Plan for 20mph urban speed-cam zones touted

@Red Bred

'As a cyclist, how much do you suggest I should pay?'

I want each group to pay their share. You may be paying yours through the routes you've identified. That's fine. However, motorists pay huge amounts more than is spent on the roads and are therefore paying well over their share. If they do, perhaps you should too?

'Local roads are maintained by local authorities funded by local and general taxation which we both pay.'

Indeed so. Where does all the fuel duty etc. go? General taxation. So, you pay nothing extra to use the roads, whilst car owners pay billions into general taxation through fuel duty etc. and not all of that is returned to the roads.

So, in simple words, you pay the same tax as everyone else to ue the roads. e.g. Tax, council tax etc.etc. A car owner pays the same as you, plus all the car related taxes as well. Now, there's no doubting a car causes far more damage to the road than a bike, but the fact is, you pay nothing over your normal tax.

Also, if you cause damage to a car which is your fault, it's normally the car owner that pays as you have no insurance and they do. They have to claim and take the hit etc. The only alternative is to sue you though the courts. So, am I being unreasonable in asking you be insured the same as a car driver. Premium would probably only be a few pounds a year for you perfect bike riders. Also, why should you not have to prove your bike is roadworthy? I bet there are tons of bikes being used that are death traps. So, why should you not have a bike equivalent of a MOT?

@ anonymous coward 14.00GMT

Good grief. Of *course* road conditions change - that's why speed limits are different on different stretches of road. And one of the reasons they're different is because in the areas of lower speed limits there is a higher likelihood of an accident (e.g. due to passing through a hamlet on the A46, for instance, or going through a built up area) - and any accident is made worse, and is more likely to be fatal, the higher the speed(s) of those involved (which is not something that a sane person could dispute). And I'd rather take the local authority civil engineers' views on when it's safe to do 60 than rely on the common sense of some twat in a chavved up Nova, ta (sure, some people know when and how to drive safely, but 95% don't).

And that's the government's point - if it's a 30 limit, and you do 50, you're much more likely to kill someone than someone obeying the speed limit doing 30. This is *still* very simple. Your very inability to appreciate this and your insistance on over-complicating the issue makes one wonder about how safely you drive, and how much you over estimate your abilities.

I commute about 60 miles a day by car, btw, and see an awful lot of shitty drivers acting exceedingly recklessly, and regularly get delayed by accidents - probably at least once or twice a week. And I'm not a 60 year old pottering along complaining about all those youngsters in their silly fast cars, either - I'm 28 and drive a BMW 3 series.

@The Other Steve

'We all do. And in fact, non drivers are subsidising road use. Your 'road' tax covers ~20% of the actual cost to society of having a car biased transport infrastructure.'

Really? Which country is that for? It certainly isn't the UK.Try the following link:-

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/economics/budget_2007/article1551095.ece

Right, so £25.1billion in fuel duty, £5.6billion in VED, £4.4billion in VAT on fuel duty (yes, VAT is payable on the fuel duty!!)

So, your statement is total uninformed rubbish. The sort of drivel this government relies on. The sort of ignorant comment that the government loves. You're simply pandering to them. The total above is £35.1billion. So, that would make the total cost to this country five times that (you said the tax only covers 20%) e.g. £175.5billion.

If you believe that, you must believe in fairies.

Stop being a mouthpiece for the government and actually do decent research next time and quote something that is even vaguely close to reality.

Not that anyone's going to read this, but...

My primary form of transport is my electric bike, I don't own a car but I can drive (passed my test 1st time with no faults), I prefer to cycle whenever possible, even in freezing and wet conditions.

Despite the fact that I am one of those cyclists who does cycles on the pavement at times, I do give a damn about the pedestrians so I get off and walk past them when the path isn't clear. My favourite place to cycle are towpaths, you can't call them cycletracks because there's often too many bloody pedestriants clogging them up & slowing you down, especially those fucking dog walkers, washing that shit (literally), which they never clean up, off your tyres & frame & sometimes clothes is not a fun experience.

The *only* times I jump red lights are at 3am when there are no cars about because the bloody sensors on one set of traffic lights near me are only tuned to recognise car sizes & bigger. Usually I have to wait until a car turns up behind me to trigger the sensor.

It's totally true about the police not giving two squats about cyclists without lights and/or riding dangerously. I don't always have my lights on and cycle on the roads at night because there's too many crazy bastards (read: teenagers with 'souped up' noisy shitty Novas) who drive around late at night like they're the only one driving on the roads anywhere, and the police don't bat an eyelid at me.

