one year. Is there also a war going on in England, a war that is only happening in the 20mph zones?


Casualty = injury or death, not just death
 
2012-08-11 04:33:07 PM

Telekinesis Kyle: Holy frack - there were 125,494 casualties in 2011 ???

FTFA:
Meanwhile casualties on 30mph roads were down by 1% from 2010, recorded at 125,494 in 2011, according to data from the Department of Transport.

That seems like an unreasonable number of deaths in one year. Is there also a war going on in England, a war that is only happening in the 20mph zones?


I missed that. According to Wikipedia, there were 1,901 road fatalities in 2011. Based on the other numbers, my guess is that the 125,494 number refers to total traffic accidents, not fatalities or injuries.
 
2012-08-11 04:38:55 PM

Telekinesis Kyle: Holy frack - there were 125,494 casualties in 2011 ???

FTFA:
Meanwhile casualties on 30mph roads were down by 1% from 2010, recorded at 125,494 in 2011, according to data from the Department of Transport.

That seems like an unreasonable number of deaths in one year. Is there also a war going on in England, a war that is only happening in the 20mph zones?


I don't feel like doing all the necessary research and maths right now, but:
- 'Casualties' are not the same thing as 'fatalities'; in any country, the number of injured will vastly exceed the number killed, several times over.
- There are many, many traffic casualties in all industrialised countries. Over 32,000 people were killed on U.S. roads in 2010. The great news? That's the lowest figure since 1949. But if you came from a poor rural country, you'd be forgiven for supposing there was a war going on here. In a way, there is.
- To get a good sense of proportion, we'd want to compare U.S. and UK figures; I'm betting they're not very dissimilar.

Last word: This won't stop until we have robot cars. That really is the last word on this. We've had more than a century to demonstrate that we can safely handle cars. We've proven we can't. It's time to give it up, now that we can.
 
2012-08-11 04:39:07 PM

Lehk: Asa Phelps: What was the change in the number of miles driven on 20mph roads?

yup

The number of people killed or injured on roads in built up areas with a speed limit of 20mph totalled 2,262 in 2011, up by 24% from 2010.

Meanwhile casualties on 30mph roads were down by 1% from 2010, recorded at 125,494 in 2011, according to data from the Department of Transport.

if we assume that all newly designated 20mph roads were previously 30mph roads.

.24 * 2262 = 543

-.01 * 125494 = -1255

Δ = -712 fatalities


Not really an apt equivalent - 20mph zones are usually around schools, not for the whole road. It tends to be in a small area.
 
2012-08-11 04:41:19 PM

rugman11: Telekinesis Kyle: Holy frack - there were 125,494 casualties in 2011 ???

FTFA:
Meanwhile casualties on 30mph roads were down by 1% from 2010, recorded at 125,494 in 2011, according to data from the Department of Transport.

That seems like an unreasonable number of deaths in one year. Is there also a war going on in England, a war that is only happening in the 20mph zones?

I missed that. According to Wikipedia, there were 1,901 road fatalities in 2011. Based on the other numbers, my guess is that the 125,494 number refers to total traffic accidents, not fatalities or injuries.


Holy cats. Extrapolating from our 2010 roadway fatalities and accounting for comparative population, that means that we're killing ourselves and each other on our roads at a rate more than three times what the British are. Not sure what to make of that, but it's alarming, to say the least.
 
2012-08-11 04:44:39 PM

Sylvia_Bandersnatch: rugman11: Telekinesis Kyle: Holy frack - there were 125,494 casualties in 2011 ???

FTFA:
Meanwhile casualties on 30mph roads were down by 1% from 2010, recorded at 125,494 in 2011, according to data from the Department of Transport.

That seems like an unreasonable number of deaths in one year. Is there also a war going on in England, a war that is only happening in the 20mph zones?

I missed that. According to Wikipedia, there were 1,901 road fatalities in 2011. Based on the other numbers, my guess is that the 125,494 number refers to total traffic accidents, not fatalities or injuries.

Holy cats. Extrapolating from our 2010 roadway fatalities and accounting for comparative population, that means that we're killing ourselves and each other on our roads at a rate more than three times what the British are. Not sure what to make of that, but it's alarming, to say the least.


Correction/retraction: I did not account for comparative roadmiles driven per capita.
 
