August 22, 2023 - 1:00pm
After TfL’s introduction of a 20mph speed limit on 125 miles of its roads by 2024, Welsh Labour has followed by imposing the same limit on “built up and residential areas”, which will come into effect in mid-September. The reasons given for the change are varied, but two that stand out are that the speed limit will save lives from collisions and that it will encourage people to stop driving and switch to walking and cycling instead.
The statistics used to justify the idea that the policy will save lives are slightly misleading. According to Roadwise, the chances of a pedestrian dying after being hit by a car at 30mph are 20%, while the chances at 20mph are a mere 2.5%. Yet it seems unlikely that a car driving at 30mph would hit a pedestrian at 30mph. More probable is that the driver will slam on the brakes and hit the pedestrian at a substantially lower speed. Reducing the speed limit will undoubtedly save lives from pedestrian collisions, but not as dramatically as proponents suggest.
The other issue that immediately stands out is that if people ditch their cars and get on a bike, this greatly increases their risk of suffering a life-threatening injury. The statistics bear this out. In 2021, 111 cyclists were killed on British roads, while 682 car passengers were killed. Yet in the same year, bicycles only accounted for 1.7% of all non-motorway traffic, while cars accounted for 75%. Adjusting the fatality numbers, we find that riding a bicycle is seven times more dangerous than travelling in a car.
Or consider another statistic. In 2021, for every one cyclist killed in a collision, there were 3.25 pedestrians killed. But once again there are vastly more pedestrians on the streets than there are cyclists. We do not have precise statistics on the number of pedestrians relative to the number of cyclists, but it seems reasonable to assume it’s at least 30:1. Using this highly conservative estimate, we find that a cyclist is almost 10 times more likely to be killed than a pedestrian. If we assume the ratio is 50:1, cycling is 15 times more dangerous.
These statistics indicate that the case for safety is clearly nonsense. Bicycles are one of the most dangerous methods of travel in modern Britain. By incentivising people to dump their cars and hop on a bike, we will only increase the number of collision deaths.
But what about the case for lowering emissions? This also comes up short. An extensive study conducted in New Zealand notes that standard mathematical models show driving at lower speeds increases carbon emissions. It also cautions that there is politicised literature on the topic. Research published on Future Transport London’s website, claiming that lowering speed limits will lower emissions, “does not appear to have been peer reviewed”, while statements on the site are a “misrepresentation of average-speed models”.
The truth is that the centre-Left and the Greens don’t like cars. Many of them are cyclists who think they should own the road. And so this small minority — recall, they make up only 1.7% of road traffic — is trying to restructure the transport grid in its own favour. Due to the overrepresentation of cyclists and anti-car types in local and national government, the rest of us are being subjected to the tyranny of the irrational bicycling oligarchy.
Philip Pilkington is a macroeconomist and investment professional, and the author of The Reformation in Economics
philippilk
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeVery illuminating article. No mention of the plague of cyclists on pavements, though, or those who run red lights. As a pedestrian, the main danger to my health and safety when out and about is now unquestionably from pig-ignorant, self-important cyclists.
pig-ignorant, self-important cyclists.
Or as I like to call them, “pignorant”.
I commute in central London on both a motorcycle (and in the past a bicycle).
The 20mph craziness means I spend most of my time looking at the speedo and not the road. I have sympathy for my pedalling brethren but they don’t help themselves with nonexistent road manners. But the worst, by far, are the electric scooter’s.
No lights, no awareness, moving from road to pavement and back with complete abandonment, flat out.
I’ve seen a pedestrian wiped out in central London without an apology or even stopping more times than I care to mention. They’re banned in Paris for good reason I might add. They are truly lethal.
Wouldn’t do to mention dangerous electric transport within the Islington trendies circles, no stats on that of course.
Like ULEZ, actual scientific evidence is sidelined for its inconvenience for progressive dogma/policy.
pig-ignorant, self-important cyclists.
Or as I like to call them, “pignorant”.
I commute in central London on both a motorcycle (and in the past a bicycle).
The 20mph craziness means I spend most of my time looking at the speedo and not the road. I have sympathy for my pedalling brethren but they don’t help themselves with nonexistent road manners. But the worst, by far, are the electric scooter’s.
No lights, no awareness, moving from road to pavement and back with complete abandonment, flat out.
I’ve seen a pedestrian wiped out in central London without an apology or even stopping more times than I care to mention. They’re banned in Paris for good reason I might add. They are truly lethal.
Wouldn’t do to mention dangerous electric transport within the Islington trendies circles, no stats on that of course.
Like ULEZ, actual scientific evidence is sidelined for its inconvenience for progressive dogma/policy.
Very illuminating article. No mention of the plague of cyclists on pavements, though, or those who run red lights. As a pedestrian, the main danger to my health and safety when out and about is now unquestionably from pig-ignorant, self-important cyclists.
The principal reason driving at 20mph is dangerous is that cars are not designed to be driven at that speed. Drivers are distracted by trying to maintain it.
Indeed. Drive appropriately, according to the conditions and you should never have to look at your speedo.
Quite. It’s also too slow for drivers and doesn’t sufficiently engage their attention.
