Speed Limits

[Linas.P]

TLDR... Loads of information, which is clearly far too much to digest and certainly to respond.

Most of the information you have provided is meaningless as it proves nothing, doesn't even address the argument I made. Have you actually read the article itself of just copy-pasted it? As I have already said - if suspect gets scared by the footage and admits their fault then validity of this footage in front of the court isn't even tested, nor relevant. My argument was - if it would go to the court would it be difficult to prosecute only based on the dashcam footage. I can't see clear statistics for that in your post.

Further there are many catch phrases which are very easy to pick-up and which are meaningless or misinterpreted. Just examples of few - "went on to result in prosecutions" - this is generic term that it went to Magistrates court, it does not mean however that prosecution was successful. As per my experience - I had 2 cases which "went on to prosecutions", one was lost because once of CPS messed it up and on second occasion judge just didn't have common sense (defence argument was - "yes I hit the car, but I didn't dent it" and Judge went with judgement that damage could not be proven beyond reasonable doubt).

The cyclist who has submitted 213 report is known maniac who deliberately provokes the situation, then films it and submits them to police. So he is professional provocateur and he knows what he needs to film... as I said if you captured actual driver in the video (which is quite difficult to do in dashcam), this is far better evidence than just having video of the car. He almost always captures the drivers and usually provokes them to get out of the car etc... but even then his success rate is just about 50%.

Now your statement that date on footage does not actually matter is true... it does not matter at all and even if it is 100% correct it does not matter. That is because dashcam is not certified to provide accurate date and time. As result this makes dashcam footage a "supporting" evidence at best and what is needed for successful prosecution is proving that suspect what at that place in that time. Whatever is the time on video, it is never treated as reliable. 

Overall, there are areas where I agree with you - dashcam is useful to have in the car as a defence tool and when it comes to insurance it really simplifies the process of getting compensation. However, public should never pretend to be police in the first place and even if they decide to do it, it isn't great in terms of securing prosecutions. So certainly I disagree with both the idea itself and with the statement that you can prosecute simply based on dashcam footage. That said, I do believe that it could be used as a tool to intimidate by police and quite a few people may fall for it - so despite it being inadmissible and poor evidence, it may still result in 60% of suspects simply admitting in front of evidence without even going to court. Simply said - it is not because it is great evidence, but because suspects didn't know better. 

[doog442]

edited for forum sanity...and mine ...I think I'm out.

 

Chapeaux. 

[Linas.P]

Going back to the topic of speed limits, the main issue I have with following them is lack of transparency. I consider that there should be public record of every decision related to speed limits e.g. "as result of x number of accidents caused by Y decision was made to introduce temporary speed limit of 50MPH for 3 years". And it should not be FOIA request to get it, it should literally be in public domain. Understanding the limit, would be first step in appreciating it and appreciating would lead into compliance. I simply can't follow arbitrary limit which I can't appreciate and based on road conditions I can see it is safe to drive faster.

That said limits on motorway would clearly cease existing because justification in there would be "this is temporary limit introduced in 1960s which we simply forgotten to remove". Could there be 70MPH limits on motorway - yes absolutely, but they have to be individually justified and temporary. Apart of these temporary limitations all the roads should allow the maximum speed based on the road itself i.e. urban roads 30, A-Roads 60, motorways unlimited.

The other big part - limits should not be used to raise revenue (how often we see perfectly straight roads which goes to 50, then back to 60 or 70 for no apparent reason, except of camera at the start of it), nor they should be used to mask the roads which are substandard. Goverment raises plenty of money from motorists to make every single road in country perfect, so speed limit reduction could not be justified by road getting simply worn out and unsafe.

Finally, public and drivers education, we need to filter poor drivers out of the population so that everyone can be safer and drive faster, likewise public should know the dangers of the road and don't be babies - take care of them selves instead of relying on drivers always driving at totally retarded speed and always being prepared to stop on the dime when some idiot jumps into the road.

[LenT]

13 hours ago, Linas.P said:

TLDR... Loads of information, which is clearly far too much to digest and certainly to respond.

Not too sure what this means, but if it's my last post to which you refer, than you seem to have responded, so that's OK. 🙂

13 hours ago, Linas.P said:

Most of the information you have provided is meaningless as it proves nothing, doesn't even address the argument I made.

With respect Linus, I think you made several arguments, some with which I agree.

13 hours ago, Linas.P said:

My argument was - if it would go to the court would it be difficult to prosecute only based on the dashcam footage. I can't see clear statistics for that in your post.

As I - and others - have made very clear, no prosecution can be based only on dashcam footage.  The police video submission forms also make this very clear!

13 hours ago, Linas.P said:

Have you actually read the article itself of just copy-pasted it?

Both.  I c&p what I think are relevant points and then provide a link to the full article so that anyone interested can check the provenance of the source and be assured that I haven't cherry picked - or data mined, as we say - the contents.

I drew the line at four items, but there seems to be no shortage of material.

14 hours ago, Linas.P said:

The cyclist who has submitted 213 report is known maniac who deliberately provokes the situation, then films it and submits them to police. So he is professional provocateur and he knows what he needs to film..

This was simply the first of such cyclist and motorcyclist reports I came across.  I believe there are many of them.

