| + Visit Cardiff FC for Latest News, Transfer Gossip, Fixtures and Match Results |
Fair play. That made me laugh. 🤣Originally Posted by TWGL1
I got sent this today,
People have been questioning what driving at 20 does to a car.
So I thought I'd go to some private ground and find out. (I'll try and keep this as short as possible).
{Image} Car driving at:
���������� ���� ������ - the car is asking you to shift to second because the revs are too low at 1200rpm.
�es��������� ���� ������ - (strangely) the car is asking for 3rd, because the revs are high enough to change up to third at 1800 rpm to maximise efficiency.
���������� ���� ������ - car is perfectly fine.
This was done in a VW Golf with a 2.0tdi Bluemotion(edit) engine, a fairly normal car. And one that should have enough torque to pull a car at lower revs.
But it's not happy. This was done on the flat. If the road starts to incline, you're going to need to select 2nd. An auto box will be working overtime.
... and there goes any reasoning by Welsh Labour that 20 is better for the environment.
I can't say what this will do for engines and gear boxes - there will be a lot more engine lugging (strain). If you have a diesel, you really need to change if you only drive in areas that are 20, it will kill the DPF.
This style of driving is going to mean a lot more shifting, more drifting above the speed limit and an added distraction that will require extra concentration. You'll probably also see a lot of stalls.
Further, everyone will be bored from driving so slow and will pick up a mobile phone. So it's not safer.
Their argument "being hit at 20 is safer than being hit at 30" is correct. But it doesn't factor real-world logic. If drivers are distracted there is a huge increase in dangers, especially reaction time.
���� ���� ���������� - in the real world, on the whole, no.
���� ���� ������������ ������ ������ ���������������������� - you'd need to see some more accurate data, but spending 1/3 more time in an area at similar or higher revs... sorry, but no.
���� ���� ������������ ������ ���������������� - maybe. Around schools or housing estates for sure.
���� ���� �������� ������������������ - £33m to implement and £4.5b (as admitted by the WaG)... ummm no.
Welsh Labour need to be questioned on their science and met with the real facts. Nobody in the the Senydd is doing this.
Can a petition be started to question their facts?
Please feel free to question the science here. But don't repeat tests on the road. 20 zones make a lot of sense in a lot of areas, but a blanket roll out is nothing short of stupidity.
Please, please don't vote for Welsh Labour in the next election. You don't have to vote Tory, just don't vole these idiots back in.
It’s not funny at all it’s just another persons account of the testing he did primarily to debunk the claim that the 20 mph is beneficial to the environment.
Perhaps you could offer some alternatives to the post and quEsTion thE scieNCE
Nearly two thirds of people in Wales oppose this it seems. Of course, feelings are often different before an event rather than afterwards, once people have got used to it.
We shall see I guess.
https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/p...-dont-27700429
I’m not convinced about this new speed limit, but I’d put myself in the could be persuaded category. I’ve been looking for a reasonable article which sets out the pros and cons of the whole thing, this piece claims to do that, but I’m not sure about that.
https://theweek.com/transport/957358...ph-speed-limit
https://www.eta.co.uk/2023/05/05/myt...-speed-limits/
https://www.rospa.com/rospaweb/docs/...factsheet.pdfS
Someone may want to point out to WOL that 61% isn't two thirds.
The interesting thing is, if the question was - 'Would you back 20mph in the streets around your home?' then you'd likely get above 90% saying yes.
The reality is that it's easier/quicker/cheaper to do a blanket change from 30mph to 20mph and given time and more local/council involvement, we'll see more main routes get changed back to 30. It just takes a bit of time.
So as it stands it won't work perfectly but given time, it'll be adapted and on smaller roads, we'll get used to it
Yes, first two appear to have an agenda and the third doesn't open for me.
I know what you mean though about a simple overview of the pros and cons being useful. I've gone to the Government's own cost/benefit assessment to understand it better. It has a bullet pointed executive summary. People may not agree with the assumptions made and values applied but it at least sets out what has been assumed on both sides of the equation.
Whilst I'm broadly persuaded that this is a good idea, what I'm not too happy with is the apparent increase in the number of mobile speed cameras. I don't think it's particularly fair to prosecute whilst drivers adjust to new limits and a totally new way of driving. A period of grace and adjustment is needed.
