Llanigraham
On Moderation
No it wouldn't as most speeding offences are dealt with by Fixed Penalty Notices, and do not involve the system.
-
Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
20 mph Zones - Extend or Eliminate?
- Thread starter DerekC
- Start date
- Status
No it wouldn't as most speeding offences are dealt with by Fixed Penalty Notices, and do not involve the system.
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
An unintended consequence of speed limits applying to vehicles but not to cyclists.
Cycling: 20mph speed limit leads to Junior Tour of Wales reroute
The Junior Tour of Wales changes three of its five stages, cutting the length of the race.
www.bbc.co.uk
7 miles at 20mph takes 21 minutes
7 miles at 30mph takes 14 minutes
A maximum* of 7 minutes difference over 4 days split over a number of very short sections. (*quite possibly less as it may not be practically possible to maintain 30mph through all of the 20mph sections).
I appreciate road cycling is not without its dangers, but what am I missing here that makes this so dangerous?
I have experience of managing safety at competitive events on public roads.
For example, say there is a 1 mile stretch of the route with a 20mph speed restriction for road vehicles.
But the cyclists are moving at 30mph.
The cyclists will cover that 1 mile in 2 minutes, but the support vehicles will take 3 minutes.
What happens if, at the end of the 1 mile 20 mph section, there is a peloton pile up? Where are the support Vehicles? They are 600 yards and a minute of travelling time away, and unable to perform their safety functions.
Wouldn't a cyclism event be on roads closed to public use for the occasion? On closed roads you usually don't have to follow the speed limits (or even the road code for that matter, automobile review TV shows do it).
It makes very little sense to curtail something because of that.
The difficulty here is the conflation of arithmetic mean and average. The arithmetic mean is just one form of average, the median is another. Sometimes, when working with discrete not continuous data, the mode (most popular) can be a better average measure.I think that average and median are two different things and language should not be loose, but I'm a mathematician at heart, cold logic.
The arithmetic mean works best when the distribution is normal (the bell curve), but it does not work well when the distribution is not symmetrical and especially if it has a much longer tail at one end than the other. For example the Office for National Statistics use the median for earnings data where the distribution has a short tail at the low earnings end and a long tail at the high earnings end.
Merle Haggard
Established Member
Yes, point taken. I was interpreting 'average' as what you (correctly) describe as 'arithmetic mean' rather than a generic term.
But I think, within the umbrella term of 'average' it would always be possible to find one to support a particular argument - that's aside from media reports that, for example, state 'and 47% agreed' being used to suggest universal approval...
As I said, I appreciate that road cycling is not without its dangers and I've never been involved in managing safety. FTOAD, I don't have an agenda here, I am genuinely interested in understanding how much more dangerous this is. Does it increase the likelihood of a negative outcome or the impact of a negative outcome?
In your example, I would presume that the support vehicles being further behind doesn't increase the likelihood of a peloton pile up? so how much worse is the impact to the cyclists that results from the actions of the people in the support vehicle being 1 minute further away (taking cognisance that this is the situation for maybe 7 minutes out of a 4 day race)?
For example, it's obvious that if this were an F1 race and a car is on fire, then 1 minute delay in the people with fire extinguishers getting to the scene could be the difference between life and death - that's about as big an impact difference as there is.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
Isn't there normally a support vehicle in front which has to be going at the speed of the fastest cyclist, whose purpose is to check the road is clear?
The support team will have a plan of action in the event of an incident. They can't implement that if they are not at the scene. In particular they can't issue instructions to the competitors.
maybe it depends if there is a speed camera in that section or not, but even then I'd have thought someone would have the ability to turn it off.
Cycles are vehicles.
Speed limits only apply to motor vehicles.
The net result is the same.
Time for a review of legislation?
Furious cyclers; motorised wheelchairs; scooters; power-assisted bikes; ...