And what's with all those 'painted on' cycle sections on the roads? that's just plain nosensical, it's a very rare thing to spot someone actually using them, the only thing they've done is to give the local counils the opportunity to say "we care about the cyclists" which is bullshit because all it does it squash the cars closer together, painting on the cycle section doesn't magically make the road wider!

Darwin Award

' What, exactly, do you think the police should be doing to the cyclists without lights, or cycling on the footpath?'

Nothing at all. However, when they get run over and killed, they should be sued for the damage to the car etc.etc. and the car driver should not be prosecuted. Unfortunately, that is not normally true.

P.S.

All crimes should be pursued. The fact we have a useless government who couldn't organise a p**s up in a brewery is not our fault.

>80% road deaths are under 20

Then raise the minimum age of driving to 21.

Personally, I would raise it to 25.

Stop your moaning all you <25 year olds. Driving is NOT a right, it is a privelege, and as you continue to demonstrate your manifest unsuitability to engage in this dangerous passtime, you should not be allowed to do so.

Full Stop - unlike you in your car....*crash*

TO Chris Roughneen

If you go back to my original post you will see that somebody was bound to say it was the car drivers who caused most of the accidents and that if the overriding aim was to cut the fatality rate then banning motorcycles from public roads was the one things guaranteed to work. Didn't mean that I was really saying that they should really do it - just recognise the effect. Even if the statistic of just over two-thirds of accidents being due to motorists is true (and I'd want to see exactly what they are measuring here and how - self-interested motorcycle insurance specialists aren't a naturally unbiased source) and you adjusted out the effect of the extra accidents caused by motorists (so it was 50:50) would would still get a vast over-representation.

In fact this guy here states (from a US study) that 41% of motorcycling fatalities do not involve another vehicle. Apparently more than twice the number than any other cause. Well maybe these 41% don't make an insurance claim which, if true, immediately makes a "nonsense of the 70% are caused by motorists argument".

http://www.msgroup.org/TIP056.html

OK - it's an old report (1994), but given that fatality rate among motorcyclists has fallen far slower than for road deaths as a whole, then is it really the case that there has been such a turnaround? Here are a few sentences from the report:-

"MOTORCYCLES The 2,304 motorcyclist fatalities accounted for 6 percent of total fatalities in 1994. The motorcycle fatality rate per 100 million vehicle miles traveled is about 20 times that of passenger cars. Motorcycle operator error was identified as a contributing factor in 76 percent of fatal crashes involving motorcycles in 1994. Excessive speed was the contributing factor most often noted. "

Here's another more recent one from 2005 (again American). 44% of motorcycle fatalities did not involve another vehicle

http://www.kentuckystatepolice.org/hsp/pdf/kentucky_state_police_factsheet.pdf

So even if you eliminated all the motorcycle/vehicle accidents which were caused by the other vehicle driver (not all of which are cars) then 63% of all these motorcycle deaths are still attributable to the motorcyclist.

Then there is this one :-

http://www.usroads.com/journals/aruj/9805/ru980502.htm

"Motorcycles are also more likely to be involved in an injury collision with a fixed object than are other vehicles. In 1996, 15 percent of the reported injury crashes involving motorcycles were fixed object crashes, compared to 8 percent for passenger cars, 8 percent for light trucks, and 5 percent for large trucks."

"In 1996, 42 percent of all motorcyclists involved in fatal crashes were speeding, nearly twice the rate for drivers of passenger cars or light trucks. The percentage of alcohol involvement was 50 percent higher for motorcyclists than for drivers of passenger vehicles."

Even if motorists did cause most accidents involving motorcycles, then you also ought to ask why this happens. Motorcycles are, of course, simply more difficult to see than cars or lorries. That's just a fact and no amount of "education" changes that. Maybe you can train everybody to be more cautious, but the disproportion will still arise. The "simply didn't see" syndrome is always going to happen - human beings are fallible. You can make it less likely to happen, but you can't eliminate it.

As for the fuel-efficiency of motorcycles, then there are plenty of people I know who get around 40-45mpg out of sports bikes (sometimes less). My rather old diesel car (which is far from an economy model) average 45mpg. Yes, you can get more economical motorcycles but the guys I see every day on the motorway weaving their way in and out of traffic, down white lines, across hatchings are not, in general, riding those type of bikes. So if you want to make a green case, ride one of those 100mpg bikes, but if you have a Hond Fireblade you are on weak ground (and that's even before you taking into account the difference in load and passenger carrying capabilities).