Spot on
Exactly so, and all that tap tap tapping of the gas and then the brakes eliminates any gains in fuel efficiency, and for most vehicles, the sweet spot is somewhere around 45-55 mph in terms of maximizing fuel economy. Then again, perhaps they’re assuming all cars will be electric, and perhaps electric cars have different efficiency rules. The safety argument is dumb. If they’re really concerned about safety, vehicles that weigh a few pounds with no protection beyond a helmet and can only travel about 10-15 mph do not belong on the same set of roads as vehicles weighing hundreds or thousands of pounds with four walls of metal, plastic, and glass and capable that are capable of five to ten times that speed. Having bicycles and cars on the same set of roads already ignores safety and common sense because it would be too expensive and a waste of money to build a third transportation network for the small percentage of bicyclists when automobiles and pedestrians make up almost all the traffic. If you must bicycle on the public roads, you accept a greater risk of death, period. That’s fine. We all gotta go someday and we can all choose what risks we take. Just don’t expect everybody else to pay for it.
What speed are cars designed to be driven at?
My car mechanic told me 15 years ago that 55 to 60 mph is optimal for fuel efficiency for our Audi A3 140bhp.
So clearly even 30mph is not optimal but 20mph is even worse.
My car mechanic told me 15 years ago that 55 to 60 mph is optimal for fuel efficiency for our Audi A3 140bhp.
So clearly even 30mph is not optimal but 20mph is even worse.
Indeed. Drive appropriately, according to the conditions and you should never have to look at your speedo.
Quite. It’s also too slow for drivers and doesn’t sufficiently engage their attention.
Spot on
Exactly so, and all that tap tap tapping of the gas and then the brakes eliminates any gains in fuel efficiency, and for most vehicles, the sweet spot is somewhere around 45-55 mph in terms of maximizing fuel economy. Then again, perhaps they’re assuming all cars will be electric, and perhaps electric cars have different efficiency rules. The safety argument is dumb. If they’re really concerned about safety, vehicles that weigh a few pounds with no protection beyond a helmet and can only travel about 10-15 mph do not belong on the same set of roads as vehicles weighing hundreds or thousands of pounds with four walls of metal, plastic, and glass and capable that are capable of five to ten times that speed. Having bicycles and cars on the same set of roads already ignores safety and common sense because it would be too expensive and a waste of money to build a third transportation network for the small percentage of bicyclists when automobiles and pedestrians make up almost all the traffic. If you must bicycle on the public roads, you accept a greater risk of death, period. That’s fine. We all gotta go someday and we can all choose what risks we take. Just don’t expect everybody else to pay for it.
What speed are cars designed to be driven at?
The principal reason driving at 20mph is dangerous is that cars are not designed to be driven at that speed. Drivers are distracted by trying to maintain it.
Obviously the answer is to ban both cars and bicycles. Everybody should walk. Or ride trains. Good ol’ left-wing trains.
Good to see a trains-activist.
Good to see a trains-activist.
Obviously the answer is to ban both cars and bicycles. Everybody should walk. Or ride trains. Good ol’ left-wing trains.
More authoritarian nonsense with a thin layer of faux environmentalism. This now on top of the cameras popping up all over London that hand out fines if you have the cheek to drive around in anything other than cars they deem “acceptable”. We cant seem to stop sliding down the slippery slope
More authoritarian nonsense with a thin layer of faux environmentalism. This now on top of the cameras popping up all over London that hand out fines if you have the cheek to drive around in anything other than cars they deem “acceptable”. We cant seem to stop sliding down the slippery slope
The emmissions issue won’t be around for long anyway when everyone embraces the joys of electric vehicles – which are of course heavier and therefore potentially more dangerous to pedestrians. So it’s a win win policy in the long run.
And they are virtually silent!
Particularly lethal if you are old ( post 80 let’s say.)
Isn’t that what electric vehicles are purposed with? If Covid didn’t get you…
Precisely,
Strike II one might say!
Precisely,
Strike II one might say!
May Allah (سبحانه و تعالى) preserve you from misfortune, Charles!
شكرًا لك
شكرًا لك
Yeah, but 80 year olds.. who needs ’em eh?
Isn’t that what electric vehicles are purposed with? If Covid didn’t get you…
May Allah (سبحانه و تعالى) preserve you from misfortune, Charles!
Yeah, but 80 year olds.. who needs ’em eh?
And how would that happen?
There is no grid capacity to charge EV if everyone switched.
EV are too expensive for average motorist, especially if battery fails, so 2nd hand values are low and insurance high.
In West London many rich bankers etc switched to EVs.
Few I spoke to really love it.
But they don’t worry about cost of battery replacement and usually have another ICE car.
And they are virtually silent!
Particularly lethal if you are old ( post 80 let’s say.)
And how would that happen?
There is no grid capacity to charge EV if everyone switched.
EV are too expensive for average motorist, especially if battery fails, so 2nd hand values are low and insurance high.
In West London many rich bankers etc switched to EVs.
Few I spoke to really love it.
But they don’t worry about cost of battery replacement and usually have another ICE car.
The emmissions issue won’t be around for long anyway when everyone embraces the joys of electric vehicles – which are of course heavier and therefore potentially more dangerous to pedestrians. So it’s a win win policy in the long run.
Has it yet been determined whether that 77 old female cyclist killed in Huntingdon three years ago was actually ENTITLED to ride on the pavement?
