20mph limits

[First_Lexus]

Speed limits at 20mph were becoming common in central London when I was regularly commenting there in the late-1990s and  mid-2000s. They’ve gradually spread to other areas, and were announced in Wales to replace 30mph limits recently. Now it’s Surrey. Will the 20mph limit replace the 30mph urban standard in the next few years?

Have to say, I’m unconvinced in many - but not all - areas. Just a few weeks ago I was hooted and abused for obeying a 30mph limit locally, albeit it was a BMW driver so I was able to ignore him on the grounds he was uncouth (there’s a word that’s vanished from regular use!) enough to be driving such a vehicle…but the point is, will these actually be enforceable?

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/08/07/pilot-plan-20mph-speed-limit-country-roads-gets-green-light/

[VFR]

Easily with enough cameras & just think what the payout from those could yield ?

Now would those cameras be in the best places to enforce safety “or” in places that will gain the most revenue ?

[Linas.P]

I always think that they trying to achieve results by exactly opposite incentivising behaviour from their goal. They say that likelihood for pedestrian to die in 30mph crash is 30% higher than in 20mph crash, but that is missing the point - likelihood for pedestrian to survive the crash is 100% if pedestrian is not hit in first place. The problem in UK that there is no education on how to use roads safely, people cross anytime they like, anyway they like and they just jump in front of the cars. You know what else changes when speed is reduced on the street - pedestrians are more likely to cross it and less likely to look around "cause cars are moving slowly anyway".

So as far as I am concerned they addressing wrong thing and are backwards, people advocating for these reduced limits are the same as the ones who would say that every car has to have a person with a flag walking in front of it and cars should not drive at more than 4mph. Even better banned and we all just start walking everywhere. In short they are not constructive bunch so having argument is pointless. The only thing I know reduction of speed may reduce likelihood of death, but increase number of accidents counter acting itself. But as drivers we just get everywhere slower and it will be more annoying than it already is to drive in the cities.

Other thing I noticed about myself, the slower I have to drive the less I am concentrating, I just can't it is so slow that I get bored and it is not that I don't look, I just simply no longer see things as I am just bored/tired and can't focus. And yes that is my problem, but forcing me to drive slower government makes me less good of a driver and more dangerous driver.

In this particular case it sounds like kneejerk reaction - because there was one instance of somebody speeding there on motorbike and scaring local pensioner, now the whole road has to be 20mph. Now with one thing I agree British A and B roads are most horrible in the Europe, most of countries have certain requirements for the roads, like for example that there must be 5, 10 or 15 metres clearing from the road depending on the speed limit and purpose of the road, which makes the road significantly safer because you can see what is coming from around the corner and you have safe space in case you lose control or somebody else loses control. Not in UK, in UK trees, stone walls and literally corners of the buildings are on the edge of the road, so if you leave the road just by 20cm you will hit something. So yes "roads needs to be made safer", but reducing speed limit does NOT make the road safer, it just makes the accident cause by dangerous road less deadly. This is like perfect example of "band aid" solution - It is like saying "I am horrible and unsafe driver, so I have put mattresses all around my car to soften the crashes". What a great idea?! How about addressing actually issue?

[J Henderson]

Thankfully they're not a thing where I live (yet), apart from the temporary ones outside schools, which I agree with and always respect, but permanent 20MPH zones have been in place in certain parts of Edinburgh for years (probably as long as London). Mostly busy areas with lots of pedestrians, shops etc.

That's fine and makes sense, and it also makes sense to have them near schools, but they're also enforced in stupid places like Industrial estates with little risk to lives or property.

Even worse, Scottish Borders council have adopted a blanket policy of a 20MPH limit in every town and village, regardless of size, with no mitigating factors taken into account. So, there are many long stretches of roads down there with no homes nearby where it simply feels unjust to be driving that slowly. Especially when you've just been travelling at 60MPH in a NSL area.

All of these 20 zones are not "policed" by cameras but by those digital signs that measure your speed, and display the number in red when you're exceeding 20MPH. They're pretty effective tbh as a lot of people seem to make the effort to make the number turn green, despite there being no immediate risk to wallet or license.

As someone who has to travel in the Borders multiple times every week, I feel the 20MPH limits are mostly a nuisance. There's definitely areas where it is genuinely a good idea, and justifiable, but they're without merit in a lot of ways.