2012-08-11 04:47:14 PM

Curse of the Goth Kids: Telekinesis Kyle: Holy frack - there were 125,494 casualties in 2011 ???

FTFA:
Meanwhile casualties on 30mph roads were down by 1% from 2010, recorded at 125,494 in 2011, according to data from the Department of Transport.

That seems like an unreasonable number of deaths in one year. Is there also a war going on in England, a war that is only happening in the 20mph zones?

Casualty = injury or death, not just death


Yes, I guess that's true. Still seems high.
 
Skr
2012-08-11 04:47:56 PM
I think my car would kill having to go 20 mph for any extended length of a journey. Definitely would need a different car in that environment.
 
2012-08-11 04:48:33 PM

the_chief: Why don't we just make it 0 mph? For safety.


Why don't we just make it 400MPH? For freedom.
 
2012-08-11 04:49:15 PM

Sylvia_Bandersnatch:

Holy cats. Extrapolating from our 2010 roadway fatalities and accounting for comparative population, that means that we're killing ourselves and each other on our roads at a rate more than three times what the British are. Not sure what to make of that, but it's alarming, to say the least.


We drive a hell of a lot more than they do. According to the DOT, we average about 250 billion miles driven per month. Comparatively, the UK drives about 250 billion miles per YEAR.
 
2012-08-11 04:53:52 PM

rugman11: Sylvia_Bandersnatch:

Holy cats. Extrapolating from our 2010 roadway fatalities and accounting for comparative population, that means that we're killing ourselves and each other on our roads at a rate more than three times what the British are. Not sure what to make of that, but it's alarming, to say the least.

We drive a hell of a lot more than they do. According to the DOT, we average about 250 billion miles driven per month. Comparatively, the UK drives about 250 billion miles per YEAR.


Are you aware the link you gave for UK mileage is not for the UK? It is only for Scotland.
 
2012-08-11 04:55:22 PM
"British Medical Journal research has shown a reduction in casualties and collision of around 40%, a reduction in children killed or seriously injured of 50% and reduction in casualties among cyclists by 17%.

Did subby not read the article or not understand it?
 
2012-08-11 04:57:59 PM
From 1903 to 1931, Britain had a national 20mph speed limit. In 1931, speed limits were abolished and deaths dropped by about 11% annually.
 
2012-08-11 04:58:41 PM
"British government encourages local officials to reduce speed limit to 20 mph. Deaths and injuries in 20 mph zones rise 24%"

Well duh, if you increase the number of 20MPH roads, the number of casualties on 20MPH roads will increase. Based on the figures in the article, reducing the speed from 30MPH to 20MPH has actually been a success, rather than the fail the subby seems to think.
 
2012-08-11 05:01:53 PM
For some context I looked up the figures and there were 7 killed, 289 seriously injured, 1,966 slightly injured on 20 mph roads and 636 killed, 13,168 seriously injured, 111,690 slightly injured on 30 mph roads....
 
2012-08-11 05:03:45 PM

crab66: the_chief: Why don't we just make it 0 mph? For safety.

Why don't we just make it 400MPH? For freedom.


They should. It would probably work better than the current speed limit.
 
2012-08-11 05:06:56 PM

rugman11: Sylvia_Bandersnatch:

Holy cats. Extrapolating from our 2010 roadway fatalities and accounting for comparative population, that means that we're killing ourselves and each other on our roads at a rate more than three times what the British are. Not sure what to make of that, but it's alarming, to say the least.

We drive a hell of a lot more than they do. According to the DOT, we average about 250 billion miles driven per month. Comparatively, the UK drives about 250 billion miles per YEAR.


In the US 100 years is considered to be a long time; in the UK 100 miles is considered to be a long way.
 
2012-08-11 05:07:08 PM
Road casualties in 20mph zones increased by almost a uarter in 2011, according to official figures.

t2.gstatic.com

What's a uarter?
 
2012-08-11 05:15:56 PM

ottawaboy: For some context I looked up the figures and there were 7 killed, 289 seriously injured, 1,966 slightly injured on 20 mph roads and 636 killed, 13,168 seriously injured, 111,690 slightly injured on 30 mph roads....


No shiat.