I've no idea if he is a 'maniac' or not, but I couldn't really see any 'provocation' in the clips available.  But in any case, the Police make it very clear that videos are submitted on the clear understanding that both parties are liable to prosecution if shown to be committing an offence.  I guess 'provocation' would come into that category.

 

13 hours ago, Linas.P said:

Further there are many catch phrases which are very easy to pick-up and which are meaningless or misinterpreted. Just examples of few - "went on to result in prosecutions" - this is generic term that it went to Magistrates court, it does not mean however that prosecution was successful.

This exasperated me too!  And yet they all do it.  I suspect that an application under the Freedom of Information Act might winkle out the conviction details.

However, I think there are some logical assumptions that can be made.  Firstly, simply being taken to Court will be a wake up call for many motorists and, when faced with the corroborated video evidence, they may decide to take the invariably cheaper option and 'fess up' as I believe the phrase is.

Secondly, if the Police and the CPS were getting a significant failure rate then they probably would stop doing it.

Let's take a closer look at one example I gave earlier:

16 hours ago, LenT said:

The What Car? research found Dyfed-Powys Police in South Wales is the most active in using dash cam footage.

It has taken action over 81.3% of the videos it’s received, with 40.2% of offenders receiving a warning, 18.6% of them were prosecuted in court and 18.4% were asked to attend a driver awareness course, while just 4.0% were handed an FPN.

OK, So we learn that 18.6% of offenders identified by video were prosecuted, but we don't know the success rate.  Nevertheless, it shows that the corroborated videos were effective at initiating Court action, which is what has been a subject of contention.  And it is not unreasonable to assume that the majority will lead to guilty pleas or convictions.

But equally we glean that the video submissions resulted in a further 62.6% of offenders being - at the very least -  inconvenienced by their careless road use and hopefully becoming more aware of their conduct and the risk of greater penalties for future transgressions.

Not a bad result, surely?

Speaking of the Gwent and South Wales force, I see that on their website there are three example of dashcam aided prosecutions that resulted in convictions.  Much like the Dorset police link I supplied earlier, I suspect there may be many more...

GoSafe - Snapped!

 

14 hours ago, Linas.P said:

Now your statement that date on footage does not actually matter is true... it does not matter at all and even if it is 100% correct it does not matter. That is because dashcam is not certified to provide accurate date and time.

Yes, that's what I and others have been saying.

14 hours ago, Linas.P said:

As result this makes dashcam footage a "supporting" evidence at best and what is needed for successful prosecution is proving that suspect what at that place in that time. Whatever is the time on video, it is never treated as reliable. 

Absolutely.  That's why submitters of video evidence have to accept that they may have to appear in Court if it's contested.

14 hours ago, Linas.P said:

However, public should never pretend to be police in the first place

If taken literally, that is an offence!  But it is too often forgotten that all citizens have a civic duty to report acts of criminal activity.  That is, unless they condone acts of terrorism, rape, assault, car theft, catalytic converter abductions and so on.

14 hours ago, Linas.P said:

so despite it (dashcam video) being inadmissible and poor evidence,...

Oh dear.  And there I was thinking we were now finally agreeing that it was both admissible and good evidence - within the strictures applied, of course.

14 hours ago, Linas.P said:

...it may still result in 60% of suspects simply admitting in front of evidence without even going to court.

A result then!  Think of all the Court and Police time that saves.  And all because they were 'Caught On Camera'

(Good title for a TV show, that)

PS.  Linas, my apologies for taking a while to respond.  This is the second version. I was just finessing my first attempt - and lost the whole darn lot!!

[Linas.P]

It seems that we agree on more things that we disagree, so that is good to see. TLDR means - too long; didn't read. 

If we go to beginning of argument, then you said:

Quote

 [Dashcam is] effective at recording and prosecuting criminal driving

vs.

Quote

As I <...> have made very clear[?], no prosecution can be based only on dashcam footage.

As you can see your argument has shifted from the initial statement. And now I agree with you, by itself it is not effective - that is what I have argued. As supporting evidence it could be very very effective, depending of what is captured and what other evidence exists. So I agree with with your last statement now.

As well it is important to define what "effective" means - in my mind effective is like "80/20 rule" - meaning that it is effective in majority of the cases. From stats you kindly provided it seems that effectiveness of dashcam footage are from as low as ~1%... and as high as ~48%... so let's say on average 25% across the board and ineffective in 75% of cases. In my mind that is not effective at all.

Comparing that with what I consider actually "effective"... as defence it is like 80-90%+ effective, because if you were innocent in almost all cases you will be able to prove it using dashcam. That is effective and that is why I recommend fitting it.

We as well agree that date, time and location from dashcam isn't reliable evidence. And that is partially why dashcam footage on it's own isn't very reliable or strong.

We agree that video could be effectively used to scare and threaten the suspects into admission. However, I personally find such admission itself questionable, immoral and not much different from criminal behaviour in itself. Frankly, I don't see the difference of old police methods of smashing people in pulp to gain admission by physical violence and the modern method psychological terror or using video to force the admission. I just don't support that and I do not care if the suspect is actually guilty, especially when it comes to driving offences, many of which are rather arbitrary. You can call me idealist, but my opinion is that there are only two possibilities - either police have 100% clear evidence and can prove guild without admission, or they don't have evidence and they can't. Having 20% of evidence and then forcing admission before it reaches the court is just not practice I support.