At the time of the trial last March, neither the Trial Judge, the Police nor the Local Authority could agree on this!
How very Banana Republic it must be said, but very much Modern Britain,
I cannot believe that she was. A very bad decision in that case.
I would look at this determination with interest. When I was commuting to Dublin by train on a regular basis several years ago, I had to look out for an elderly lady in the village I live especially on winter mornings as she would cycle on the pavement on an unlit bicycle invariably dressed in darker clothes. Different jurisdiction, with an all too similar ratio dicidendi.
Staying with the Irish experience, at some stage the left wing commentator Fintan O’Toole (a man with whom I normally disagree vehemently) had an article in the Irish Times about cyclists, especially in Dublin, and I found myself uncharacteristically nodding in agreement as it corresponded to my experience of the same. One salient fact about Mr O’Toole is that he is not a motorist and doesn’t have an axe to grind on that basis. Anyone interested can read it here: https://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-style/cycling-is-a-good-thing-and-boy-do-cyclists-know-it-1.1423498
Copper in London told me that only kids under certain age (11?, but I forgot) are allowed to ride on pavements.
I cannot believe that she was. A very bad decision in that case.
I would look at this determination with interest. When I was commuting to Dublin by train on a regular basis several years ago, I had to look out for an elderly lady in the village I live especially on winter mornings as she would cycle on the pavement on an unlit bicycle invariably dressed in darker clothes. Different jurisdiction, with an all too similar ratio dicidendi.
Staying with the Irish experience, at some stage the left wing commentator Fintan O’Toole (a man with whom I normally disagree vehemently) had an article in the Irish Times about cyclists, especially in Dublin, and I found myself uncharacteristically nodding in agreement as it corresponded to my experience of the same. One salient fact about Mr O’Toole is that he is not a motorist and doesn’t have an axe to grind on that basis. Anyone interested can read it here: https://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-style/cycling-is-a-good-thing-and-boy-do-cyclists-know-it-1.1423498
Copper in London told me that only kids under certain age (11?, but I forgot) are allowed to ride on pavements.
Has it yet been determined whether that 77 old female cyclist killed in Huntingdon three years ago was actually ENTITLED to ride on the pavement?
At the time of the trial last March, neither the Trial Judge, the Police nor the Local Authority could agree on this!
How very Banana Republic it must be said, but very much Modern Britain,
I had a chat to a (traffic) copper about 20mph speed limits. He told me that the only time i would have to worry about them is if there was a mobile speed camera about since no copper would pull you over for going over 20 mph providing you weren’t going over 30 and/or driving like an arse. But they do seem to provide local politicians with a great opportunity to appear that they are “doing something”.
Ditto 30mph limits, which means 35-40mph would be the norm. Author somewhat naive in his calculations of impact speed in accidents.
I must be unlucky, I received a speeding fine, for doing 23MPH in a 20 zone, at about 8 o’clock on a Sunday morning. It was a mobile camera operated by a Police motorcyclist.
That’s mean by the police. Some discretion should be built into the system.
That is unlucky. The NPCC guidance is to allow a 20% +2mph tolerance.
Well that may be so, but where’s the incentive to allow any leeway? If cameras or cops are deployed to amass cash for the local council, they’re going to pursue it to the limit aren’t they? And as everything becomes more and more automated, we will all have less and less agency as citizens and authoritarianism will creep in by stealth. We are sleepwalking into this.
Well that may be so, but where’s the incentive to allow any leeway? If cameras or cops are deployed to amass cash for the local council, they’re going to pursue it to the limit aren’t they? And as everything becomes more and more automated, we will all have less and less agency as citizens and authoritarianism will creep in by stealth. We are sleepwalking into this.
That’s mean by the police. Some discretion should be built into the system.
That is unlucky. The NPCC guidance is to allow a 20% +2mph tolerance.
Ditto 30mph limits, which means 35-40mph would be the norm. Author somewhat naive in his calculations of impact speed in accidents.
I must be unlucky, I received a speeding fine, for doing 23MPH in a 20 zone, at about 8 o’clock on a Sunday morning. It was a mobile camera operated by a Police motorcyclist.
I had a chat to a (traffic) copper about 20mph speed limits. He told me that the only time i would have to worry about them is if there was a mobile speed camera about since no copper would pull you over for going over 20 mph providing you weren’t going over 30 and/or driving like an arse. But they do seem to provide local politicians with a great opportunity to appear that they are “doing something”.
The speed you should be travelling at is the appropriate speed given road conditions and hazards present. If I’m driving past parked cars where a door maybe opened at anytime I may slow down to ten miles an hour. Some pratt behind me will probably hoot because they have no idea why I’ve slowed. I’ll also slow down if there are children playing with balls close to the road.
You, Sir, are an exception, in your intelligent attitude to driving. They are playing to the lowest common denominator, which means that anyone using any iota of intelligence becomes irrelevant. It’s like when you stop at a pedestrian red light and you can see the pedestrians have crossed over when the light was still against them, because no cars were coming. If you were to then drive on, on the basis that you could quite easily see that the people had already crossed and were long gone, and you were sitting at a red light, chugging out fumes, for no reason at all, you would be told at a tribunal that “those are the rules – and who asked you to think anyway?” That’s democracy folks!