40mph = pedestrian will die
30mph = evens on death
20mph = pedestrian will bounce off and curse lodly at driver unless otherwise infirm
 
2012-08-11 05:17:30 PM

Spiralmonkey: rugman11: Sylvia_Bandersnatch:

Holy cats. Extrapolating from our 2010 roadway fatalities and accounting for comparative population, that means that we're killing ourselves and each other on our roads at a rate more than three times what the British are. Not sure what to make of that, but it's alarming, to say the least.

We drive a hell of a lot more than they do. According to the DOT, we average about 250 billion miles driven per month. Comparatively, the UK drives about 250 billion miles per YEAR.

Are you aware the link you gave for UK mileage is not for the UK? It is only for Scotland.


The table where I got my number (488 billion km/yr, ~250 billion mi/yr) is at the top of page three and is titled "Road traffic (vehicle kilometres) by vehicle type and road class in Great Britain, annual 2011".

If I had read the paragraph preceding the table, I would have realized that I did my math wrong.

"How has the change affected the road traffic estimates for 2011 for Great Britain?
The table below shows where the previously published figures for 2011 for Great Britain have
changed. (Figures taken from table TRA0104). The overall motor vehicle traffic volume for 2011 in
Great Britain is 488.9 billion vehicle kilometres (303.8 billion vehicle miles)
, compared to 488.2
billion vehicle kilometres (303.2 billion vehicle miles) published previously."

I may not have the math exactly right, but if Britain drives 303.8 million miles/yr and has 1,901 deaths per year that is 1 death per 159.8 million miles.

The US averages 2.938 trillion miles/yr and has 32,588 deaths, or 1 death per 89.3 million miles.
 
2012-08-11 05:18:14 PM
But they did make more money from speeding tickets, right? Let's just stay focused on what matters.
 
2012-08-11 05:33:25 PM

rugman11: Spiralmonkey: rugman11: Sylvia_Bandersnatch:



"How has the change affected the road traffic estimates for 2011 for Great Britain?
The table below shows where the previously published figures for 2011 for Great Britain have
changed. (Figures taken from table TRA0104). The overall motor vehicle traffic volume for 2011 in
Great Britain is 488.9 billion vehicle kilometres (303.8 billion vehicle miles), compared to 488.2
billion vehicle kilometres (303.2 billion vehicle miles) published previously."

I may not have the math exactly right, but if Britain drives 303.8 million miles/yr and has 1,901 deaths per year that is 1 death per 159.8 million miles.

The US averages 2.938 trillion miles/yr and has 32,588 deaths, or 1 death per 89.3 million miles.


Don't feel bad. The UK has a driving test that actually - y'know - tests you can drive.

You'll feel better if you look up Spain, or Greece.
 
2012-08-11 05:38:13 PM
There is only one possible conclusion to be drawn from this.
The speed limit must be immediately decreased to 10mph on these roads.
 
2012-08-11 05:41:11 PM

wildcardjack: I don't know the full numbers, but I bet a bunch of the injuries were from people thinking they could run across the 20mph traffic.


That and people cruising along at 30 mph, suddenly realizing they are in a 20 mph zone, and slamming on their brakes, inviting rear-end collisions.
 
2012-08-11 06:14:44 PM

opiumpoopy: ottawaboy: For some context I looked up the figures and there were 7 killed, 289 seriously injured, 1,966 slightly injured on 20 mph roads and 636 killed, 13,168 seriously injured, 111,690 slightly injured on 30 mph roads....

No shiat.

40mph = pedestrian will die
30mph = evens on death
20mph = pedestrian will bounce off and curse lodly at driver unless otherwise infirm


In 'Traffic,' Tom Vanderbilt pointed out that there's a sharp increase in morbid injury and death above 25 mph. The theory is that we evolved to handle injuries we could sustain at a maximum run, but not above that.

/note that this applies only to healthy adults
 
2012-08-11 06:33:28 PM

Asa Phelps: What was the change in the number of miles driven on 20mph roads?


LALALALA DO NOT SAY THINGS THAT ARE INCOVENIENTLY TRUE ;)
 
2012-08-11 06:47:54 PM

ThrobblefootSpectre: "British Medical Journal research has shown a reduction in casualties and collision of around 40%, a reduction in children killed or seriously injured of 50% and reduction in casualties among cyclists by 17%.

Did subby not read the article or not understand it?