In the end I think we clearly have difference between practice and theory. In theory, based on existing law and standard dashcam footage would rarely help in prosecution, simply because almost any suspect could argue they were not the driver at the time and the time in video is not correct. However, in practice there may be high number of suspects simply being scared by police and admitting it anyway, so real persecution rate (or "benefit") is higher than it should be. 

Now, sadly, in my experience on both occasions I got into situations where suspects had titanium-balls and were completely unaffected by watching the footage, it certainly didn't result in the admitting and settling out of the court and ultimately both cases were lost in the court. Basically showing that if suspect stick to their story and pleads not guilty, there is high chance court won't convict them in absence of any other strong evidence. So in my experience dashcam footage resulted in 0% win rate and maybe that is why I am more pessimistic about it's effectiveness. 

Finally, one important note to make - evidence collected by police is always far more important than evidence collected by public. In both of my cases police refused to attend the incident and in both cases that was what ultimately failed the prosecution. If police would have merely attended and recorded incident themselves, that most likely would have been enough for successful prosecution. That is why I am rather spiteful when it comes to police.

[wharfhouse]

Latest findings - how to significantly reduce road injuries without 20mph limits:

The Guardian: Low-traffic schemes halve number of road injuries, study shows.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jul/23/low-traffic-schemes-halve-number-of-road-injuries-study-shows

Wow - wonder how they came up with that 🤔

[Linas.P]

Guardian has always been a bot of hippy of the magazines, cyclist paradise and motorist nightmare. Probably one of the reason I stopped reading it, among other reason like increasingly poor journalism. The data they have quoted is really interesting in a sense that it is so fundamentally flawed. And as expected they do not provide any journalism qualities as they simply take the statements from biased and interested groups and state them as a fact in article, without analysing, challenging or providing alternative perspective. As I said previous, motorist opinion does not matter! Especially, for news papers like guardian.

The key issue I can see is that they conflate 20MPH limit, to LTNs (access only streets) and on top of that they doing research during covid time which is unprecedented in terms of reduction in travel and traffic as a whole. 

Why this makes no sense? That is because imposing 20MPH limit on main street is NOT the same as imposing this limit in cul-de-sac/access only street which is dead end.

Other significant term we should take a look at is "discouraging driving" - NO 💩! So basically you want my money for driving, but you don't want me to actually drive... that sounds like usually raw deal motorists are getting. And I kind of appreciate the concept on LTN where the traffic is only local and that promotes walking/cycling locally, but it completely doesn't make sense on major road which is used by many people who are not local at all and who are not travelling locally. 

The only issue I see with LTNs themselves is that the being offered as solution without looking into causes. The reason why people choose to "rat-run" on local streets instead of using main road is usually because the main road is simply not capable of providing sufficient capacity. In short - if they focus on making main roads viable and providing sufficient capacity there, then drivers would naturally decide to stick to main roads and LTNs would not be even needed. So as usual they are addressing symptoms and not the issue in itself.

Will the Beast Norman, the walking and cycling commissioner for London, said:

Quote

“This research categorically shows yet another benefit that well-planned LTNs bring, adding to the long list of advantages.”

Surely, one obvious disadvantage he forgets to mention - increased congestion, traffic, noise and travel times on main roads. Just a "tiny" detail... 

[wharfhouse]

2 minutes ago, Linas.P said:

Guardian has always been a bot of hippy of the magazines, cyclist paradise and motorist nightmare. The data they have quoted is really interesting in a sense that it is so fundamentally flawed. 

The key issue I can see is that they conflate 20MPH limit, to LTNs (access only streets) and on top of that they doing research during covid time which is unprecedented in terms of reduction in travel and traffic as a whole. 

Why this makes no sense? That is because imposing 20MPH limit on main street is NOT the same as imposing this limit in cul-de-sac/access only street which is dead end.

Other significant term we should take a look at is "discouraging driving" - NO 💩! So basically you want my money for driving, but you don't want me to actually drive... that sounds like usually raw deal motorists are getting. And I kind of appreciate the concept on LTN where the traffic is only local and that promotes walking/cycling locally, but it completely doesn't make sense on major road which is used by many people who are not local at all and who are not travelling locally. 

The only issue I see with LTNs themselves is that the being offered as solution without looking into causes. The reason why people choose to "rat-run" on local streets instead of using main road is usually because the main road is simply not capable of providing sufficient capacity. In short - if they focus on making main roads viable and providing sufficient capacity there, then drivers would naturally decide to stick to main roads and LTNs would not be even needed. So as usual they are addressing symptoms and not the issue in itself.

I posted it rather tongue in cheek - it was a lot of words and so-called findings which basically boiled down to if you (significantly) reduce cars on roads the number of casualties will be less... Wow - a revelation - another in-depth study to tell us something that is as clear as the nose on our face! 