The only genuine benefit is that a pedestrian is more likely to survive or avoid serious injuries if they're hit by a vehicle doing the lower speed. They don't reduce emissions, or reduce fuel usage since they lead to extended journey times, and a vehicle that runs for 45mins instead of 35 or 40mins, will always pollute more.

They also force drivers to operate their vehicles with less efficiency, perhaps having to drop a gear or two to avoid putting undue strain on the drivetrain.

Most of all though. It could be argued that they actually add an element of danger with agitated drivers tailgating those that observe the 20MPH limit, or performing risky overtakes.

I've personally had Police vehicles tailgating me, clearly desperate for me to speed up or get out of their way when I've been sticking to the speed limit. On the flipside, I have, on a few occasions gone through villages with a 20MPH limit at about 40MPH with a (unbeknown to me) Police car following me. Since it was about 4:30am at the time, they didn't care.

TL;DR - they're a nuisance.

[Ala Larj]

I think many people are missing the point. I don’t think any of these restrictive measures have anything to do with road safety. It’s all to do with making motoring awkward or unenjoyable so as to get to zero emissions!  Making car ownership costly and inconvenient in the hope we’ll use our cars less. 

[Jgtcracer]

32 minutes ago, J Henderson said:

Thankfully they're not a thing where I live (yet), apart from the temporary ones outside schools, which I agree with and always respect, but permanent 20MPH zones have been in place in certain parts of Edinburgh for years (probably as long as London). Mostly busy areas with lots of pedestrians, shops etc.

That's fine and makes sense, and it also makes sense to have them near schools, but they're also enforced in stupid places like Industrial estates with little risk to lives or property.

Even worse, Scottish Borders council have adopted a blanket policy of a 20MPH limit in every town and village, regardless of size, with no mitigating factors taken into account. So, there are many long stretches of roads down there with no homes nearby where it simply feels unjust to be driving that slowly. Especially when you've just been travelling at 60MPH in a NSL area.

All of these 20 zones are not "policed" by cameras but by those digital signs that measure your speed, and display the number in red when you're exceeding 20MPH. They're pretty effective tbh as a lot of people seem to make the effort to make the number turn green, despite there being no immediate risk to wallet or license.

As someone who has to travel in the Borders multiple times every week, I feel the 20MPH limits are mostly a nuisance. There's definitely areas where it is genuinely a good idea, and justifiable, but they're without merit in a lot of ways.

The only genuine benefit is that a pedestrian is more likely to survive or avoid serious injuries if they're hit by a vehicle doing the lower speed. They don't reduce emissions, or reduce fuel usage since they lead to extended journey times, and a vehicle that runs for 45mins instead of 35 or 40mins, will always pollute more.

They also force drivers to operate their vehicles with less efficiency, perhaps having to drop a gear or two to avoid putting undue strain on the drivetrain.

Most of all though. It could be argued that they actually add an element of danger with agitated drivers tailgating those that observe the 20MPH limit, or performing risky overtakes.

I've personally had Police vehicles tailgating me, clearly desperate for me to speed up or get out of their way when I've been sticking to the speed limit. On the flipside, I have, on a few occasions gone through villages with a 20MPH limit at about 40MPH with a (unbeknown to me) Police car following me. Since it was about 4:30am at the time, they didn't care.

TL;DR - they're a nuisance.

I live on the east side of the Scottish border so deal with this daily.  When this happened everyone did slow down by approx 10mph but we were all speeding to start off with so are still driving at 30mph in 20mph zones. Recently the trial has been lifted over here with some sections reverting to 30mph and others starting 20mph.  Chirnside and Foulden for example have been split in two with a 20mph for part and 30mph for the rest.

I don’t mind it to be honest, the road surfaces around here are so poor you have to drive slowly anyway.  I’m never in too much of a rush but have them power to nip past if I need to anyway so don’t tend to get stuck behind traffic in between all the villages.

[Linas.P]

28 minutes ago, Ala Larj said:

I think many people are missing the point. I don’t think any of these restrictive measures have anything to do with road safety. It’s all to do with making motoring awkward or unenjoyable so as to get to zero emissions!  Making car ownership costly and inconvenient in the hope we’ll use our cars less. 