Did you not read the article or not understand it?

/wondering if I should give a hint... nah.
 
2012-08-11 06:47:57 PM
They would have less accidents in general if they drove on the correct side of the road. Right-hand drive cars are so weird. You drive on the left but all the vehicle controls are right-handed like a left-hand drive car (accelerator on right, clutch and brake on left) but then the shifter is (usually) on the left. The inconsistency is solely because of some assholes that decided that driving on the left was better.

Most people in the world are right handed, driving on the right is simply the logical choice.
 
2012-08-11 06:49:50 PM

Sylvia_Bandersnatch: opiumpoopy: ottawaboy: For some context I looked up the figures and there were 7 killed, 289 seriously injured, 1,966 slightly injured on 20 mph roads and 636 killed, 13,168 seriously injured, 111,690 slightly injured on 30 mph roads....

No shiat.

40mph = pedestrian will die
30mph = evens on death
20mph = pedestrian will bounce off and curse lodly at driver unless otherwise infirm

In 'Traffic,' Tom Vanderbilt pointed out that there's a sharp increase in morbid injury and death above 25 mph. The theory is that we evolved to handle injuries we could sustain at a maximum run, but not above that.

/note that this applies only to healthy adults


I'm not sure that's right, as to the details. Ancient humans lived pretty rough and had to evolve to survive being thrown by wooly rhinos and huge buffalo. But I've no doubt that's correct as to the basic theory. It's for sure we never evolved to suffer blunt-force trauma right over the organ that keeps our blood circulating. The chest is very unforgiving when it comes to crush injuries.
 
2012-08-11 07:07:08 PM

Flint Ironstag: simplicimus: As a US guy, driving there is confusing and requires the maths. Besides driving on the wrong side of the road, speed limits are in mph, distances are in km.

What? No they're not! All speed limits and distances are in miles in the UK, and shorter distances are in yards.


You see, they've got our back
 
2012-08-11 07:11:36 PM

Sylvia_Bandersnatch: Telekinesis Kyle: Holy frack - there were 125,494 casualties in 2011 ???

FTFA:
Meanwhile casualties on 30mph roads were down by 1% from 2010, recorded at 125,494 in 2011, according to data from the Department of Transport.

That seems like an unreasonable number of deaths in one year. Is there also a war going on in England, a war that is only happening in the 20mph zones?

I don't feel like doing all the necessary research and maths right now, but:
- 'Casualties' are not the same thing as 'fatalities'; in any country, the number of injured will vastly exceed the number killed, several times over.
- There are many, many traffic casualties in all industrialised countries. Over 32,000 people were killed on U.S. roads in 2010. The great news? That's the lowest figure since 1949. But if you came from a poor rural country, you'd be forgiven for supposing there was a war going on here. In a way, there is.
- To get a good sense of proportion, we'd want to compare U.S. and UK figures; I'm betting they're not very dissimilar.

Last word: This won't stop until we have robot cars. That really is the last word on this. We've had more than a century to demonstrate that we can safely handle cars. We've proven we can't. It's time to give it up, now that we can.


So a growing industry might be the piloting of Greyhound buses from compounds located centrally to Las Vegas?
 
2012-08-11 08:40:36 PM

simplicimus: As a US guy, driving there is confusing and requires the maths


You're from the US like Mussolini was French.
 
2012-08-11 08:50:22 PM

vodka: They would have less accidents in general if they drove on the correct side of the road. Right-hand drive cars are so weird. You drive on the left but all the vehicle controls are right-handed like a left-hand drive car (accelerator on right, clutch and brake on left) but then the shifter is (usually) on the left. The inconsistency is solely because of some assholes that decided that driving on the left was better.

Most people in the world are right handed, driving on the right is simply the logical choice.


Travel on the left is the correct side. It was done so right handed people on horses could fight someone with a sword who they might meet on the road. Same reason spiral staircases in castles always go up clockwise, so defending soldiers can fight with the right hand around the central pillar and attacking soldiers are at a disadvantage.

With cars I'd say the bit that needs more skill is the steering, which Brits do with the right hand leaving the left hand free to change gears, a simple task.

Having driven both left and and right hand drive cars I can honestly say there is no real difference, you forget about it after maybe ten seconds. If you have problems then you're just not a very good driver.
 