[Linas.P]

24 minutes ago, wharfhouse said:

I posted it rather tongue in cheek - it was a lot of words and so-called findings which basically boiled down to if you (significantly) reduce cars on roads the number of casualties will be less... Wow - a revelation - another in-depth study to tell us something that is as clear as the nose on our face! 

I think if you boil it down to one sentence, then it is exactly that... and I agree it is bloody obvious.

It is almost opposite to what I said in my previous post - if pedestrians don't jump on roads then it will inevitably lead to less injuries. "safe roads" proponents seems to have exactly opposite idea - "if there are no cars on the roads, then there will be no injuries..." equally true, but then I would like them to explain me what utility does the road have in this case and why they are expecting drivers to continue to contribute £38bn into the budget every year if they literally can't drive?!

By the way - nice summary for anyone who don't want to waste time on reading the article. 

[Phil xxkr]

2 hours ago, Linas.P said:

Guardian has always been a bot of hippy of the magazines, cyclist paradise and motorist nightmare. Probably one of the reason I stopped reading it, among other reason like increasingly poor journalism. The data they have quoted is really interesting in a sense that it is so fundamentally flawed. And as expected they do not provide any journalism qualities as they simply take the statements from biased and interested groups and state them as a fact in article, without analysing, challenging or providing alternative perspective. As I said previous, motorist opinion does not matter! Especially, for news papers like guardian.

The key issue I can see is that they conflate 20MPH limit, to LTNs (access only streets) and on top of that they doing research during covid time which is unprecedented in terms of reduction in travel and traffic as a whole. 

Why this makes no sense? That is because imposing 20MPH limit on main street is NOT the same as imposing this limit in cul-de-sac/access only street which is dead end.

Other significant term we should take a look at is "discouraging driving" - NO 💩! So basically you want my money for driving, but you don't want me to actually drive... that sounds like usually raw deal motorists are getting. And I kind of appreciate the concept on LTN where the traffic is only local and that promotes walking/cycling locally, but it completely doesn't make sense on major road which is used by many people who are not local at all and who are not travelling locally. 

The only issue I see with LTNs themselves is that the being offered as solution without looking into causes. The reason why people choose to "rat-run" on local streets instead of using main road is usually because the main road is simply not capable of providing sufficient capacity. In short - if they focus on making main roads viable and providing sufficient capacity there, then drivers would naturally decide to stick to main roads and LTNs would not be even needed. So as usual they are addressing symptoms and not the issue in itself.

Will the Beast Norman, the walking and cycling commissioner for London, said:

Surely, one obvious disadvantage he forgets to mention - increased congestion, traffic, noise and travel times on main roads. Just a "tiny" detail... 

Great comment Linas, it's this all pervasive absolution of evidence and reality that continues to baffle me. As I referred to in an earlier post, Problem - lack of spending /footfall in town centres, Answer - increase parking charges, rates and regulations  and Pave over the centre roads. Or, speed bumps producing more No2, or certain parts of the country that do not want people in cars but do want their cash 🎶

[Linas.P]

As well it is proven that combined delay of speedbump (and other traffic "calming" features) kills more people that they could ever save. Yet every time I drive I see more and more of them being fitted on main roads! Sure in parking lot or small access roads they make sense, but not on major streets!

You providing several good examples of hypocrisy and madness in this country. For example I literally stopped using one hair salon after being their client for over 12 years... because it used to be 2 hours free parking no return, then it turned into 30 minutes no return, then £2/h for max 1h no-return and you could only pay by phone app which never works! After 6 years of 30 minutes free parking it caught me out once and I had to pay £60 for damn council fraud and since then I won't return there. This is example of how it affect local business, but how many business I simple ignored and never even considered, just because I can't park where they are?

And this premise that you can reach anywhere on foot, cycle or public transport is just ridiculous. Sure if everything exists 500 years from my home, why not! But even if it is 5 miles I will certainly drive there. 5 miles in a car is what? 8-10 minutes? and I get out of if clean, dry and not sweating my shirt off. In public transport it will be 5minutes walk to the station, 10 minutes wait time if you lucky, 10 minutes journey if you don't need to change and then another 10 minutes walking... add return journey and suddenly it takes 2 hours to do something that could have been done in 25 minutes in your own car! Not to mention utility of the car to haul your luggage and I won't need to scrub chewing gum off my trousers and go through deep cleaning and chemical decontamination process when I am back!

For those cycling enthusiast I would like to see how they are doing your weekly groceries shopping on the bicycle, or they are cramming themselves with 8 bags of food into stinky bus? No sure not... they get into their sneaky car, do shopping and they forget about that journey as soon as they turn on PC and get onto forum and to bark at car owners 😄 

[Phil xxkr]

1 hour ago, Linas.P said:

As well it is proven that combined delay of speedbump (and other traffic "calming" features) kills more people that they could ever save. Yet every time I drive I see more and more of them being fitted on main roads! Sure in parking lot or small access roads they make sense, but not on major streets!

You providing several good examples of hypocrisy and madness in this country. For example I literally stopped using one hair salon after being their client for over 12 years... because it used to be 2 hours free parking no return, then it turned into 30 minutes no return, then £2/h for max 1h no-return and you could only pay by phone app which never works! After 6 years of 30 minutes free parking it caught me out once and I had to pay £60 for damn council fraud and since then I won't return there. This is example of how it affect local business, but how many business I simple ignored and never even considered, just because I can't park where they are?