Yes yes yes. We should rethink how we regard traffic lights. They are substitutes for stop signs which improve traffic flow at busy intersections. But when you are at a non-busy intersection and no one is coming on the intersecting road, you should be able to treat the red light like a stop sign and proceed at your discretion. Sitting there waiting for an electric timer to give you the go-ahead is ridiculous.
Yes yes yes. We should rethink how we regard traffic lights. They are substitutes for stop signs which improve traffic flow at busy intersections. But when you are at a non-busy intersection and no one is coming on the intersecting road, you should be able to treat the red light like a stop sign and proceed at your discretion. Sitting there waiting for an electric timer to give you the go-ahead is ridiculous.
Really, for parked cars?
If averyone had this attitude London would be clogged with traffic. Nearly every road has some cars parked at the side.
I agree that slowing for children playing makes sense.
You, Sir, are an exception, in your intelligent attitude to driving. They are playing to the lowest common denominator, which means that anyone using any iota of intelligence becomes irrelevant. It’s like when you stop at a pedestrian red light and you can see the pedestrians have crossed over when the light was still against them, because no cars were coming. If you were to then drive on, on the basis that you could quite easily see that the people had already crossed and were long gone, and you were sitting at a red light, chugging out fumes, for no reason at all, you would be told at a tribunal that “those are the rules – and who asked you to think anyway?” That’s democracy folks!
Really, for parked cars?
If averyone had this attitude London would be clogged with traffic. Nearly every road has some cars parked at the side.
I agree that slowing for children playing makes sense.
The speed you should be travelling at is the appropriate speed given road conditions and hazards present. If I’m driving past parked cars where a door maybe opened at anytime I may slow down to ten miles an hour. Some pratt behind me will probably hoot because they have no idea why I’ve slowed. I’ll also slow down if there are children playing with balls close to the road.
You’re over the target, sir. The “Sustainability” Lens presents the false impression of safety and well-being when in reality it does precisely the opposite.
You’re over the target, sir. The “Sustainability” Lens presents the false impression of safety and well-being when in reality it does precisely the opposite.
The modern liberal state wants cars off the road completely. They also want an end to small and medium businesses.
In their mind, cars belong to China and India. India currently puts less carbon into the atmosphere than the US, which can’t be right.
They have a lot of catching up to do and we should encourage them in that. US + China + India should aim for 80-90% of global carbon, the rest of the G8 10-20% and the developing world Net Zero (Africa and south-east Asia).
There is no way India puts less carbon in the atmosphere than the US.
A little over half as much it seems. And now China has doubled the US level.
A little over half as much it seems. And now China has doubled the US level.
There is no way India puts less carbon in the atmosphere than the US.
The modern liberal state wants cars off the road completely. They also want an end to small and medium businesses.
In their mind, cars belong to China and India. India currently puts less carbon into the atmosphere than the US, which can’t be right.
They have a lot of catching up to do and we should encourage them in that. US + China + India should aim for 80-90% of global carbon, the rest of the G8 10-20% and the developing world Net Zero (Africa and south-east Asia).
20mph speed limits in almost all the places i’ve experienced them are insane. If the sole objective is to reduce death and injury of pedestrians, why 20mph, why not 10mph? And if 10mph, why not 0mph, and ban cars, vans and lorries? Just allow pedestrians and cyclists (both with a maximum speed of 3mph) on roads. We’d all be a lot fitter, and the air quality would be great!!!
Mike Buchanan
JUSTICE FOR MEN & BOYS
http://j4mb.org.uk
20mph speed limits in almost all the places i’ve experienced them are insane. If the sole objective is to reduce death and injury of pedestrians, why 20mph, why not 10mph? And if 10mph, why not 0mph, and ban cars, vans and lorries? Just allow pedestrians and cyclists (both with a maximum speed of 3mph) on roads. We’d all be a lot fitter, and the air quality would be great!!!
Mike Buchanan
JUSTICE FOR MEN & BOYS
http://j4mb.org.uk
Given the average speed in central London is something like 9mph as a result of road congestion ‘chance would be a fine thing’ springs to mind.
However as the Author well knows, but ignores, most 20mph Zones are in backstreets and cut throughs where cars will speed in a desire to escape the congestion. It’s these routes, away from the main arterial routes that are often gridlocked, that push bikes, pedestrians and of course children, schools and families are more present. A 30mph limit means drivers drive at 35-40mph, as we all well know too.
As regards push bikes, yes the risk of a serious injury a bit higher but cyclists tend to be much healthier overall, and that has societal benefits too. And besides is the Author saying they should all jump in their cars instead and increase the congestion? What does he want – the average speed to drop to 8mph perhaps? This is the crackers thing about the car mentality – it’s self defeating logic.
“Car Mentality” is just a hilarious epithet. Degrowth Economics is Ze Future!
And road gridlock a Growth strategy?
Of course perhaps we just build more roads, flyovers, car-parks etc across a city like London?
What about removing cycle lanes, which are 2nd main reason for congestion (first is mass immigration).
Only 2.5% journeys are by cycles.
Why should tiny minority have disproportionate use of road space?
I often walk near Westfield in Shepherds Bush along Woods Lane.