You know that is the conclusion I have reached regarding many laws. And it goes beyond zero emissions... because let's face it they are just as annoying if you are in Tesla or Hydrogen Toyota. I starting to think that aim is to create dystopian future where people no longer own personal vehicles at all. We will be allowed to go only where public transport takes us and only on the schedule it implies. Because it seems they fight in particular personal vehicles on every possible front - pollution, speed, noise regulations, more responsibilities, tougher fines, blocked-off streets, priority for pedestrians and cyclists... and bus lanes in place where bus only passes one every hour. I am going to unwrap tin foil from my head now... 

[Bluemarlin]

No need for the tin foil hat Linas, I think there's some truth in what you're saying, in that authorities are trying to reduce car usage in favour of public transport.

In London I don't have much of a problem with it as, public transport is pretty good, 20 mph doesn't really affect journey times as either you're lucky to be doing 20 mph anyway or it's just stop/start at anything higher, and (to be honest) there  are probably too many cars on the road to make driving efficient or enjoyable.

However, in other places, especially the more rural ones, there's often little option but to drive, and so more consideration should be given to those motorists. Whilst it's true that some smaller roads can have stretches that could be dangerous at their existing speed limits of up to 60 mph, these could be better managed by more specific areas of 20 mph, rather than a blanket limit along the entire road.

That said, I have heard that in many of these new 20 mph zones cameras aren't being installed (there's a few near me), and that police aren't going to go out of their way to enforce them. We shall see. 

[LenT]

9 hours ago, Bluemarlin said:

In London I don't have much of a problem with it as, public transport is pretty good, 20 mph doesn't really affect journey times as either you're lucky to be doing 20 mph anyway…

You’d have to be very lucky indeed!

Average traffic speeds in London came up as a question in the GLA in 2019.  

Only in Outer London could you look forward to 20mph.  Inner London would be about 12mph and Central around 8mph.  

So you could think of 20mph as being more like a target than a limit!

https://www.london.gov.uk/questions/2019/19767

[DTR]

I’ve no problem with 20mph limit on the whole. However, I did hear someone on the wireless proposing that limits should be designated for short distances. I.e Limit goes up and down frequently. Sounds wonderful, but in practice it is easy to miss a change in busy traffic and it is not unknown for signage to disappear behind trees or large vehicles cunningly dumped on the side of the road. 
If we ever get autonomous vehicles, something will need to done about the white school 20mph limits. Neither of my last 2 cars can interpret the “end of limit”. I can foresee queues of traffic trundling down dual carriageways at less than 20mph because they didn’t “see” the restriction end sign

[08ISF]

We've had 20mph limits in my area for about 3 years now and they are OK in parts and a real nuisance in others. We now have 20mph limits on wide straight main roads that have had 30mph for decades without too many apparent problems. We also have 20mph limits on residential side roads which according to the police are completely unenforceable so they are used as rat runs by speeders. 20 mph in a wide main road  is far too slow , all it leads to is boredom and lack of concentration. 20 mph in a residential side road with cars parked both sides and poor sight lines is ,in my view, too fast, but you just can't tell some people.

My personal opinion is that highways departments in local councils are staffed by cyclists who want the roads all to themselves, so they are trying to drive the motorists out.

[Malc]

1 hour ago, 08ISF said:

My personal opinion is that highways departments in local councils are staffed by cyclists who want the roads all to themselves, so they are trying to drive the motorists out.

personally everyone, please remember that one can annihilate a cyclist equally efficiently at 20mph as at 30mph ........... 

Malc

[malcolmw]

The centre of Salisbury (close to where I live) is a 20mph zone and has been for years. It is not strictly policed - by cameras or otherwise - and acts as a warning to drivers of the higher hazard density and to take extra care rather than a strict limit. I think this is a good model rather than the camera enforced revenue raising schemes which many want to see.