And this premise that you can reach anywhere on foot, cycle or public transport is just ridiculous. Sure if everything exists 500 years from my home, why not! But even if it is 5 miles I will certainly drive there. 5 miles in a car is what? 8-10 minutes? and I get out of if clean, dry and not sweating my shirt off. In public transport it will be 5minutes walk to the station, 10 minutes wait time if you lucky, 10 minutes journey if you don't need to change and then another 10 minutes walking... add return journey and suddenly it takes 2 hours to do something that could have been done in 25 minutes in your own car! Not to mention utility of the car to haul your luggage and I won't need to scrub chewing gum off my trousers and go through deep cleaning and chemical decontamination process when I am back!

For those cycling enthusiast I would like to see how they are doing your weekly groceries shopping on the bicycle, or they are cramming themselves with 8 bags of food into stinky bus? No sure not... they get into their sneaky car, do shopping and they forget about that journey as soon as they turn on PC and get onto forum and to bark at car owners 😄 

That's a quality Friday rant Linas 😁

[LenT]

14 hours ago, Linas.P said:

As well it is proven that combined delay of speedbump (and other traffic "calming" features) kills more people that they could ever save. Yet every time I drive I see more and more of them being fitted on main roads! Sure in parking lot or small access roads they make sense, but not on major streets!

Just my curiosity Linus, but I'd be interested to know in what way this claim is actually 'proven'.  

To claim that 'the combined delay of speedbump (and other traffic "calming" features) kills more people that they could ever save' seems rather counter intuitive to me.

After all, if you apply the principle of 'reductio ad absurdum' to the argument and eliminate all traffic then you would expect to eliminate all traffic related accidents!

Indeed, this very effect is demonstrated by the use LTNs.

[Linas.P]

It was a study done by emergency services where they calculated how many people dies on average per minute of delay, then they calculated how much ambulances and other emergency services are delayed, to come-up with conclusion that more people dies from traffic calming features that are saved by reduction in speed. I would agree it is theoretical increase, but likewise traffic calming features are justified by theoretical decrease - so I think it is just fair comparison. In nutshell - traffic calming features actually does not work as a way to reduce deaths. I will try to find the article.

LTNs are not traffic "calming" feature, they are literally blocking off the road in the middle and making 2 dead ends from both sides for access only. What I consider traffic calming feature are speed humps, narrow gates and chicanes... roundabouts depending on how obstructive they are could as well be considered as such.

Regarding "reductio ad absurdum" - not sure what is your point... I think we all agree that it is both true and absurd at the same time. Like - let's make all knives dull and we won't have accidental cuts... yes except then we will lose utility of having a knife!

Edit:

1. Apparently The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) has estimated that Pollution caused by speed calming measures kills additional 25,000 people a year.  I would take this with a grain of salt (maybe quite a lot salt actually)... because it means 1/6th of all deaths are caused indirectly only by traffic calming features (ridiculous). 

2. More realistic estimate comes from London Ambulance Service - they claim that more than 500 deaths from cardiac arrest a year could be caused by traffic calming features delay in London alone. Extrapolated for UK that would be ~3000 deaths. If we take road deaths number in UK last year ~1700, this makes my statement correct - traffic calming features causes more deaths by causing delay to emergency services... actually quite significantly more than they could ever save! Because assumption is that traffic calming features reduce some of deaths, but if LAS estimate is correct then they cause almost twice the total number! Add fee deaths from what NICE estimates and they look even less appealing!

 

[Phil xxkr]

31 minutes ago, Linas.P said:

It was a study done by emergency services where they calculated how many people dies on average per minute of delay, then they calculated how much ambulances and other emergency services are delayed, to come-up with conclusion that more people dies from traffic calming features that are saved by reduction in speed. I would agree it is theoretical increase, but likewise traffic calming features are justified by theoretical decrease - so I think it is just fair comparison. In nutshell - traffic calming features actually does not work as a way to reduce deaths. I will try to find the article.

LTNs are not traffic "calming" feature, they are literally blocking off the road in the middle and making 2 dead ends from both sides for access only. What I consider traffic calming feature are speed humps, narrow gates and chicanes... roundabouts depending on how obstructive they are could as well be considered as such.

Regarding "reductio ad absurdum" - not sure what is your point... I think we all agree that it is both true and absurd at the same time. Like - let's make all knives dull and we won't have accidental cuts... yes except then we will lose utility of having a knife!

Edit:

1. Apparently The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) has estimated that Pollution caused by speed calming measures kills additional 25,000 people a year.  I would take this with a grain of salt (maybe quite a lot salt actually)... because it means 1/6th of all deaths are caused indirectly only by traffic calming features (ridiculous). 

2. More realistic estimate comes from London Ambulance Service - they claim that more than 500 deaths from cardiac arrest a year could be caused by traffic calming features delay in London alone. Extrapolated for UK that would be ~3500 deaths. Now if we take know road deaths number in UK last year ~1700, this makes my statement correct - traffic calming features causes more deaths by causing delay to emergency services... actually quite significantly more than  they could ever save, considering the number is twice as big as all traffic deaths combined. Add fee deaths from what NICE estimates and they look even less appealing!