No, almost by their very nature, riders of high-powered motorcycles are less likely to be risk averse than road users as a whole. If safety was their prime concern then they simply wouldn't be exposing themselves to the extra dangers. My day-to-day experience is that this is the case. It was also my experience as a young motorcyclist (and we all know we are immortal at that age).

driver logic

cop: Why were you speeding?

driver : my brakes dont work and I was trying to get home quickly before I have an accident

After 160+ comments, remains simple

After all this, it remains a very simple matter. Most of what people say on this top is of no significance.

The essence of the question is this: we who live here do not want you driving through at more than 20mph.

Our desire to have lower speeds where we live is more important than your desire to pass through a few minutes faster.

It doesn't matter if you take longer to get there. Get used to it.

It doesn't matter if you don't like whatever the limit is, any more than if you don't like any other law. Just keep to it.

If you can't keep to speed limits while driving safely, stop driving.

It doesn't even matter if we are wrong about death rates and accidents. We want lower speeds where we live, and we are going to get them. If we have to track every mile driven by every vehicle in the country.

So get used to it.

How about sorting the hospitals first

More people are killed by infections caught in hospital than on the UKs roads.

to Chris Roughneen

I should let this one go of course, but I can't help but point out that weaving in and out of lanes on the Motorway is specifically covered by the Highway Code and when you change lanes then the onus is on the driver/rider to chack there is a safe gap, look and signal. Most certainly it does not allow for the sort of high-speed weaving between vehicles at high speed :-

"242. Do not overtake on the left or move to a lane on your left to overtake. In congested conditions, where adjacent lanes of traffic are moving at similar speeds, traffic in left-hand lanes may sometimes be moving faster than traffic to the right. In these conditions you may keep up with the traffic in your lane even if this means passing traffic in the lane to your right. Do not weave in and out of lanes to overtake."

Now a breach of the Highway Code is not in itself an offense, but it can be considered as evidence. Even if it wasn't an offense, it's bloody dangerous. If you can't see why it's dangerous to weave amongst lines of close-packed vehicles travelling at speed on a motorcycle, then that maybe goes some way to explaining the excess deaths among rders. If you want some more interesting statistics to read, then start looking for the difference in accident stats between riders of performance motorcycles and others - or for that matter performance car against otheres. As usual, the best researched statistics are American, but given their overally experience appears to be similar to ours (in relation to other motor vehicles) then I doubt they are much difference.

Title

"Good grief. Of *course* road conditions change - that's why speed limits are different on different stretches of road.

Conditions change with time as well as place. *That*'s what you and the strident nannies are ignoring.

"I'd rather take the local authority civil engineers' views on when it's safe..."

Not all road speed limit decisions are taken in a rational, evidence-based environment. I can see why daytime speed limits like the A38 through Birmingham have dropped a bit over the years as traffic volume has increased, but when the road is empty (at 3 am), well-lit and wide, and a comfy speed in 5th is 40, why can the speed limit not increase? And be 50 on the expressway section?

"the government's point - if it's a 30 limit, and you do 50, you're much more likely to kill someone than someone obeying the speed limit doing 30. This is *still* very simple."

It's still an ovesimplification for the sheep in this country who can't comprehend the difference between stake and probability of event.

"Your very inability to appreciate this and your insistance on over-complicating the issue makes one wonder about how safely you drive, and how much you over estimate your abilities."

Just because I think the speed limits need increasing doesn't mean I speed any more than you do. I have 200000 miles under me without an accident or a point on my licence and numerous occasions where my anticipation has prevented others' rank stupidity killing me.

"I commute about 60 miles a day by car, btw, and see an awful lot of shitty drivers acting exceedingly recklessly..."

I walk to work each day and see the same number. Most of those are going less than 30 mph. Many of those are what you might expect to be "professional" drivers: taxis, artics, delivery vans and the like.

"...I'm 28 and drive a BMW 3 series..."

Ah. BMW. 'Nuff said. Me, I'm 40 and drive a Nubira. Estate.

"All crimes should be pursued. The fact we have a useless government who couldn't organise a p**s up in a brewery is not our fault."

Yes it is. Collectively.

@ Anonymous Coward

"Conditions change with time as well as place. *That*'s what you and the strident nannies are ignoring.

Not all road speed limit decisions are taken in a rational, evidence-based environment. I can see why daytime speed limits like the A38 through Birmingham have dropped a bit over the years as traffic volume has increased, but when the road is empty (at 3 am), well-lit and wide, and a comfy speed in 5th is 40, why can the speed limit not increase? And be 50 on the expressway section?"