[Linas.P]

18 hours ago, Bluemarlin said:

public transport is pretty good

I guess depends on perception and principle. I am probably allergic to public transport, but I would never put "public transport" and "good" in same sentence. I guess public transport is "good" in London in terms of frequency and coverage (in some countries or even cities outside of London there are simply places where you simply can't go on public transport), but it is still bad value for money (I consider public transport should be free), it is slow, it is dirty and probably worst of all it is not the public transport but the people on it (which is kind of what it makes it public). As my car currently does not run I take taxi to work - I can't stand being in public transport, certainly not during peak hours. If Uber decides to charge something stupid like £50 in the evening I sometimes take train, but only because it is quiet ~8PM, but any time between 8AM and 8PM for me it is unusable. Most of the time I can get Uber or Bolt for ~£8-14 and I rather use that than take train for ~£6.80. I haven't been on the bus for probably 12 years and I lived in London for 16. To my horror I will be starting new job next week and will have to be in office 2 days a week and it is only central like which goes there - I am already preparing hazmat 😄 

3 hours ago, DTR said:

I’ve no problem with 20mph limit on the whole. However, I did hear someone on the wireless proposing that limits should be designated for short distances. I.e Limit goes up and down frequently. Sounds wonderful, but in practice it is easy to miss a change in busy traffic and it is not unknown for signage to disappear behind trees or large vehicles cunningly dumped on the side of the road. 
If we ever get autonomous vehicles, something will need to done about the white school 20mph limits. Neither of my last 2 cars can interpret the “end of limit”. I can foresee queues of traffic trundling down dual carriageways at less than 20mph because they didn’t “see” the restriction end sign

It is already the case on dumb motorways - when there is speed limit I have noticed several times where speed goes 60 > 60 > 60 > 60 > 60 > 50 > 60 > 60 > 60. And I know official explanation - "it is (stupid)smart motorway and it senses the traffic and adjust automatically", but I don't buy this BS. I think it is done deliberately to catch out people and it is very hard to notice, because usually you coming at 70MPH/NSL and you see speed restriction on first gantry is 60, second gantry 60 and then you stop looking, because most of them will be 60, but there is often one with 50. And call me blind, but 50 and 60 looks very similar if you don't pay attention and usually people just don't pay attention after first few gantries. And it is fair to say "mate if you don't pay attention that is your fault", bit is is not that I don't pay attention to the road, I just don't pay attention to useless repetitive signs and that is not the same thing - brain goes like "yeah I know it is speed restriction, I have already slowed down".

As well I don't know what "wireless" are thinking, but if we care about environment then focus should be on never changing speed limits, because most wasteful is braking, hence every time speed limits change we just polluting more... and I been driving a lot in EU and they kind of have big problem with speed limits in country side, even more than UK. So you have usual 90 KM/h), but in some places 70, but sometimes it goes 80 and then 60, then there is 1 house in the forest 200m away from the road which constitutes "town" so it's 50. Even on motorways/autobahns... going under the bridge 110? Like what? will the bridge fall onto me? and if it does fall onto me then how going at 110 going to help? Not only this constant change in speed limits is bad for fuel economy and environment, but it is unsafe - this is because driver spends most of his/her attention looking at the side of the road for the limits and has no time to look what is actually ON THE ROAD. As such if I can afford it I usually ignore the limits altogether (like driving British car abroad), because it is much safer to ignore the limits, drive at speed which is safe based on road conditions and focus on the road itself. But I appreciate this isn't solution for everyone, especially when speeding ticket in UK can ruin your life. 

42 minutes ago, Malc said:

personally everyone, please remember that one can annihilate a cyclist equally efficiently at 20mph as at 30mph ........... 

Those lycra warriors can reach 20MPH themselves and when they fly by red light almost hitting pedestrians crossing the road, they don't see any issue with that.  

[LenT]

4 hours ago, Linas.P said:

And it is fair to say "mate if you don't pay attention that is your fault", bit is is not that I don't pay attention to the road, I just don't pay attention to useless repetitive signs and that is not the same thing - brain goes like "yeah I know it is speed restriction, I have already slowed down".

If you expand this thought to consider how Excessive Road Signage produces Information Overload, then this is a very important and still somewhat under researched influence in road safety.  A report by a Tom Harrington in April 2020 makes some very interesting observations:

https://www.grahamfeest.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/excessive-road-signage-Information-overload.pdf

For example:

Over the last two decades the number of road signs in the UK has doubled to 4.3 million at the last count. According to the Department for Transport (DfT), the overuse of traffic signs blights the landscape, wastes taxpayer’s money and dilutes important safety-critical messages. Having too many signs can also distract drivers and increase the risks for road workers. Existing research shows that too much information may be a problem, as the efficiency cognition of drivers has been shown to decrease with an increase in the amount of information overload. Many road signs are repetitive, unnecessary and pointless. Repeated unnecessary signs can contribute to “information overload” and could cause drivers to miss an important sign hidden in their midst.