Some 'cyclism' events (cyclic/ cyclical?) can be dangerous; remember Tour de Yorkshire folk in the road?
bramling
Veteran Member
The difficulty with having speed limits applied to cyclists is that pedal cycles don’t have a calibrated speedometer. This immediately puts it in the “too difficult” box, especially against a background where cyclists exceeding speed limits isn’t a particularly salient problem in the grand scheme of things.
Also, with the lack of registration of cycles or their riders, any attempt to remove a guilty cyclist from the public highway would inevitably fail.
Earlier this year my phone informed me that someone must have planted an Apple Airtag on me because it was following me around.
What I had actually done was spent nearly 24 hours on an Amtrak train.
The worst offenders are the Deliveroo and Uber Eats lunatics that ride dodgy electric bikes capable of 30 or more on level ground. That said, I can get over 30 going down Rumney Hill. Passed a few cars over the years.
Getting road closures is expensive. Although the top end events will be on closed roads, lower down will not and will just be using marshals to mitigate risk. Racing bicycles on public roads is also not an offence whereas it is for motor vehicles.
https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/cycling-laws-that-need-clarifying.272603/ May be a better thread to discuss the intricacies of cycling laws.
brad465
Veteran Member
It is possible to get computers of course that record speed, but a "speeding" cyclist could easily claim that they were too busy focusing on the road ahead to see how fast they were going at the time.
I do think more needs doing with regards to this issue. If you regulate the companies properly it could solve a whole host of issues, including road safety, vehicle safety, employee rights and I wouldn't be surprised if a number of illegal immigrants are caught as a result. But these drift off topic somewhat.
20mph zones do have their benefit areas, but it's definitely possible to go too far with them. I remember in Tonbridge the council overdid a 20mph zone to not just include the town centre high street, but the A227 all the way to the edge of town, about a mile and a half, and the road is fairly wide as well. I'm guessing they got loads of complaints, as the zone size was curtailed and around a mile of the A227 was returned to 30mph.
There are an average of 5 road deaths a year, almost all caused by motor vehicles, I don't know the exact number but to get to the point where there are 5 road deaths caused by cyclists your have to go back several years.
Also (and whilst this doesn't mitigate against the upset) people of all ages are killed by motor vehicles, it's almost always older people or people with underlying health issues who die from being hit by a cyclist.
Therefore, not only would it require a lot of effort to reduce road deaths by 1 to change things to enforce speed limits for cyclists, it would also likely only lengthen that life by a shorter time than the average from any other road death.
Ultimately the cost would be fairly significant for little benefit.
In fact by enforcing it, there's going to be an additional cost in equipping a cycle with speed monitoring equipment which would act as a barrier to entry. This could actual result in worse health outcomes for enough people that it reduced the net life expectancy of the population by more than the amount of life saved by enforcing speed limits for cyclists. It would also mean a greater cost to the NHS.
Also (and whilst this doesn't mitigate against the upset) people of all ages are killed by motor vehicles, it's almost always older people or people with underlying health issues who die from being hit by a cyclist.
Therefore, not only would it require a lot of effort to reduce road deaths by 1 to change things to enforce speed limits for cyclists, it would also likely only lengthen that life by a shorter time than the average from any other road death.
Ultimately the cost would be fairly significant for little benefit.
In fact by enforcing it, there's going to be an additional cost in equipping a cycle with speed monitoring equipment which would act as a barrier to entry. This could actual result in worse health outcomes for enough people that it reduced the net life expectancy of the population by more than the amount of life saved by enforcing speed limits for cyclists. It would also mean a greater cost to the NHS.
Esure are claiming a 20% drop in insurance claims since the limits were introduced:
www.walesonline.co.uk
Top insurer says drivers would save £50 if UK followed 20mph speed limit
The insurance company said they had seen a 20% drop in claims for car accidents in Wales since the nationwide limit was introduced a year ago
Esure are claiming a 20% drop in insurance claims since the limits were introduced:
Top insurer says drivers would save £50 if UK followed 20mph speed limit
The insurance company said they had seen a 20% drop in claims for car accidents in Wales since the nationwide limit was introduced a year ago
Excellent, so this will lead to premiums falling, right?
Right?
Ultimately yes, - motor insurance is a quite competitive market.
bramling
Veteran Member
Don't know about extend or eliminate but round here (Poole) they'd do well to enforce. By and large no-one (besides me of course
This is the problem when laws are introduced for which there isn’t mass buy-in. If the general feeling is that 20 mph limits are being introduced in places where they’re not appropriate, then there won’t be respect for them including in places where they are.
No doubt there’s people whose response to that will be tough luck people will just have to lump it, and if necessary let’s increase enforcement. Reality is it then leads to a lack of respect for institutions, and such people will then be wondering why things like Brexit or Trump happen.
Although whilst the 20mph limits may not be enforced speeds are likely to have reduced. In a 20 limit people feel that they've "got away with it" if they can drive at 30mph, however those same people are likely to drive at 35mph in a 30 limit. Those who may well have gone at 30 but now go a bit faster than 20 are still probably doing 25mph and so are slower than they were.
Of course when such a fine upstanding citizen as @jupiter then goes at 19.95mph it means that the vehicles behind then are encouraged to slow down a bit more than they'd like.
bramling
Veteran Member
This argument is just treating everyone like children. If a 30 mph limit is seen by most to be appropriate but the problem is a proportion of people not complying then just enforce that.
By imposing 20 mph just to “slow things down a bit” then it just erodes away respect for institutions and the law.
It means people will stop assuming speed limits are there for a good reason and treat them with even more contempt.
It already has apparently (by £50/year) and the insurer quoted says that they'll extend that to other areas which introduce the limit:
If the cap fits...
Traffic engineers have long used the 85th percentile to set speed limits. Rather than just setting limits which will be broken it's important to alter the design of the road to change behaviour. Many American residential streets are wide and straight like highways - is it any wonder that people drive like they're on highways, ignoring the posted 25mph limit? Contrast with Dutch residential streets where various calming measures encourage drivers to slow down.
What should happen is that there should be infrastructure changes to encourage speeds to reduce.
Enforcement means that the road is badly designed and means that the designers have failed, however the problem is that there's often not the potential to make the changes required to ensure that the roads are designed well.
For example, the ideal is that you have roads with bends in then so traffic can't go fast, however if the road is a Roman Road there's not a lot you can do to add bends in and so you have to look at other measures.
Sometimes it's as simple as changing the limit, for example I'd there's a village centre which had a 30 limit, changing it to a 20 limit will mean that people do go a little slower, however in doubt so it make the village centre more attractive and so people want to visit it.
Sometimes you do just need to annoy the drivers. For example, a new development has delivered a link road built to modern standards with good quality crossing points yet people are stuck in their ways and are going through a village because that's what they've always done, then there's a need to add in traffic calming which delays them significantly if everyone were to continue to do so to change the habits.
Once done the village becomes a nicer place to walk through and live in as most of the through traffic (the vast majority of which never stops in the village) has been diverted to the new road (which whilst longer actually may not add much to the journey time).
As with most things there are a small minority who think that driving is a right (it's not, it's a privilege and one that has a lot of responsibilities which goes with it) and how dare anyone suggest that they should be at all inconvenienced (even if that means that it results in others seeing a significant benefit, maybe even retaining their lives).
Arguably we should have a LOT more enforcement of the rules of the roads, as that would probably mean that quite a lot of people would end up earning 12 points on their licence. As actually the risk of getting caught breaking the speed limit, driving whilst using your phone, driving in the middle lane when you don't need to be, driving whilst over the alcohol limit and so on its very low.
Drivers generally get away with far more than they should, however it would shatter a lot of "good drivers" illusions of their abilities if there was much more enforcement than there currently is.
Likewise, there would be a lot of drivers who wouldn't be able to pass their driving test if they had to redo it (even if it was only to the standard they had to pass and not the more onerous standard that is currently required), there would probably be quite a few who never had to do the theory test or hazard perception who would fail them. It's ultimately the real reason that few support the idea of retesting for drivers, even though it would likely result in much safer roads.
- Status