 

Another great demonstration of the law of unintended consequences 🤗 and why it makes sense not to make laws in haste or you will repent at leisure 😭

[Linas.P]

Yes... but what worries/annoys me the most... that we now know it is the case, this is not secret! Yet government and councils continues to add new traffic calming features every day. In short making mistakes is "fine", but not learning from them is the main issue. Now I say "fine", because I believe for the goverment it isn't actually "fine", I consider that they should always do more due diligence, but I accept some mistakes will be made - they are just people after all.

This reminds me the "diesel gate" - it as known for quite some time diesel cars are much dirtier than CO2 figures suggests, yet goverment continued to push (incentivise via tax) diesels all the way to ~2016 and only really started penalising them recently... ~2018 maybe... yet still to this day you can get new diesel and actually take advantage of lower tax in some case. Again - obvious issue for everyone, diesel gate actually started in US in 2008, clear conclusions were made in 2012 and WV was already penalised in court in 2015... why did it take UK so long to do anything about it? To be fair it doesn't seems like even today they have done enough...

So it is this failure to recognise and correct past issues which is most annoying. But obviously it being goverment I would expect better decisions from them overall. More facts based and less political (I know this is not realistic with the bunch we have...)

[LenT]

 

21 hours ago, Linas.P said:

It was a study done by emergency services where they calculated how many people dies on average per minute of delay, then they calculated how much ambulances and other emergency services are delayed, to come-up with conclusion that more people dies from traffic calming features that are saved by reduction in speed. I would agree it is theoretical increase, but likewise traffic calming features are justified by theoretical decrease - so I think it is just fair comparison. In nutshell - traffic calming features actually does not work as a way to reduce deaths. I will try to find the article.

Edit:

2. More realistic estimate comes from London Ambulance Service - they claim that more than 500 deaths from cardiac arrest a year could be caused by traffic calming features delay in London alone. Extrapolated for UK that would be ~3000 deaths. If we take road deaths number in UK last year ~1700, this makes my statement correct - traffic calming features causes more deaths by causing delay to emergency services... actually quite significantly more than they could ever save! Because assumption is that traffic calming features reduce some of deaths, but if LAS estimate is correct then they cause almost twice the total number! 

Thank you for this additional information Linas. It’s always useful to know the source material for any claim. As it happens, I think I can add a bit more background to this.

The claim that apple Color Emoji, Segoe UI Emoji, Segoe UI Symbol"> apple Color Emoji, Segoe UI Emoji, Segoe UI Symbol">‘more than 500 deaths from cardiac arrest a year could be caused by traffic calming features delay in London alone’apple Color Emoji, Segoe UI Emoji, Segoe UI Symbol"> surfaced in early 2003 and was widely publicised., It was not actually a study by the London Ambulance Service but a statement attributed to the then Chairman, Sigurd Reinton. As you have demonstrated, this was then extrapolated into the numbers you describe.

However, Reinton denied that he had ever made such a statement! He made this clear when he appeared before the London Transport Committee on 11^th December 2003. Here are some extracts from the Minutes of that Meeting: (My emphasis added)

Lynne Featherstone (Chair): ….it would seem, given the balance, the Ambulance Service is saying that lives are lost because of the delay. It was quoted in the papers that 500 lives are lost a year because of traffic calming.

Sigurd Reinton, Chair, LAS: Can I just be absolutely clear on that? I am being accused of saying that lives are lost, when in fact I said lives might be lost. I would like to see some proper research…

Lynne Featherstone (Chair): I stand corrected. But I read the newspapers, what can I say? There is a contradiction here with TfL who do not necessarily accept that. They put something like three seconds per hump, I believe, as their delay factor. ... Are you saying that you actually are objecting to the traffic calming in what we generally would understand as residential areas?

Sigurd Reinton, Chair, LAS: I am not quite saying that. I am saying that when schemes are being considered it is very important to weigh up all the pros and cons. Where, for example, you have either an ambulance station located in a residential area, or where we know from our records that there are high instances of calls, it may be that if you look at the likely effects on our response times, and the likely benefits of traffic calming, the local authority, after weighing the two up, may well come to the view in many cases that the number of lives saved by the traffic calming scheme is not large enough.

I do want to emphasise this because we are being somewhat misquoted on this. We are not saying that all traffic calming is bad. We are saying, as I said in my introductory statement, that we have to recognise that there are two public goods here that compete with one another. We need to strike a good balance.

And later on….

Jenny Jones (Assembly Member😞 Mr Reinton, we have had some correspondence about the figure of 500 deaths caused by road humps a year. You have been quoted in the newspapers as saying that, but in the correspondence that we have had, you appear not to be saying that. Is that true – that you have not said that road humps cause 500 deaths per year?

Lynne Featherstone (Chair): Was this not clarified earlier?

Jenny Jones (AM): Not really. The evidence we have had here from the London Ambulance Service does not actually say that. It says something different. I would just like clarity on that.