In 10min you would see many dozens of cars stuck in traffic and 2 or 3 cyclists in good weather.
None in winter or bad weather.
What about removing cycle lanes, which are 2nd main reason for congestion (first is mass immigration).
Only 2.5% journeys are by cycles.
Why should tiny minority have disproportionate use of road space?
I often walk near Westfield in Shepherds Bush along Woods Lane.
In 10min you would see many dozens of cars stuck in traffic and 2 or 3 cyclists in good weather.
None in winter or bad weather.
And road gridlock a Growth strategy?
Of course perhaps we just build more roads, flyovers, car-parks etc across a city like London?
Do you live in London?
Please drive from let say Balham to Ladbroke Grove.
90% of possible routes have 20mph limit.
Congestion is caused by cycle lanes and low speed limit.
Your average of 9mph (I think it is 12) hides the fact that most of the delays are at certain choke points with the rest of the route allowing 30mph traffic.
Then is the issue of why 20mph still applies on empty roads late at night?
Reality is that cycling is not a solution to London traffic problems (2.5% of journeys are done by cycles).
Eventually, self driving pods will solve it.
But as we see from example of San Francisco, green eco fascists are against all realistic means of improving transport infrastructure.
I tried to reply but pure mention of eco fascis*s stop it.
But if you type eco communism and promote it, you will be OK.
Unless Unherd stops lefty scum censoring conversation, I am off.
I tried to reply but pure mention of eco fasci&*s stops it.
But if you type eco communism and promote it, you will be OK.
Unless Unherd stops lefty s%&m censoring conversation s, I am off.
“Car Mentality” is just a hilarious epithet. Degrowth Economics is Ze Future!
Do you live in London?
Please drive from let say Balham to Ladbroke Grove.
90% of possible routes have 20mph limit.
Congestion is caused by cycle lanes and low speed limit.
Your average of 9mph (I think it is 12) hides the fact that most of the delays are at certain choke points with the rest of the route allowing 30mph traffic.
Then is the issue of why 20mph still applies on empty roads late at night?
Reality is that cycling is not a solution to London traffic problems (2.5% of journeys are done by cycles).
Eventually, self driving pods will solve it.
But as we see from example of San Francisco, green eco fascists are against all realistic means of improving transport infrastructure.
I tried to reply but pure mention of eco fascis*s stop it.
But if you type eco communism and promote it, you will be OK.
Unless Unherd stops lefty scum censoring conversation, I am off.
I tried to reply but pure mention of eco fasci&*s stops it.
But if you type eco communism and promote it, you will be OK.
Unless Unherd stops lefty s%&m censoring conversation s, I am off.
Given the average speed in central London is something like 9mph as a result of road congestion ‘chance would be a fine thing’ springs to mind.
However as the Author well knows, but ignores, most 20mph Zones are in backstreets and cut throughs where cars will speed in a desire to escape the congestion. It’s these routes, away from the main arterial routes that are often gridlocked, that push bikes, pedestrians and of course children, schools and families are more present. A 30mph limit means drivers drive at 35-40mph, as we all well know too.
As regards push bikes, yes the risk of a serious injury a bit higher but cyclists tend to be much healthier overall, and that has societal benefits too. And besides is the Author saying they should all jump in their cars instead and increase the congestion? What does he want – the average speed to drop to 8mph perhaps? This is the crackers thing about the car mentality – it’s self defeating logic.
If any of you studied statistics – the science – you would know that the author is mis-using selective statistical measures to make hypothetical points, just as (probably) the people who proposed the changes did.
Both sides are talking nonsense
Not really.
Only tiny minority of road users are cyclist (I think 2.5% of journeys in London) which are given disproportionate use of road space due to cycle lanes.
Cycle lanes, 20mph limit and LTN zones are responsible for traffic congestion and pollution.
Only green blob believes that driving for longer at 20mph for the same distance is less polluting than driving at 30mph.
Not really.
Only tiny minority of road users are cyclist (I think 2.5% of journeys in London) which are given disproportionate use of road space due to cycle lanes.
Cycle lanes, 20mph limit and LTN zones are responsible for traffic congestion and pollution.
Only green blob believes that driving for longer at 20mph for the same distance is less polluting than driving at 30mph.
If any of you studied statistics – the science – you would know that the author is mis-using selective statistical measures to make hypothetical points, just as (probably) the people who proposed the changes did.
Both sides are talking nonsense
It all started so well. A rational article about the mindless pursuit of “safety”, when many of the risks are actually created by careless road users (and that includes pedestrians) and we’d be better improving individual behaviour and responsibility than imposing huge costs on society with punitive speed limits.
But then the bizarre distriabe against cycling. Just call the article “I hate cyclists” and be done with it.
There is no “bicycling oligarchy”. What nonsense.
Nor is cycling inherently unsafe. There are unsafe and careless cyclists. And thoughtless motorists. I’ve never in five decades cycling felt unsafe on British roads. Not as good as cycling in France where drivers are far better around cyclists, but not unsafe.
Just like driving, a cyclist needs to have some road presence and create certainty about his/her intentions. It’s uncertainty and inattention that largely creates accidents. So don’t listen to music while cycling.
Yes, reckless cycling is a crime and should be prosecuted. Usual lazy policing. What is it the police actually do these days ?
