"20mph speed zones cut road injuries by 40%, study says"

"mileburner" wrote in message
...

"Chris Hills" wrote in message
...
On 11/12/09 07:48, Doug wrote:
'Speed kills' deniers will have a job with this one! So will the
majority of motorists who routinely break the law on speed limits and
by so doing put lives at risk.

"UK cities should have more 20mph speed zones, as they have cut road
injuries by over 40% in London, a study claims.

At that speed cyclists would need a speedometer installed to make sure
they do not exceed the limit.

Cyclists *have* speedometers...

At least I do, and most of the people I know do too.

And speed limits do not apply to cyclists,

- except in Royal Parks, where they do (apparently - though I suspect the
law could be shown to be badly drafted if push came to shove)

Doug wrote:
On 11 Dec, 08:53, JNugent wrote:
Doug wrote:
'Speed kills' deniers will have a job with this one! So will the
majority of motorists who routinely break the law on speed limits and
by so doing put lives at risk.
"UK cities should have more 20mph speed zones, as they have cut road
injuries by over 40% in London, a study claims.
In particular the number of children killed or seriously injured has
been halved over the past 15 years, the British Medical Journal
reported.
The London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine study estimates
20mph zones have the potential to prevent up to 700 casualties in
London alone.
At 20mph, it is estimated only one in 40 pedestrians is killed in a
crash.
This compares with a one in five chance for someone hit at 30mph..."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/8406569.stm
Meanwhile, in other news, shock "study" results reveal that traffic accidents
can be reduced by up to 100% if all traffic is banned and the population
subjected to a 24hr curfew.

We managed to develop a highly successful industrial revolution
without the aid of mass car use and I am sure human ingenuity can step
in to devise an alternative to the present destructive mass car chaos
situation. In most cases there is little need for a widely dispersed
and highly mobile population.

I am as certain as you are that the populace would not object to having
1890's living standards imposed on them.

On 12 Dec, 01:10, JNugent wrote:
Doug wrote:
On 11 Dec, 08:53, JNugent wrote:
Doug wrote:
'Speed kills' deniers will have a job with this one! So will the
majority of motorists who routinely break the law on speed limits and
by so doing put lives at risk.
"UK cities should have more 20mph speed zones, as they have cut road
injuries by over 40% in London, a study claims.
In particular the number of children killed or seriously injured has
been halved over the past 15 years, the British Medical Journal
reported.
The London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine study estimates
20mph zones have the potential to prevent up to 700 casualties in
London alone.
At 20mph, it is estimated only one in 40 pedestrians is killed in a
crash.
This compares with a one in five chance for someone hit at 30mph..."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/8406569.stm
Meanwhile, in other news, shock "study" results reveal that traffic accidents
can be reduced by up to 100% if all traffic is banned and the population
subjected to a 24hr curfew.

We managed to develop a highly successful industrial revolution
without the aid of mass car use and I am sure human ingenuity can step
in to devise an alternative to the present destructive mass car chaos
situation. In most cases there is little need for a widely dispersed
and highly mobile population.

I am as certain as you are that the populace would not object to having
1890's living standards imposed on them.

No I envisage a time when most people are able to cast off their
wretched car dependency and move into the sunlit uplands of a new age
of enlightenment where there is a much better coordinated
infrastructure and lifestyle. Its called progress. Obviously the
widespread blight of mass car use and dependency cannot continue
indefinitely and change for the better must happen eventually.

The very idea of masses of individuals bombing around freely at
dangerously high speeds while polluting will be regarded as ludicrous
in the future and motorists will be seen historically as sociopathic
pariahs. Of course, for economic reasons, it is not prudent for the
State to treat them as such just now but as more and more restrictions
on motoring are gradually introduced, while alternatives are provided,
change for the better inevitably will happen.

--
World Carfree Network
http://www.worldcarfree.net/
Help for your car-addicted friends in the U.K.