Sigurd Reinton, Chair of LAS: I have here in front of me, Jenny , a copy of a letter I sent to you. In case you do not have it, I can give you another copy. It addresses your displeasure at the suggestion that maybe more lives are being lost. It says here that ‘traffic calming seems to have worked in that, over the last 20 years, road speeds have fallen from anywhere between 7-28%, depending where in London and what time. But road deaths have risen which is not what you would expect.’ ‘And the LAS,’ and this is the crucial part, ‘could save many more lives if the roads were flowing better.’

By way of illustrating this latter point, I have said that ‘a minute saved on average, in getting to the 8,000 or so cardiac arrests that we are called to, might save 500 lives a year.’ That is the number that was quoted. I am not going to, frankly, go to the stakes about whether the number is 500, 300, 600 or anything else, not least because, in any event, this only refers to people who have suffered cardiac arrest. They are a fraction of the total number of people with immediately life-threatening conditions.

Jenny Jones (AM): So you have never said that road humps cause 500 deaths?

Sigurd Reinton, Chair LAS: I do not recall saying that, no.

Lynne Featherstone (Chair): But the principle of them taking longer has to be accepted that…

Jenny Jones (AM): No, Chair, I am actually making a very important point here. We have this urban myth that the London Ambulance Service has said that they could save 500 lives a year if there were no road humps. This has now become a completely unsubstantiated myth.

Lynne Featherstone (Chair): Which he has dispelled today quite clearly.

Jenny Jones (AM): That is wonderful. Thank you very much.

The traffic calming measures the Fire Brigade and LAS were particularly exercised about were the speed humps with vertical deflections of about 100mm. When they were reduced in Hull to 75mm, they found these ‘acceptable’. Similarly speed cushions as opposed to humps were more acceptable.

Traffic calming measures such as width restrictions and chicanes were also better tolerated by the emergency services.

Now the Meeting was much more nuanced than I’ve been able to demonstrate here. That would obviously stray into TLDR territory...if it hasn’t already! But I thought it worthwhile to establish that the cited conclusion – that the LAS had produced a study proving an estimate of the potential lives lost through traffic calming - was, in the words of Jenny Jones, an unsubstantiated myth.

It also has to be considered that the benefits of ‘traffic calming’ - death and accident reduction, reduced pollution levels, improved environment and such like - are not estimates but based on actual data.

I would finally add that this all dates back to 2003. I suspect that developments in ambulances, paramedic training and resources, road calming measures and the like will also have improved matters.

Clearly there are merits to all the arguments. But I think they are better made if soundly founded.

For anyone wanting to read the Minutes, here’s the link:

Appendix A (london.gov.uk)

[Phil xxkr]

To add grist to the mill this was from a firm who make those digital warning signs, the fire engine one is one I wouldn't have thought of and the emissions one alarming! 🤔. What is intriguing is there doesn't appear to be any up to date analysis although I did see that the institute of economic affairs have an article from 2011 but even that was based on 5 years old data. 

Speed hump cons.

Are expensive to install and expensive to maintain—Speed humps can cost $4,500 to $7,500. [Source: The Washington Post, Sept. 9, 2008]Interfere with response times of emergency vehicles—Each speed hump costs fire trucks ten seconds in response time. [Source: ABC Orlando/WFTV, Jan. 28, 2010; and Fire Capt. Jeffrey Martin, St. Petersburg Times, Feb. 2, 2008; and the Tampa Tribune, Sept. 20, 2008]Reduce property values—Prospective homebuyers reject home sites near speed humps. [Source: Tampa Bay Online, Sept. 30, 2009]Increase noise levels—Speed humps usher in a constant barrage of scraping cars and engines revving over the humps. [Source: Tampa Bay Online, Aug. 12, 2009] Increase wear and tear on residential and commercial vehicles—Speed humps are a source of excessive wear on tires, brakes, suspension systems, shock absorbers and rattle dashboards. [Source: The Natchez Democrat, Oct. 28, 2009] Expensive to remove—Municipalities, under pressure by citizens and enforced by the courts, have been forced to remove speed humps at great expense to tax payers. [Source: Tampa Bay Online, Sept. 30, 2009]Increase air pollution—On roads with speed humps, carbon monoxide emissions increase by 82 percent, carbon dioxide emissions double and nitrogen oxide increases by 37 percent. [Source: BBC.com, April 22, 2009] Reduce fuel efficiency and increase gas consumption—By forcing drivers to brake and accelerate repeatedly, speed humps will cause a car that normally that gets 58.15 mpg travelling at a steady 30mph to deliver only 30.85 mpg. [Source: BBC.com, April 22, 2009]

[LenT]

What I’ve discovered, Phil, is a whole new world of speed bumps!  For about £15 + VAT you can have your very own - and pick from 5, 10 or 15mph versions.
 

https://www.barriersdirect.co.uk/traffic-management-c1220/speed-bumps-flow-plates-c1098?gbraid=0AAAAADyUWgEi_nrFZOYi7wQ930vtH--Cy&ppc_keyword=speed humps&gclid=Cj0KCQjwl_SHBhCQARIsAFIFRVUTzDxS2x_uk2TbAWJ4KgZp5KzoH-tzjHUDzJH1l_l4sz9HvrobKJIaAmIHEALw_wcB

But as I discovered, for the emergency services it was the extreme 100mm vertical displacement bumps that gave them the hump!