It all started so well. A rational article about the mindless pursuit of “safety”, when many of the risks are actually created by careless road users (and that includes pedestrians) and we’d be better improving individual behaviour and responsibility than imposing huge costs on society with punitive speed limits.
But then the bizarre distriabe against cycling. Just call the article “I hate cyclists” and be done with it.
There is no “bicycling oligarchy”. What nonsense.
Nor is cycling inherently unsafe. There are unsafe and careless cyclists. And thoughtless motorists. I’ve never in five decades cycling felt unsafe on British roads. Not as good as cycling in France where drivers are far better around cyclists, but not unsafe.
Just like driving, a cyclist needs to have some road presence and create certainty about his/her intentions. It’s uncertainty and inattention that largely creates accidents. So don’t listen to music while cycling.
Yes, reckless cycling is a crime and should be prosecuted. Usual lazy policing. What is it the police actually do these days ?
My first.comment.
Not about the issue but the quality of the piece.
Poorly argued. The 20mph versus 30 mph stuff paints a specific scenario but ignores others. The child appearing without warning for example, or driver error.
Then for no reason talks about bicycles, as though 20mph would force people to cycle.
You would be doing well to travel 20 miles across London in an hour or even two. Which is probably why people cycle. Only it is dangerous , more so when you are in an accident with a car.going 30mph than 20mph.
Its all pub level ranting not serious discussion . And I don’t ride a bike .
2/10
My first.comment.
Not about the issue but the quality of the piece.
Poorly argued. The 20mph versus 30 mph stuff paints a specific scenario but ignores others. The child appearing without warning for example, or driver error.
Then for no reason talks about bicycles, as though 20mph would force people to cycle.
You would be doing well to travel 20 miles across London in an hour or even two. Which is probably why people cycle. Only it is dangerous , more so when you are in an accident with a car.going 30mph than 20mph.
Its all pub level ranting not serious discussion . And I don’t ride a bike .
2/10
My second comment, I thought this was going to be the source of diverse opinions but its full of angry people some who are taking the piss and others who are serious, But neither group can recognise the other.
Then theres the rare poor sods who try to be reasonable and get voted down.
God forbid that anyone with.anything more than their personal experience to offer would join in.
The irony, the liberal left are emphasising the very subjectivity that you all express.
Loving it.
My second comment, I thought this was going to be the source of diverse opinions but its full of angry people some who are taking the piss and others who are serious, But neither group can recognise the other.
Then theres the rare poor sods who try to be reasonable and get voted down.
God forbid that anyone with.anything more than their personal experience to offer would join in.
The irony, the liberal left are emphasising the very subjectivity that you all express.
Loving it.
“irrational bicycling oligarchy”? I would not know of the problems around cycling in the UK, however, my experience in South Africa is that drivers are either respectful or do not care about cyclists. This forces cyclists onto the pavement, which becomes an issue for pedestrians.
I am not saying some cyclists are not at fault, but in many countries, they have they same/similar rights to drivers.
The lowering of the speed limit, hopefully not in SA. Good luck UK.
Only woke, green idiots would believe that driving the same distance at 20mph is less polluting that driving at 30mph. It takes longer, engine is running so it must be more polluting.
Then add the factor of engines being less efficient at 20mph and you can see that Sadiq Khant traffic policy has no scientific basis.
I am not driving that often (maybe once a month) but they way eco terrorists are trying to impose their idiocy on the rest of the population warrants French type of response.
It will not happen in uk, though.
Up to that point I was almost taken in.
Up to that point I was almost taken in.
How about banning cars? Only public transport, hmm …. ?
Of course. If public transport doesn’t go there, why should you?
Of course. If public transport doesn’t go there, why should you?
How about banning cars? Only public transport, hmm …. ?
A hodge podge of stats used in a partisan way. Of course driving slower will save lives
Just like Communism will promote cooperation and abundance.
Its the laws of physics, not dialectic materialism. Don’t know what you’re talking about.
I disagree. It’s Degrowth Economics that underlies the argument. If you look at it as an isolated event, sure it looks like a pragmatic decision. But when viewed through the Lens of Sustainability, you can easily see its not isolated, its an extension of dialectical reasoning that leads all the way back to Rousseau if not further. The ultimate goal is clearly to take more and more cars off the road.
Its common sense safety, nothing to do with de growth or sustainability, and you can better trace the argument back to Edmund Burke, that very common sensical politician, than to Rousseau [or Marx].
Look up UK Fires Absolute Zero. Look up the UN Sustainable Development Goals. This isn’t some crackpot conspiracy theory. They’re telling you what they’re doing. All you need to do is listen.
Look up UK Fires Absolute Zero. Look up the UN Sustainable Development Goals. This isn’t some crackpot conspiracy theory. They’re telling you what they’re doing. All you need to do is listen.
Its common sense safety, nothing to do with de growth or sustainability, and you can better trace the argument back to Edmund Burke, that very common sensical politician, than to Rousseau [or Marx].
Yes, it will safe life’s of some pedestrians.
Question is how many.
All decisions should be based on balancing harm and benefits.
How can driving slower to cover the same distance decrease pollution?
Engine runs for longer at lower efficiency.
Sadiq Khan claims that he wants to reduce pollution because it causes deaths.