Oh, I agree that the speed limits can stand to be changed upwards in certain areas (motorways could definitely be a bit higher, for instance, as per certain more enlightened continental countries), and that a road can be safe to do 40 in at one time of day and only safe to do 25 at another, but I'd still much prefer that decision to be taken by the government or local authority than by the individual driver. How many people *under*estimate how good a driver they are? The person setting the speed limit also knows better than someone just passing through the area that although the first section of that 30 stretch looks like it's all country lane and safe to do 50, just around the corner is a zebra crossing in front of a school which at 50 you'd be unable to stop for.

I'd not trust 95% of drivers to make a decision on what speed they should be doing in a "rational, evidence-based environment", or even a fully informed one. There are precious few drivers who are as careful and unlikely to cause an accident as you say you are.

And in any event, from a legal point of view how on earth would you enforce a speed limit which is determined by the skill of the driver? How would you even determine it in the first place? "Dangerous driving" is a subjective enough offence as it is, without making one's speed entirely policed by that offence.

Far simpler, and easier to enforce, is to have set speed limits for set stretches of road. We all know what they are, and if you're in such a hurry that you'd need to consider speeding, then you should just have left a little earlier.

So - yes, we should increase one or two speed limits around the place, but anything more than just increasing certain set speed limits is going to be ridiculously impossible to police, and *will* lead to more accidents.

@The Other Steve

I really don't know whether to laugh or cry at your stupidity and perversion of research. Laughable.

'Deaths from air pollution caused by traffic, according to the Lancet are 19,000 per annum, if we believe the NAO figure for economic cost per road death, that's another 50bn quid.'

Now, I'll put this simply. A dealth caused by air pollution is not actually a 'road death'!! A road death is a death caused directly by the road. Perhaps you would like to include heart attacks for pedestrians witnessing a road death whilst you're at it. Also, if you divide £50billion by 19,000 you get £2.63million. Now, I know the government have been pumping money into the NHS at some rate, but £2.63million costs per death? And that's an average!! Anyone who believes that is away with the fairies. Total fantasy. SImple rational thought processes say it can't possibly be that much.

'http://www.leeds.ac.uk/media/current/trnprice.htm'

Unbiased? Who was the report produced in association with? AEA Group!! An environmental group!! So much for unbiased!! Just before you go on about it being university reasearch blah di blah, you have to realise that university research normally backs the people that fund it. The reason is simple. University workers need paying as much as anyone else and finding against the people providing the money usually results in no more money!! Additionally, university researchers are well known for jumping on any bandwagon that provides funds. So, no, this is far from independent research.

In short, you have looked up a few articles and papers etc. and taken them pretty much at face value rather than actually assessing them. In doing what you have done, you have fallen for figures that are blatantly and obviously ludicrous and accepted research papers that are biased. Well done!!

@Chris Roughneen

'Secondly, even if your motorcyclist friends are 'only' achieving 40-45mpg from their machines that is still considerably better than the UK car average of 37mpg - and a bike covering a distance of 25 miles in 30 minutes uses much less fuel than a car taking 60 minutes to cover the same due to it's engine running for half the time..'

Really. What a load of rubbish. If the motorbike is covering the distance in half the time, it must by definition be going twice as fast. Therefore, it will be emitting more per minute!! So, the increase in speed of the bike (which generally means more emissions!!), could actually result in the same or even more emissions!! The above statement alone shows your thinking is completely addled.

'Thirdly, the 'weaving in & out of traffic' you refer to is not actually illegal - it's filtering (if you had once been a rider no doubt you have engaged in this yourself?) and next time you see a Police motorcylist in traffic doing the same perhaps you'd like to take it up with him the same way you seem so eager to take it up with 'normal' riders?'

Whether it is illegal or not, is somewhat irrelevant. It's actually quite dangerous. When motorbikes suddenly appear from nowhere, accidents happen. Weaving in and out of traffic causes a lot of accident. Granted, not normally bad, in that a lot happens at very low speeds, but it does cause a lot. And before people jump on the bandwagon, it's not always the cars fault. When you're waiting in queues and motorbikes suddenly race past inches from your door at relatively high speed (say 20mph when you're stationary), it gives almost no time to react.

'Fourthly, I myself do not accept that bikes are harder to see than any other vulnerable road user'

Well, I'm afraid your in the minority. As the target is smaller, it is by definition harder to see. Also, because of their small size, they are hidden much easier by posts etc. within the car. They are also hidden easier by road signage etc.etc. Anyone who thinks motorbikes are as easy to see as cars really needs adjusting to the real world.

However, having said the above, I do believe that all road users need to be much better educated about road manners, driving etc.etc. You can introduce more laws as much as you like, but it is peoples driving ability (whether car, motorbike, etc.etc.) that causes most of the issues.