And:

A survey by Kwik Fit revealed that one in five road signs are a mystery to the average driver. It also found that while 70pc of people know UK road sign meanings, two in five are so baffled that it leads to problems on the road. Take for example the airborne motorcycle “no motor vehicles” sign which can be confusing especially for overseas visitors. Then we have the “no entry” sign which previously incorporated the words “no entry” in the rectangle. These words should be retained as even overseas motorists understand the word “no”.

He quotes Edmond King, President of the AA, as saying: “You could get rid of about one-third of signs, no problem. Actually, reducing the number of signs will help drivers and lead to less confusion”.

He cites that the removal of traffic lights, road markings and pedestrian crossings in Ashford, Kent, saw  “a 60% drop in accidents in the first three years”.  However, a survey in Ashford published by the University of West England found that "80% of respondents felt safer under the previous road layout. The lack of boundaries was a particular concern for blind people, those with disabilities and the elderly."

It seems clear that the natural desire of civil servants to create rules instructing the Public how to behave - which here manifests itself as road signage - can be counter-productive when it comes to improving driver performance.

In October 2015, at what was described as "Britain’s most chaotic junction", in the Yorkshire town of Beverley, when the 42 sets of traffic lights broke down at that junction,  according to locals there was not a tailback in sight and traffic moved more smoothly!

4 hours ago, Linas.P said:

To my horror I will be starting new job next week and will have to be in office 2 days a week and it is only central like which goes there - I am already preparing hazmat 😄 

As someone who no longer has to be anywhere, you have my sympathy Linus.  But all the best with your new job!  🙂

[Malc]

30 minutes ago, LenT said:

sets of traffic lights broke down at that junction,  according to locals there was not a tailback in sight and traffic moved more smoothly!

we have this in Sittingbourne Kent too ....  when the big junction set of lights fail by Lukehurst's, well, the traffic flow is smoothe and slick and removes the tailbacks and all congestion totally 

Malc

[dutchie01]

https://bigthink.com/the-present/want-less-car-accidents-get-rid-of-traffic-signals-road-signs/

The Drachten experiment... Take away ALL traffic signs/lights in a village!

[LenT]

13 minutes ago, dutchie01 said:

https://bigthink.com/the-present/want-less-car-accidents-get-rid-of-traffic-signals-road-signs/

The Drachten experiment... Take away ALL traffic signs/lights in a village!

Harrington’s paper, to which I provided a link, does indeed reference Hans Monderman’s philosophy which essentially appears to be that if you remove virtually all traffic controls then the uncertainty that’s introduced makes drivers more cautious - and thus safer.

And I think he states that 400 towns across Europe are currently putting it to the test - with mainly positive results.  But I wonder if it’s a ‘cultural’ thing.  Here in the UK the concept that one is responsible for one’s own individual actions seems often to be replaced by the conviction that it’s always someone else’s fault!  

So at a junction where safe traffic flow now depends on the application of ‘common sense’, I wonder if there’s enough of it to go around?

[dutchie01]

Its scary to say the least but sometimes when you approach a busy junction in town and you notice the trafficlights do not work ( orange light constantly blipping) it just seems that all runs smoother..

On the other hand i would not like them to roll this out country wide also not because Drachten is a small village and there will be a different type of motorist there than in big city centres it could lead to some form of anarchy, better to stick to rules and regulations?

[Las Palmas]

On 8/7/2022 at 6:50 PM, First_Lexus said:

Speed limits at 20mph were becoming common in central London when I was regularly commenting there in the late-1990s and  mid-2000s. They’ve gradually spread to other areas, and were announced in Wales to replace 30mph limits recently. Now it’s Surrey. Will the 20mph limit replace the 30mph urban standard in the next few years?

…but the point is, will these actually be enforceable?

Many years ago I was fined for driving 45km/h in a 40km/h zone. More than 10% above speed limit.

Today they have more precise speed measuring instruments so I suppose they will be able to collect more fines than what many motorists like.

[Spock66]

It's a very poorly though out policy, I can't remember the last time I saw a Police traffic officer in hundreds of miles of driving, it's unenforceable and then just gets treated as a joke, oh unless of course we have enforcement cameras everywhere. Maybe the next generation of cars will self-report and snitch on you, automatically give you points and then permanently disable the vehicle.