The cushion type, not so much.

But I can empathise with them  My wife has a small Suzuki 4x4 and treats our local humps with disdain.  Which is why we’ve had to replace two broken coil springs in the years we’ve had it.

At our last place we had a long drive shared with our neighbours, which had had bumps built in to it.  They were not generally a problem, until a new couple moved in with a Ferrari on a trailer.

It was only when the owner tried to drive it down the drive that he discovered the front axle went over the first hump - and the rest of the car stopped on top of it!  I was out at the time, so missed all the drama.  Sadly, although he managed to get it back to his garage, it only left the house once more - again on a trailer when it was sold.

[Linas.P]

Interesting information above. From the script it seems like LAS director had really hard time and was pressured into taking his words back in the name of "political correctness"  ("how dare you undermining our cunning plan of traffic calming features!").

I have seen quite a lot more research from US, but I generally tying not to use research outside of UK as other countries may have different circumstances.

I think it would be fair to say that traffic calming features causes both additional pollution and delay to emergency services. That is fact. However, it seems there are no recent research in UK which would quantify definitive impact.

58 minutes ago, LenT said:

It was only when the owner tried to drive it down the drive that he discovered the front axle went over the first hump - and the rest of the car stopped on top of it!  I was out at the time, so missed all the drama.  Sadly, although he managed to get it back to his garage, it only left the house once more - again on a trailer when it was sold.

In such case I would have a go at speed bump with a hammer at night... definitely not selling the Ferrari 😄 

But the owner may have recognised the bigger issue - even if he can leave the shared drive.... he still lives in the country littered with these nasty things... and having a go on each of them with a hammer at night is probably not worthy.

I personally hate speed humps and narrow gates - I think they are absolutely retarded idea, with exception of access roads and parking. I don't mind chicanes actually, but they still increase pollution.

[Phil xxkr]

2 hours ago, LenT said:

What I’ve discovered, Phil, is a whole new world of speed bumps!  For about £15 + VAT you can have your very own - and pick from 5, 10 or 15mph versions.
 

https://www.barriersdirect.co.uk/traffic-management-c1220/speed-bumps-flow-plates-c1098?gbraid=0AAAAADyUWgEi_nrFZOYi7wQ930vtH--Cy&ppc_keyword=speed humps&gclid=Cj0KCQjwl_SHBhCQARIsAFIFRVUTzDxS2x_uk2TbAWJ4KgZp5KzoH-tzjHUDzJH1l_l4sz9HvrobKJIaAmIHEALw_wcB

But as I discovered, for the emergency services it was the extreme 100mm vertical displacement bumps that gave them the hump!

The cushion type, not so much.

But I can empathise with them  My wife has a small Suzuki 4x4 and treats our local humps with disdain.  Which is why we’ve had to replace two broken coil springs in the years we’ve had it.

At our last place we had a long drive shared with our neighbours, which had had bumps built in to it.  They were not generally a problem, until a new couple moved in with a Ferrari on a trailer.

It was only when the owner tried to drive it down the drive that he discovered the front axle went over the first hump - and the rest of the car stopped on top of it!  I was out at the time, so missed all the drama.  Sadly, although he managed to get it back to his garage, it only left the house once more - again on a trailer when it was sold.

What a great story Len, made me smile 😊. Intrigued to know now though if you have bought a wing of a stately pile, certainly sounds like it 😁

[LenT]

35 minutes ago, Phil xxkr said:

What a great story Len, made me smile 😊. Intrigued to know now though if you have bought a wing of a stately pile, certainly sounds like it 😁

The couple concerned became - and remain - very good friends.  And it was indeed a 'stately pile' which played a very secret and significant role in WWll - but I may have said too much already!

We lived there for about 20 years and then moved about twenty years ago.  But they were good times!

[Phil xxkr]

1 hour ago, LenT said:

The couple concerned became - and remain - very good friends.  And it was indeed a 'stately pile' which played a very secret and significant role in WWll - but I may have said too much already!

We lived there for about 20 years and then moved about twenty years ago.  But they were good times!

Ww11? You didn't sleep under a Bailey Bridge did you? 😂

[paulrnx]

In the future all traffic but cars especially will automatically slow to the stated speed limit at all times. It’s coming but hopefully not in my lifetime.

[Linas.P]

12 hours ago, paulrnx said:

In the future all traffic but cars especially will automatically slow to the stated speed limit at all times. It’s coming but hopefully not in my lifetime.

For autonomous cars it is the reality already, for the rest that is what Automatic Speed Limiter (ASL) is for. Mandatory from 2022 in Europe, but Volvo already fitting them since 2019 or 2020. For now it only beeps and could be overridden, but it was discovered it collects the data and not only this data could be used against you, but as well it could be uploaded automatically and access by police.

This is a little bit of speculation, but it does not require much imagination to see that anything which is digitally stored on the car which itself is always connected to the internet, could leave the car and could be access by the parties you don't want to access it (police, insurance... maybe even hitman who is after you 🥶).

Speculating further, I wonder if that has anything to do with Volvo chinese owners... you know how it works in China... you go over the limit, it updates in you social credit score and next day you figure out you can't find job or rent a flat... amazing life.