Doug wrote:

JNugent wrote:
Doug wrote:
JNugent wrote:
Doug wrote:

'Speed kills' deniers will have a job with this one! So will the
majority of motorists who routinely break the law on speed limits and
by so doing put lives at risk.
"UK cities should have more 20mph speed zones, as they have cut road
injuries by over 40% in London, a study claims.
In particular the number of children killed or seriously injured has
been halved over the past 15 years, the British Medical Journal
reported.
The London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine study estimates
20mph zones have the potential to prevent up to 700 casualties in
London alone.
At 20mph, it is estimated only one in 40 pedestrians is killed in a
crash.
This compares with a one in five chance for someone hit at 30mph..."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/8406569.stm

Meanwhile, in other news, shock "study" results reveal that traffic accidents
can be reduced by up to 100% if all traffic is banned and the population
subjected to a 24hr curfew.

We managed to develop a highly successful industrial revolution
without the aid of mass car use and I am sure human ingenuity can step
in to devise an alternative to the present destructive mass car chaos
situation. In most cases there is little need for a widely dispersed
and highly mobile population.

I am as certain as you are that the populace would not object to having
1890's living standards imposed on them.

No I envisage a time when most people are able to cast off their
wretched car dependency and move into the sunlit uplands of a new age
of enlightenment where there is a much better coordinated
infrastructure and lifestyle. Its called progress. Obviously the
widespread blight of mass car use and dependency cannot continue
indefinitely and change for the better must happen eventually.

I'm as sure as you are that the people of this country would be glad of a
transport system rendering them able to travel anywhere at any time that the
Transport & General Workers' Union is prepared to allow them to travel.

The very idea of masses of individuals [doing anything] freely

....is anathema to Doug.

Andy Burns wrote:
On 11/12/09 06:48, Doug wrote:

UK cities should have more 20mph speed zones, as they have cut road
injuries by over 40% in London, a study claims.

I'm sure reducing the speed limit to 5mph would (if it was obeyed) cut
injuries and deaths by 95% ...


I think your in the realms of fantasy here again Jones LOL

mileburner wrote:
"Chris Hills" wrote in message
...
On 11/12/09 07:48, Doug wrote:
'Speed kills' deniers will have a job with this one! So will the
majority of motorists who routinely break the law on speed limits and
by so doing put lives at risk.

"UK cities should have more 20mph speed zones, as they have cut road
injuries by over 40% in London, a study claims.
At that speed cyclists would need a speedometer installed to make sure
they do not exceed the limit.

Cyclists *have* speedometers...

At least I do, and most of the people I know do too.

And speed limits do not apply to cyclists, not in the same sense as red
lights, but in a legal sense.



....but in a legal sense - aren't red lights a legal requirement, to obey
that is?

On 12 Dec, 09:09, JNugent wrote:
Doug wrote:
JNugent wrote:
Doug wrote:
JNugent wrote:
Doug wrote:
'Speed kills' deniers will have a job with this one! So will the
majority of motorists who routinely break the law on speed limits and
by so doing put lives at risk.
"UK cities should have more 20mph speed zones, as they have cut road
injuries by over 40% in London, a study claims.
In particular the number of children killed or seriously injured has
been halved over the past 15 years, the British Medical Journal
reported.
The London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine study estimates
20mph zones have the potential to prevent up to 700 casualties in
London alone.
At 20mph, it is estimated only one in 40 pedestrians is killed in a
crash.
This compares with a one in five chance for someone hit at 30mph..."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/8406569.stm
Meanwhile, in other news, shock "study" results reveal that traffic accidents
can be reduced by up to 100% if all traffic is banned and the population
subjected to a 24hr curfew.
We managed to develop a highly successful industrial revolution
without the aid of mass car use and I am sure human ingenuity can step
in to devise an alternative to the present destructive mass car chaos
situation. In most cases there is little need for a widely dispersed
and highly mobile population.
I am as certain as you are that the populace would not object to having
1890's living standards imposed on them.
No I envisage a time when most people are able to cast off their
wretched car dependency and move into the sunlit uplands of a new age
of enlightenment where there is a much better coordinated
infrastructure and lifestyle. Its called progress. Obviously the
widespread blight of mass car use and dependency cannot continue
indefinitely and change for the better must happen eventually.