So driving slower is not helping with that goal.
Reality is that Sadiq Khan is chair of “15 minutes cities” organisation.
Committed to stopping average citizens from leading reasonable lives why allowing elites like him to move freely in taxpayer provided cars.
I disagree. It’s Degrowth Economics that underlies the argument. If you look at it as an isolated event, sure it looks like a pragmatic decision. But when viewed through the Lens of Sustainability, you can easily see its not isolated, its an extension of dialectical reasoning that leads all the way back to Rousseau if not further. The ultimate goal is clearly to take more and more cars off the road.
Yes, it will safe life’s of some pedestrians.
Question is how many.
All decisions should be based on balancing harm and benefits.
How can driving slower to cover the same distance decrease pollution?
Engine runs for longer at lower efficiency.
Sadiq Khan claims that he wants to reduce pollution because it causes deaths.
So driving slower is not helping with that goal.
Reality is that Sadiq Khan is chair of “15 minutes cities” organisation.
Committed to stopping average citizens from leading reasonable lives why allowing elites like him to move freely in taxpayer provided cars.
Of course. It’s just the right people haven’t gotten it right yet.
Its the laws of physics, not dialectic materialism. Don’t know what you’re talking about.
Of course. It’s just the right people haven’t gotten it right yet.
Though it’s also the sort of article that has the autotories making a mess of their corduroy slacks. Which is always good for a laugh.
Ya. What the author failed to compare was deaths at 20km/h compared to 50km/h. The policy is ridiculous, it is a war on cars, but the stats in this essay are misleading. Driving slower saves lives, but we can’t protect everyone from every perceived danger. There’s always trade offs in every decision, every law. If we take this kind of ridiculous safetyism to its logical conclusion, then we should ban all cars and bicycles.
So lets not take it to its logical [do you mean ultimate] conclusion. Lets just be sensible and make car drivers go a little slower sometimes, that’s a reasonable trade off. There’s no war on cars, people who support this initiative also drive cars.
I’m sure the people who drive these cars don’t have to be in place X and time Y, like delivery drivers or people driving to school or work. We can’t protect everyone from every danger. There is inherent risk in life. Sometimes we have to accept that risk.
All this safetyism is so very selective. Way more people die driving on highways than pedestrians or people driving in the city.
There is indeed inherent risk in life, that is why we have sensible policies to mitigate risk. I’m sure you’re not arguing for doing away with all risk mitigation so we’re disagreeing on where to draw the line. There’s no such thing as safetyism, there are only health and safety policies, and yes they are selective. There is another aspect to all this, and its quality of life in neighbourhoods where people drive their cars fast. 20 mph lends itself so much more to a relaxed and convivial neighbourhood and that’s an entitlement too. I’m hearing a lot about people hating cars, but the other side of that coin is the tendency of drivers to be oblivious to anyone else not in a car.
I just don’t buy this “tendency of drivers to be oblivious non-car drivers”. We’re all pedestrians and most of us are also car drivers. I’m also a cyclist.
Let’s stop trying to stir up some sort of class conflict that doesn’t really exist. For this does feel rather like a proxy class war sometimes.
If we’re all pedestrians and most of us are car drivers, how is this class conflict?
If we’re all pedestrians and most of us are car drivers, how is this class conflict?
I just don’t buy this “tendency of drivers to be oblivious non-car drivers”. We’re all pedestrians and most of us are also car drivers. I’m also a cyclist.
Let’s stop trying to stir up some sort of class conflict that doesn’t really exist. For this does feel rather like a proxy class war sometimes.
There is indeed inherent risk in life, that is why we have sensible policies to mitigate risk. I’m sure you’re not arguing for doing away with all risk mitigation so we’re disagreeing on where to draw the line. There’s no such thing as safetyism, there are only health and safety policies, and yes they are selective. There is another aspect to all this, and its quality of life in neighbourhoods where people drive their cars fast. 20 mph lends itself so much more to a relaxed and convivial neighbourhood and that’s an entitlement too. I’m hearing a lot about people hating cars, but the other side of that coin is the tendency of drivers to be oblivious to anyone else not in a car.
I’m sure the people who drive these cars don’t have to be in place X and time Y, like delivery drivers or people driving to school or work. We can’t protect everyone from every danger. There is inherent risk in life. Sometimes we have to accept that risk.
All this safetyism is so very selective. Way more people die driving on highways than pedestrians or people driving in the city.
So lets not take it to its logical [do you mean ultimate] conclusion. Lets just be sensible and make car drivers go a little slower sometimes, that’s a reasonable trade off. There’s no war on cars, people who support this initiative also drive cars.
If I drive 10 miles at 30mph, I’ll be on the road for 20mins. If I drive 10 miles at 20mph, I’ll be on the road for 30mins. So I’ll be on the roads for a full 50% longer doing 20mph. How many more cyclists and/or pedestrians will I have to avoid in the extra 10mins?
Maybe drive at 60 mph then, if that’s your logic.
If you want more congestion on the roads, go ahead and lower the speed limit. The best way to get the most efficient usage out of the limited road capacity we have is to increase speed limits. As Ben said.
And we all know that car brakes and tyres have got far better (and safer) since the 70mph speed limit was set.