I am all for road safety improvements and equitable use by all road users, but this policy is just poorly thought out and no doubt will be poorly executed.

Just like cycle lanes, got to Holland and you will see a properly planned and implemented scheme.  What do we do in the UK, take a road designed for a horse and cart and paint an extra white line on it.

[Illogan]

1 hour ago, LenT said:

<<"Here in the UK the concept that one is responsible for one’s own individual actions seems often to be replaced by the conviction that it’s always someone else’s fault!  ">>

 

LenT: I think you're spot-on. It's ALWAYS someone else's fault, and unfortunately the dominance of t'internet and soshul meedja turbocharges all this selfish and accusatory indignation.

You will be correct in determining that I'm now a 'grumpy' of the older generation.

[ROYT]

More Looney Tunes ideas, to get you off the road.

The usual nonsense about saving the planet etc. with less pollution.

OK drive at 20 mph, you will have to use a lower gear which means higher revs.= MORE

pollution  more fuel, longer journey times = MORE pollution. The UK cannot stop global warming.

As usual we get punished while the rest of the world do what they like.

The clue is is in the words GLOBAL WARMING. Race to electric cars, create pollution to make

one and to dispose of your old one. No proper infrastructure in place for them and the way things are going no electricity either.

Go on Youtube and watch one burn, toxic gasses and very difficult to put out.

Did anyone see the figures for poisonous emissions given off when  the volcano was erupting in Spain, why wasn't Greta Thunberg out there complaining about it?

The looney left are pushing us backwards, better get that donkey and cart ordered...

[Linas.P]

4 hours ago, LenT said:

Harrington’s paper, to which I provided a link, does indeed reference Hans Monderman’s philosophy which essentially appears to be that if you remove virtually all traffic controls then the uncertainty that’s introduced makes drivers more cautious - and thus safer.

And I think he states that 400 towns across Europe are currently putting it to the test - with mainly positive results.  But I wonder if it’s a ‘cultural’ thing.  Here in the UK the concept that one is responsible for one’s own individual actions seems often to be replaced by the conviction that it’s always someone else’s fault!  

So at a junction where safe traffic flow now depends on the application of ‘common sense’, I wonder if there’s enough of it to go around?

Well apparently more people have tin foil hats than I previously thought 😄

What I would say here sounds logical and common sense, but as you said the common sense is not that common - ONLY the meaningful and necessary traffic signs adds value. So there is a limit to which reduction of signs have value, but for sure removing 2/3 of UK signs would be good ballpark. Most of signs I see are just too much, adds no value, confuses everything and dilutes the important information. That seems to be supported not only by tin foil, but as well by science... what a surprise!

As well today I seen article saying that Kent council was surprised that introducing 20MPH speed limits has not changed people behaviour and has not motivated drivers to use other modes of transport. Apparently my conspiracy theory of their actual goals was not too far away - they don't care about safety or environment, they just want us to STOP DRIVING period. Is it just me or they are saying the quiet part out loud?!

2 hours ago, ROYT said:

Did anyone see the figures for poisonous emissions given off when  the volcano was erupting in Spain, why wasn't Greta Thunberg out there complaining about it?

  So true - average volcanic eruption emits ~7 times the annual global human CO² emissions. I can't see Greta boycotting the volcanoes yet?!

[Phil xxkr]

9 hours ago, LenT said:

Harrington’s paper, to which I provided a link, does indeed reference Hans Monderman’s philosophy which essentially appears to be that if you remove virtually all traffic controls then the uncertainty that’s introduced makes drivers more cautious - and thus safer.

And I think he states that 400 towns across Europe are currently putting it to the test - with mainly positive results.  But I wonder if it’s a ‘cultural’ thing.  Here in the UK the concept that one is responsible for one’s own individual actions seems often to be replaced by the conviction that it’s always someone else’s fault!  

So at a junction where safe traffic flow now depends on the application of ‘common sense’, I wonder if there’s enough of it to go around?

I have an old friend, (ex Windies Captain) who said when growing up and learning to play there were, no gloves, pads, arm guards or helmets 😱. What it taught you was keep your eye on the ball at all times otherwise it hurts - a lot! LBW's were hard to come by. But in the new "safety era" players take risks thinking they impervious to harm - unfortunatley not. I know it's somewhat adjacent to the main theme here but I think you get my drift 😎