I'm as sure as you are that the people of this country would be glad of a
transport system rendering them able to travel anywhere at any time that the
Transport & General Workers' Union is prepared to allow them to travel.

You are missing the point yet again. The need to travel anywhere at
any time should be reduced.

The very idea of masses of individuals [doing anything] freely

Not 'anything'. A few human mass activities are almost harmless.

...is anathema to Doug.

Increasingly so, as has been clearly demonstrated by mass car use. It
seems the more popular something is the more harmful it becomes. So
one must also question the freedom to cause harm.

--
UK Radical Campaigns
www.zing.icom43.net
One man's democracy is another man's Aristotlean mob.

On Dec 11, 7:50*am, "Mark Lewis" wrote:
UK cities should have more 20mph speed zones

We should move to 20mph on all minor roads and in built up areas, 50mph on
main roads.

Hybrid vehicles could be optimised for this scenario, electric at 20, fuel
at 50.

The verge or pavement on the 50mph roads should be developed into a cycle
track. *Cyclists could reasonably be asked to cycle on the 20mph roads
rather than using the pavement.

Improvement of the 50mph roads could maintain existing traffic flow. *More
could be spent on them because less maintenance of the 20mph roads would be
necessary, since they would no longer be used as rat runs.

Apart form increasing safety this would reduce noise, ground level pollution
and CO2 emissions.

Good to see you're in touch with reality - NOT.
Don't be so bloody ridiculous.

In article ,
says...

UK cities should have more 20mph speed zones

We should move to 20mph on all minor roads and in built up areas, 50mph on
main roads.

Hybrid vehicles could be optimised for this scenario, electric at 20, fuel
at 50.

The verge or pavement on the 50mph roads should be developed into a cycle
track. Cyclists could reasonably be asked to cycle on the 20mph roads
rather than using the pavement.

Improvement of the 50mph roads could maintain existing traffic flow. More
could be spent on them because less maintenance of the 20mph roads would be
necessary, since they would no longer be used as rat runs.

Apart form increasing safety this would reduce noise, ground level pollution
and CO2 emissions.

You could have saved yourself (and everyone else) some time by just
writing "I dislike motorists, and so the more restrictions that are
imposed on them, the better". Don't worry, it's OK: you're in good
company here.

In article 6ba76ac6-e025-47d6-9214-
,
says...

On Dec 11, 7:50*am, "Mark Lewis" wrote:
UK cities should have more 20mph speed zones

We should move to 20mph on all minor roads and in built up areas, 50mph on
main roads.

Hybrid vehicles could be optimised for this scenario, electric at 20, fuel
at 50.

The verge or pavement on the 50mph roads should be developed into a cycle
track. *Cyclists could reasonably be asked to cycle on the 20mph roads
rather than using the pavement.

Improvement of the 50mph roads could maintain existing traffic flow. *More
could be spent on them because less maintenance of the 20mph roads would be
necessary, since they would no longer be used as rat runs.

Apart form increasing safety this would reduce noise, ground level pollution
and CO2 emissions.

--
Mark Lewis, North Somerset

20 on all minor roads & 50 on all other roads, that should push the
cost of living up a bit.
Probably increase co2 as well.

Yes, the attitude among the car-haters seems to be "As long as it makes
driving more unpleasant, it doesn't matter what other effects it has".
Hence the car-haters regularly advocate anti-motorist measures which
they know perfectly well are killing people (e.g. speed cameras), making
us all poorer (like we need that at the moment), damaging the
environment (e.g. all the things that cause unnecessary congestion),
lowering quality of life for everyone (not just motorists), etc.

It's incredible just how rabid they are and how determined they are to
**** off motorists at all costs. How can someone be twisted enough to
think that killing road users and crippling the economy is "worth it" if
it means that people are going to be punished for using the only mode of
transport which is remotely practical for them? It just shows that
these nutjobs have lost all perspective; no-one who was remotely
reasonable would think that *any* cause justified advocating measures
which killed people, especially a "cause" as unnecessary, petty,
counterproductive and spiteful as car-hating.