Pursuing zero road deaths has huge costs. It’s just not worth it now. We’ll get better returns (in safety) from reinstating the basic road safety training we used to have and not encouraging a mentality in which pedestrians can do whatever they want and take no responsibility for their own safety. Which is the direction we seem to be following.
The other day I turned a corner to find a woman pushing a pram in front of my car and talking on her phone. I was doing about 10 mph at the time so I didn’t run into her child. I educated her in basic road safety out of my car window as i was passing. I rest my case.
What case is that; that you shouldn’t be allowed on the roads as you are unable to asses risk at anything other than the most pedestrian speed? That you think screaming out of the window at a woman pushing a child is an appropriate way to behave? That you don’t appear to know that the rules changed and that pedestrians already crossing at a junction have right of way now?
I politely explained to the woman that pushing a pram across a busy road without looking is dangerous, got it? As for your other point, that’s a caricature of what I said.
You are a caricature of what you said.
You are a caricature of what you said.
I politely explained to the woman that pushing a pram across a busy road without looking is dangerous, got it? As for your other point, that’s a caricature of what I said.
What case is that; that you shouldn’t be allowed on the roads as you are unable to asses risk at anything other than the most pedestrian speed? That you think screaming out of the window at a woman pushing a child is an appropriate way to behave? That you don’t appear to know that the rules changed and that pedestrians already crossing at a junction have right of way now?
The other day I turned a corner to find a woman pushing a pram in front of my car and talking on her phone. I was doing about 10 mph at the time so I didn’t run into her child. I educated her in basic road safety out of my car window as i was passing. I rest my case.
If you want more congestion on the roads, go ahead and lower the speed limit. The best way to get the most efficient usage out of the limited road capacity we have is to increase speed limits. As Ben said.
And we all know that car brakes and tyres have got far better (and safer) since the 70mph speed limit was set.
Pursuing zero road deaths has huge costs. It’s just not worth it now. We’ll get better returns (in safety) from reinstating the basic road safety training we used to have and not encouraging a mentality in which pedestrians can do whatever they want and take no responsibility for their own safety. Which is the direction we seem to be following.
Most cars cannot drive at 20mph in 4th gear so will have to drive in urban areas in 3rd gear, will this not increase the pollution? As somebody flattened by a bicyclist on a pedestrian crossing when the cars stopped to let me cross, all cyclist should be required to have insurance and pay a road fund licence.
You can not reason with woke green blob.
Most of them are frustrated Marxists still crying for glory days of communism.
Most have zero understanding of science and technology.
They adopted another religion of CRT, identity and NetZero.
Their aim is to destroy Western society regardless of cost.
Pretending that driving slower decreases pollution is just for show.
You can not reason with woke green blob.
Most of them are frustrated Marxists still crying for glory days of communism.
Most have zero understanding of science and technology.
They adopted another religion of CRT, identity and NetZero.
Their aim is to destroy Western society regardless of cost.
Pretending that driving slower decreases pollution is just for show.
A good question.
You would avoid, if thats your style of driving, more pedestrians at the slower speed.
But of those you fail to avoid, fewer would die by a considerable number.
Utter nonsense.
Most death of pedestrians in cities are caused by drunk drivers going way above speed limit and drunk or on drugs and by Police vehicles in pursuit.
Having speed limit of even 10mph is not going to change that fact.
Then there is a question of numbers of lives saved.
The approach you advocate was tried with covid.
Now, after wasting 400 billion quid, we have thousands of excess deaths a week, destroyed education for millions and high inflation.
Utter nonsense.
Most death of pedestrians in cities are caused by drunk drivers going way above speed limit and drunk or on drugs and by Police vehicles in pursuit.
Having speed limit of even 10mph is not going to change that fact.
Then there is a question of numbers of lives saved.
The approach you advocate was tried with covid.
Now, after wasting 400 billion quid, we have thousands of excess deaths a week, destroyed education for millions and high inflation.
Maybe drive at 60 mph then, if that’s your logic.
Most cars cannot drive at 20mph in 4th gear so will have to drive in urban areas in 3rd gear, will this not increase the pollution? As somebody flattened by a bicyclist on a pedestrian crossing when the cars stopped to let me cross, all cyclist should be required to have insurance and pay a road fund licence.
A good question.
You would avoid, if thats your style of driving, more pedestrians at the slower speed.
But of those you fail to avoid, fewer would die by a considerable number.
Just like Communism will promote cooperation and abundance.
Though it’s also the sort of article that has the autotories making a mess of their corduroy slacks. Which is always good for a laugh.
Ya. What the author failed to compare was deaths at 20km/h compared to 50km/h. The policy is ridiculous, it is a war on cars, but the stats in this essay are misleading. Driving slower saves lives, but we can’t protect everyone from every perceived danger. There’s always trade offs in every decision, every law. If we take this kind of ridiculous safetyism to its logical conclusion, then we should ban all cars and bicycles.
If I drive 10 miles at 30mph, I’ll be on the road for 20mins. If I drive 10 miles at 20mph, I’ll be on the road for 30mins. So I’ll be on the roads for a full 50% longer doing 20mph. How many more cyclists and/or pedestrians will I have to avoid in the extra 10mins?
A hodge podge of stats used in a partisan way. Of course driving slower will save lives