2012-08-12 02:59:48 AM
I drive cars in the UK and Canada and I have to say that changing gears with your right hand is shiat. Right hand on the steering wheel and the left changing gear / tuning radio / lighting a ciggy is a much better system. I dare say someone who's left handed might not agree, but fark 'em.

Don't even get me started on stop signs Vs roundabouts. Stop sign at a junction = stupidest thing to ever happen to motoring.

As for the topic - well, many of the zones that are 20 mph have already been comprehensively ruined with speed bumps, traffic calming, or just plain shiat road surfaces anyway; so going much faster than 20 usually results in some bent suspension / done in shocks and bushes after a while.
 
2012-08-12 04:41:44 AM
Here's an idea: educate pedestrians and bicyclists.

Cars are faster than you.
Cars are stronger than you.
STOP means you also have to stop.
Give way means you also have to give way.
A red light also applies to you.
And please do look around you.
 
2012-08-12 05:47:37 AM
Umm... This IS the subject where I can be a bit cocky. I read neither thee thread and only skimmed the article.

First. Bullshiat...

There will be more accidents below 20 mph. Do you want to know? People slam their brakes and slow down to less than 20 mph.

The accidents WILL be trivial. The whole inclusion of "death" in there is a misnomer and you know that further looking will reveal that that statistic is so far removed from the actual evidence that it being used to support this (whatever it is) is absurd.

Lower speed limits do not help. People are creatures of habit. Simply including a proper speed limit and clear traffic markings will mitigate any true statistical deviations. Of this I am certain... 100% certain...

If the vehicles are slowed to 20 mph there may well be an increase in accidents. This will be due to poor metrics resulting in poor design and inferior traffic flow, idiots, and the newness factor.

These accidents do not kill ANYONE except for some very rare circumstances.

If those accidents have happened, admit you're mistake (and it is your mistake if you're the engineer who signed off on it) and fix it. Model current traffic, mine the data, and improve visibility, lane marking, clear signage, and simple transfers.

In short...

I did not read the article. I did not read the thread. I don't know who came down on one side or the other but I am sure some of you are wrong. Let it be said that, well, you can actually drive around Atlanta (as an example) thanks to me. (It has its faults BUT those faults are rooted in deep pockets. Locals will understand.

Way back, in another time, I attended a very respectable school of much higher education and my goal was my PHD as an EE. Academia was my ultimate goal. Security was a major interest.

Anyhow, a project that modeled traffic was printed about in a few small magazines, picked up in a few others, and I had startup funds to go. I went and went well. I've long since sold my business and am retired. I was an EE who worked in the physical field modelling traffic for a variety of reasons. You'd be amazed who wants to know what the most realistic situation is going to look like if something like social meltdown takes place. Where are these idiots on the road going and how far do they think their 1/4 tank of gas is going to take them?

*sighs*

Basically we found a way to model behavior based on the statistics. We're well and truly screwed if we have to evacuate New England due to something like a major ice storm or a long ranging powerful hurricane. We're screwed... Where as if you want to follow the blue signs, the professionals, and can tune your radio to 1440 AM then you can reasonably hope to get away from a southern city.

Why? Some were designed and upgraded with the price of many many dollars. Because statistics said it is less likely up in NE then those never got upgraded. Show me the plan to evacuate Old Orchard Beach, Maine during tourist season. Show me the local emergency responders who know it and can ensure it is followed (for the whole like three miles). Now go to Panama City Beach, Florida during spring break and I can assure you that (with enough warning) anyone willing to leave can be gone. Even those on public transportation.

I sold out and am retired and that, kids, is the lesson of the day.

The moral of the story is, while I spoke completely from ignorance and only brought in tangential evidence (that still may require some work from you, the reader) I'm still certain that my comment fits. When they throw stats like that at you then you know they're conflating and throwing everything they can under the broadest heading simply to get results. I'd ask for the data sets, an intern for data entry, and/or do it all myself before taking anything in that article (and this thread) as anything more than a grain of salt.

However, seldom do I admit nor find articles where I'm actually the only resident Fark expert. *sighs* We ADVISE. Architects design. Cities balk. We figure out how to build what the idiot architects wanted. We get paid coming and going. Why yes, yes I am well and comfortably retired. ;)
 
Displayed 50 of 52 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »





Report