The Welsh Government leaflet that was distributed recently said that 63% of people supported lower speed limits on the street where they live.
That may not have factored
In that some will already be in a 20 zone too
Agree with you here. Just an idea but in areas where they’ve gone from 30 to 20 a warning letter would be good for a first offence, unless it’s over 30 obvs.
The issue here is the blanket approach they have attempted to impose, which does seem rather excessive to many people..
The overwhelming majority of streets in Cardiff are only safe at 20 anyway. Think of pretty much every terraced street, any cul de sac, any small residential road. No one whatsoever disputes that these places should be 20, and indeed no one really exceeds that anyway as they will risk their own car let alone the safety of others.
The problem is the roads that are vital to getting around, including, crucially, bus routes where people typically aren't nipping across roads, where some cars often grossly exceed the current limit anyway (and still will) and where 20mph seems excessively slow, creating stress delays, frustration etc. That of course is balanced against it being safer if everyone did follow it, but people are allowed to balance safety with other factors as we all do that in all aspects of life.
Off the top of my head, the road where this doesn't feel right at all include roads like; Gabalfa Avenue, Pencisely Road, Heol Llanishen Fach, Cathedral Road, Heatheood Road, Caerphilly Road etc, all of which I believe will be 20mph soon and I don't think someone doing 24mph there can realistically be called a dangerous driver.
I just think they have this wrong. They've gone too far.
I don't agree with most of the roads you've listed there - Caerphilly road would make sense to me, but the others no
�� | New 20mph speed limits in Wales expected to reduce deaths by 0.03%
— Jamie Jenkins (@statsjamie) September 14, 2023
��In 2022 there were 35,694 deaths in Wales & the Welsh Government expects the new limit to reduce this by 9
�� Far more lives are lost each year because of poor NHS management, including ambulance delays pic.twitter.com/6WHXhdZHs0
What an utterly ridiculous statement.
reducing your speed to 20mph on a few roads you use will help to save the lives of 9-10 people next year? that's pretty ****ing impressive for the actually minimal amount of effort it actually takes to drive a bit slower.
this person seems to be complaining that the road speed reduction is doing nothing to help the numbers of people dying from heart disease or cancer.
Was taking a look at a piece on the BBC earlier.
"Latest official figures show more people were killed or seriously injured in 30mph zones in Wales last year than at any other speed limit.
Of the 1,014 people killed or severely hurt on Welsh roads in 2022, more than 40% of the people (421) were hit in a 30mph stretch of road".
So if the 10 people getting killed are insignificant surely 421 are worth a thought?
It's hard to argue against to be honest.
Depends on your perspective though doesn't it. I'm sure there are a multitude of things that could be done to save less than 10 Welsh lives a year, all of which would slowly chip away about people's quality of life etc.
Will be interesting to see how this goes anyway. I suspect there will be minimal compliance although I also think the average speed will come down, but not to below 20.
Q - The people who were injured or killed in a 30mph zone - how fast was the vehicle going that hit them ?
The implied logic seems to be that everyone in a vehicle will adhere to the 20mph limit. If people dont adhere to a 30 the same people wont adhere to a 20.
I think this will end up being Drakeford's Poll Tax moment, I dont see people in Wales adhering to it.
So what you’re saying then is that the law isn’t the issue it’s just ensuring compliance
I’d suggest average speed check cameras will be the best bet, people largely tend to take those seriously and presumably will pay for themselves over time
You want average speed check cameras across the entirety of Wales and fines for people driving 24mph etc?
This kinda demonstrates how ridiculous it all is.
Most drivers drive way over 30 in 30 zones. When it all settles down, people will drive slower, I guess that’s the plan behind this.
No, but they’d be a good idea in targeted stretches once they know where they are getting least compliance
You can’t put average speed cameras on every stretch of road, they can not work in a single stretch of road like a motorway or dual carriageway
This well intentioned but utterly wasteful policy is unenforceable. Draketwat is dumb enough to think the opposite.
Outside schools etc fair enough. There was a woman killed in Victoria park, the driver was doing about 10 mph, but failed a drug driving test. So if a car doing 10mph can kill, using drakey logic lets enforce a 5mph limit
The statistics do not reveal what speed the drivers were doing in the 30 mph zones when the pedestrian fatalities occurred.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote