11-AUG 2023 : LAB: 48% / CON: 24% / LDM: 10% / GRN: 6%

[pjw1961]

Sept 30, 2023 10:01:17 GMT Mr Poppy said:

Sept 30, 2023 8:15:38 GMT colin said:

Yeh. But you seemed to be responding to my humorous post to pjw

Ah, a simples case of a misunderstanding. I'll explain

- I don't read the trolls
- If one of my 'anti-fan club' of trolls does occasionally post something interesting (eg polling) then someone I do read might reply (as you did)
- I then get to see what the troll wrote

However in my reply to you I stated:

"Have the trolls been attempting to misrepresent me (ie trolling) again. How 😴😴😴
You deleted the comment but I'm not wasting my time unhiding their posts to read drivel"

So I didn't get to see what the troll wrote in their reply to me only some drivel they did write. So polite request: if you do reply to someone who has felt the need to reply to me then please leave their entire comment OR also delete my name so it's clear your reply has no relevance to whatever the troll said in their reply to me. Ta muchly 

I trust you'll follow your orders correctly next time colin

[hireton]

"All urban areas in notoriously jammed up Oxford are now 20. Seems to make the traffic flow better in my experience."

It's an established fact proven by research that reducing average speeds can increase the effective capacity of a road. That is why motorway speed limits are reduced on congested motorways at peak times as it enables them to accommodate more traffic than their design capacity.

In urban areas it is highly unlikely that average speeds reach 30 mph so reducing the max speed to 20mph will not increase journey times by 50%.

As for @danny's suggestion that it will increase traffic by 50%, the less said the better.

[steve]

"someone like myself having a successful career in Investment Banking."

I always thought he might be a merchant banker☺

[Mr Poppy]

I don't have a strong view on the 20mph speed limit issue but at the margin I think it should be something local councils can continue to choose if they want to (ie like the 7bins thing then Rishi-CON shouldn't be interfering in a local issue that democratically elected local councils can decide upon for their polity). 

EG CON Council of Hertfordshire:
20mph programme in Hertfordshire
We are looking to introduce more 20mph areas to improve road safety, create calmer streets and encourage more walking and cycling.

www.hertfordshire.gov.uk/services/highways-roads-and-pavements/roadworks-and-road-closures/major-roadwork-projects/20mph-programme.aspx

and FWIW then YG polling from Jul'22 noting only a modest partisan (or age/region) difference in opinion. Well at least it is less divisive than some other issues 

NB Wales is not my polity but R&W and YG seems to find very different results for that polity. YG:

YouGov poll shows massive opposition to 20mph speed limits and calls into question claim a silent majority support it
www.walesonline.co.uk/news/politics/yougov-poll-shows-massive-opposition-27769624

[lens]

Sept 30, 2023 8:39:16 GMT Danny said:

Sept 30, 2023 6:14:32 GMT steve said:

"So we're deliberately penalising poor old folks like me who can't walk very far and haven't cycled for 50 years. Hmm, I think I might vote for someone who doesn't want to do that."

On the odd occasion they are walking don't you think they would benefit from vehicles travelling slower, or don't you old fogies ever cross the road?

Its not obvious to me that a busy road at 20mph is any easier to cross than one at 30. If the total number of vehicles goes up 50% because the journey takes 50% longer at 20 than 30, then its going to be harder to find a gap in traffic.

Can some of these roads survive 50% extra traffic from this scheme?

Firstly, then why should there be 50% extra traffic? Surely people will still make the same number of journeys?

As far as crossing the road goes, then well, a lot depends on the road, but whilst you may get the same number of cars going along it, if they're all going slower it will take each one longer to go past on average - which may mean longer periods without a gap? Maybe more an argument for more safe crossing points than anything to do with speed limits?
 
And frankly, it's pretty depressing this discussion has descended into such a polarised debate - either "for" or "against" 20 mph limits in built up areas. It shouldn't be an all or nothing debate - I'm all in favour of 20mph limits on roads where applicable (narrow, near schools, etc etc), but on many roads which are currently 30 it's nonsense. I don't agree with Sunak if he's talking of a blanket scrapping of 20 limits, but the Welsh decision of blanket 20mph limits on all built up roads is just as bad.

It should be a question of being proportionate - where to draw the line. Why not go back to motor cars being limited to walking speed preceeded by a man waving a flag if we want to save every last child? 

[Danny]

Sept 30, 2023 9:40:00 GMT Old Southendian said:

That's a very lazy assumption that going from 30 to 20 mph will increase road traffic volume by 50%.  My expectation is that the journey time is hardly affected at all by maximum speed at busy times.  I don't have strong evidence for that.  But just remember how many times you see people speeding up to a set of traffic lights or a big queue and having to jam on the brakes.  Sure, travelling at 30 mph might occasionally shorten a rush hour journey by a minute or two, but it won't be 50% shorter, most of the time will be waiting in a queue

Of course any assumptions about saving lives in accidents will also be affected if we factor in that even with a 30mph limit, vehicles are only averaging 20 anyway.

The notional reduction in accident harm is as far as I know entirely theoretical, based on driving vehicles at dummies?

[Danny]

Sept 30, 2023 10:42:38 GMT hireton said:

As for @danny's suggestion that it will increase traffic by 50%, the less said the better.

On raw numbers, mathematically for the same number of journeys, at 20mph there will be 50% more vehicles on the roads than at 30mph. Thats because each journey will take 50% longer.

Ok, much urban driving requires a lot of stopping and starting, so it wont all be at 30mph. Though as I said, if for some, or especially much, of the time vehicles are already travelling at 20mph or less, then there will be no reduction in accident harm for those parts of any journey. So maybe we should discount those parts of the journeys bringing any benefit.

We dont seem to have any real numbers explaining what sort of speed profiles we are talking about.

The idea that motorways can carry more vehicles if they travel slowly is because of the stopping distance between vehicles, which gets less as you go more slowly, and so you can fit more vehicles in unit length. This is a power law of your speed, so the effect is most pronounced the faster you are going, and so much less dropping to 20 from 30 than to 60 from 70. Vehicles in towns frequently travel alarmingly nose to tail at whatever speed they are travelling, so I am very sceptical this will free up much if any extra space. But there will be more vehicles on the road at any given time because journeys take longer. Its inevitable this will increase crowding. That in turn may increase the number of accidents, hard to say.

[jib]

Sept 30, 2023 11:55:44 GMT Danny said:

Sept 30, 2023 9:40:00 GMT Old Southendian said:

That's a very lazy assumption that going from 30 to 20 mph will increase road traffic volume by 50%.  My expectation is that the journey time is hardly affected at all by maximum speed at busy times.  I don't have strong evidence for that.  But just remember how many times you see people speeding up to a set of traffic lights or a big queue and having to jam on the brakes.  Sure, travelling at 30 mph might occasionally shorten a rush hour journey by a minute or two, but it won't be 50% shorter, most of the time will be waiting in a queue

Of course any assumptions about saving lives in accidents will also be affected if we factor in that even with a 30mph limit, vehicles are only averaging 20 anyway.

The notional reduction in accident harm is as far as I know entirely theoretical, based on driving vehicles at dummies?

So you're now pitching your contrarian arguments against the laws of physics?

[jib]

Sept 30, 2023 12:09:48 GMT Danny said:

Sept 30, 2023 10:42:38 GMT hireton said:

As for @danny's suggestion that it will increase traffic by 50%, the less said the better.

On raw numbers, mathematically for the same number of journeys, at 20mph there will be 50% more vehicles on the roads than at 30mph. Thats because each journey will take 50% longer.

No.

20mph is a third (33%) slower than 30mph.

Start again.

[mandolinist]

I don't really want to get embroilded in an argument about 20mph zones, but, an anecdote to illustrate the only problem I have with them.

I live on a minor B road, which has a 20mph limit through the conservation area because of narrow roads, narrow pavements, pedestrian crossings and historic building close to the road. The limit is never enforced, the cars and lorries often drive at 50mph past school children waiting to cross. Without enforcement the limit is pointless, with it all our lives would be improved.

[Deleted]

Sept 30, 2023 12:20:01 GMT jib said:

Sept 30, 2023 12:09:48 GMT Danny said:

On raw numbers, mathematically for the same number of journeys, at 20mph there will be 50% more vehicles on the roads than at 30mph. Thats because each journey will take 50% longer.

No.

20mph is a third (33%) slower than 30mph.

Start again.

Be careful what you wish for.

[johntel]

Sept 30, 2023 12:25:30 GMT @isa said:

Sept 30, 2023 12:20:01 GMT jib said:

No.

20mph is a third (33%) slower than 30mph.

Start again.

Be careful what you wish for.

I wish for a separate thread for mathematical discussions about the 20mph limit - for the simple reason that it makes my head hurt if I try to work it out myself.

[Rafwan]

I do quite welcome roadworks on motorways actually. The ones where they have camera-controlled 50mph limits and everybody travels safely at the same speed in two orderly lines, with no braking/accelerating/cutting in, etc, and we all get there more quickly. So much more relaxing.

[richardstamper]

Sept 30, 2023 9:40:00 GMT Old Southendian said:

Sept 30, 2023 8:39:16 GMT Danny said:

Its not obvious to me that a busy road at 20mph is any easier to cross than one at 30. If the total number of vehicles goes up 50% because the journey takes 50% longer at 20 than 30, then its going to be harder to find a gap in traffic.

Can some of these roads survive 50% extra traffic from this scheme?

That's a very lazy assumption that going from 30 to 20 mph will increase road traffic volume by 50%.  My expectation is that the journey time is hardly affected at all by maximum speed at busy times.  I don't have strong evidence for that.  But just remember how many times you see people speeding up to a set of traffic lights or a big queue and having to jam on the brakes.  Sure, travelling at 30 mph might occasionally shorten a rush hour journey by a minute or two, but it won't be 50% shorter, most of the time will be waiting in a queue.  I'm not saying I support or oppose the 20 mph limit, I just think people would drive sensibly according to the conditions.

Speaking from experience of Oxford, which now has a 20mph limit on most roads inside the ring road, exactly this.  In an urban setting with a 30mph limit, for most of the day cars are doing much less than 30mph because they are frequently stopping, starting, and slowing for turning vehicles.  Aiming to drive at no more than 20mph results in a journey at a much more even pace which has an average speed that differs by much less than the 10mph difference in the limit.  This will also result in less fuel consumption, hence exhaust emissions, because it is repeated accelerations that significantly drives those up; there will also be much less brake and tyre wear so less particulate pollution too.  Empirically, as a pedestrian, it feels much easier to cross roads now than it did in those bygone days when a 30mph limit was considered reasonable. As a driver, I've been surprised at how quickly one gets accustomed to 20mph, and driving at 30mph in complicated urban settings elsewhere now can feel recklessly quick.  As a cyclist, having a much reduced speed difference between you and the prevailing motor traffic is also much safer, giving one much more time to manoeuvre safely when you need to get into or across a line of traffic to change lane.

Opposition to 20mph limits in urban settings seems to me to be mostly saloon bar chuntering, from exactly the people you would expect that sort of stuff. 

[Deleted]

@danny

“ The notional reduction in accident harm is as far as I know entirely theoretical, based on driving vehicles at dummies?”

I think they usually just ask for volunteers.

[philf]

A high-level view of the polls would suggest that the Conservative policy blitz is gaining a few points in the polls, as they would have hoped.

This did get me thinking again about the obsession with polling in determining policy. Perhaps a strange complaint to make on a polling site but my thinking is that sometimes the 'right' policy cannot be determined from polling alone.

We do seem to be in an age of politicians and political parties obsessed by polling on individual policies. I wonder if this ultimately stems from a lack of faith in the solutions that they think will resolve many of the most serious issues we face.

As a specific example, I think on polling alone, same sex marriage legislation would not have been passed by the coalition government, not least because there was not clear support amongst Conservative voters for the act. However, looking at the polling now, same sex marriage is more accepted than it was then. On this, then, you could argue that politicians led their voters and actually convinced them to support something.

I suspect we have simply ended up, due to a continuing focus on short-term opinion polling gain, with an inability for our politicians to lead. As stated before, many of us on here predicted a slight uptick in Conservative polling numbers with some rolling back of green policies.

We are in a situation where focus groups and opinion polls rule the day. This is populism and I know some will argue, what is wrong with following with what the people want. Well, a politician could actually lead and convince voters of something, rather than thinking what is popular now will always be popular.

I suspect opinion polls will one day condemn what we have done to the planet. It will be too late by then, of course, but at least the public will get there eventually. Are any politicians willing to lead us to some policies that have a long-term positive now?

[alec]

It's that old Danny magic again - “ The notional reduction in accident harm is as far as I know entirely theoretical, based on driving vehicles at dummies?”

Note the appearance of the key phrase - "...as far as I know...".

Never a scrap of evidence, and too lazy to go have a look. It's just an opinion factory. 'As far as I know' Danny is a flying pig with the head of a horse that sings the Bulgarian national anthem accompanied by an 83 year woman playing the spoons.

Anything goes!

[birdseye]

Sept 30, 2023 13:53:32 GMT philf said:

A high-level view of the polls would suggest that the Conservative policy blitz is gaining a few points in the polls, as they would have hoped.

This did get me thinking again about the obsession with polling in determining policy. Perhaps a strange complaint to make on a polling site but my thinking is that sometimes the 'right' policy cannot be determined from polling alone.

We do seem to be in an age of politicians and political parties obsessed by polling on individual policies. I wonder if this ultimately stems from a lack of faith in the solutions that they think will resolve many of the most serious issues we face.

As a specific example, I think on polling alone, same sex marriage legislation would not have been passed by the coalition government, not least because there was not clear support amongst Conservative voters for the act. However, looking at the polling now, same sex marriage is more accepted than it was then. On this, then, you could argue that politicians led their voters and actually convinced them to support something.

I suspect we have simply ended up, due to a continuing focus on short-term opinion polling gain, with an inability for our politicians to lead. As stated before, many of us on here predicted a slight uptick in Conservative polling numbers with some rolling back of green policies.

We are in a situation where focus groups and opinion polls rule the day. This is populism and I know some will argue, what is wrong with following with what the people want. Well, a politician could actually lead and convince voters of something, rather than thinking what is popular now will always be popular.

I suspect opinion polls will one day condemn what we have done to the planet. It will be too late by then, of course, but at least the public will get there eventually. Are any politicians willing to lead us to some policies that have a long-term positive now?

I am sure I remember reading somewhere that 30mph as a limit was chosen because it was the speed at the time that 80% of drivers drove in city traffic. In other words a sort of poll. ;-). Or maybe the wisdom of crowds.

Of course politics in a democracy is driven by opinion polls - that is what elections are. Given that politicians jobs depend on they're being elected to office its inevitable that they try to follow public preferences. If you want to abolish that they you want some sort of benign dictatorship. There have been a few benign ones.

[philf]

That is an interesting take on my post, birdseye

I was not calling for an end to democracy. I was more suggesting that politicians can sometimes convince voters of a position, even one that may not be popular initially.

I do understand that the pull to win elections is obviously going to trump all else but it is to our detriment if things that benefit in the long term cannot be argued for because of a perceived electoral cost in the short term.

[Danny]

Sept 30, 2023 12:14:41 GMT jib said:

So you're now pitching your contrarian arguments against the laws of physics?

Not at all. Though if it comes to that I have the benefit of some of the best science education in the country, placing me in maybe the top 1%, 0.1%?

What I am saying is that applying some simply principles and techniques often raises difficulties with arguments politicians like to make. The link you post seems to be a politicians answer to objections from those with a decent modern general education in science and mathematics, who can pretty readily point out flaws in arguments and claims. There is hardly a politician who can resist gilding the lilly even when they have a credible case.

Did you get the poster from the leave campaign handbook?

[Danny]

Sept 30, 2023 12:20:01 GMT jib said:

Sept 30, 2023 12:09:48 GMT Danny said:

On raw numbers, mathematically for the same number of journeys, at 20mph there will be 50% more vehicles on the roads than at 30mph. Thats because each journey will take 50% longer.

No.

20mph is a third (33%) slower than 30mph.

Start again.

oh dear. suppose you travel 30 miles at 30mph. This takes 1 hour.

Now travel at 20mph for 30 miles. In one hour you travel 20 miles, and it takes a further 1/2 hour to travel the remaining 10 miles. The total journey takes 1.5 hours.

original time 1 hour, extra time 0.5 hours or 50% longer.

If you parked your car on your drive with the engine running for half an hour it would use fuel and emit pollution. It wouldnt surprise me if this is equivalent to the extra pollution from the slow journey compared to the fast journey.

[Danny]

Sept 30, 2023 13:53:32 GMT philf said:

As a specific example, I think on polling alone, same sex marriage legislation would not have been passed by the coalition government, not least because there was not clear support amongst Conservative voters for the act. However, looking at the polling now, same sex marriage is more accepted than it was then. On this, then, you could argue that politicians led their voters and actually convinced them to support something.

Didn't this happen because the Uk was found in breech of human rights legislation? In other words the convention Braverman wants to get rid of, which guarantees equal rights to all?

[steve]

Danny

Let me know when you find a 30 mile long road with no road junctions, no traffic controls, no pedestrians and no other road users and you might be right.
Of course in the real world in an urban environment it doesn't exist, even in Hastings.

[neilj]

@danny
"The notional reduction in accident harm is as far as I know entirely theoretical, based on driving vehicles at dummies?"

You think!
I heard they tested extensively in Hastings on live people in 2019 but no one noticed...

[Deleted]

Sept 30, 2023 9:59:12 GMT somerjohn said:

Colin: "Eh?"

"Eh?" indeed.

I initially assumed you had finally lost patience with an incoherent, indecipherable and tiresomely belligerent posting style, in which case congratulations on seeing what the rest of us see.

But, on reflection, it seems possible that shared political views trump all and you're still sticking together. In which case the decrypted version of "Eh?" might be along the lines of, "Thanks for another typically lucid, erudite and thoughtful post, old chap, but what have your wise words got to do with me?"

Or maybe your "Eh?" reflected (shared) incredulity at Walter Mitty's latest self-aggrandising claim of "having a successful career in Investment Banking."

eh ?

[jib]

Sept 30, 2023 14:45:20 GMT Danny said:

Sept 30, 2023 12:20:01 GMT jib said:

No.

20mph is a third (33%) slower than 30mph.

Start again.

oh dear. suppose you travel 30 miles at 30mph. This takes 1 hour.

Now travel at 20mph for 30 miles. In one hour you travel 20 miles, and it takes a further 1/2 hour to travel the remaining 10 miles. The total journey takes 1.5 hours.

original time 1 hour, extra time 0.5 hours or 50% longer.

If you parked your car on your drive with the engine running for half an hour it would use fuel and emit pollution. It wouldnt surprise me if this is equivalent to the extra pollution from the slow journey compared to the fast journey.

But going at 50% faster speed only gets you there a third sooner. It's a mathematical paradox. It doesn't follow that traffic will increase by 50%.
I accept that ICEs will emit more pollution based on your long example, but we are talking small increases in most journey times in urban scenarios.

[Deleted]

Sept 30, 2023 10:01:17 GMT Mr Poppy said:

Sept 30, 2023 8:15:38 GMT colin said:

Yeh. But you seemed to be responding to my humorous post to pjw

Ah, a simples case of a misunderstanding. I'll explain

- I don't read the trolls
- If one of my 'anti-fan club' of trolls does occasionally post something interesting (eg polling) then someone I do read might reply (as you did)
- I then get to see what the troll wrote

However in my reply to you I stated:

"Have the trolls been attempting to misrepresent me (ie trolling) again. How 😴😴😴
You deleted the comment but I'm not wasting my time unhiding their posts to read drivel"

So I didn't get to see what the troll wrote in their reply to me only some drivel they did write. So polite request: if you do reply to someone who has felt the need to reply to me then please leave their entire comment OR also delete my name so it's clear your reply has no relevance to whatever the troll said in their reply to me. Ta muchly 

I have enough problems picking and choosing what I read and respond to ! 

[domjg]

A certain poster: "Not at all. Though if it comes to that I have the benefit of some of the best science education in the country, placing me in maybe the top 1%, 0.1%?" -

[domjg]

Sept 30, 2023 14:53:39 GMT Danny said:

Sept 30, 2023 13:53:32 GMT philf said:

As a specific example, I think on polling alone, same sex marriage legislation would not have been passed by the coalition government, not least because there was not clear support amongst Conservative voters for the act. However, looking at the polling now, same sex marriage is more accepted than it was then. On this, then, you could argue that politicians led their voters and actually convinced them to support something.

Didn't this happen because the Uk was found in breech of human rights legislation? In other words the convention Braverman wants to get rid of, which guarantees equal rights to all?

Breach.

[domjg]

Sept 30, 2023 14:45:20 GMT Danny said:

Sept 30, 2023 12:20:01 GMT jib said:

No.

20mph is a third (33%) slower than 30mph.

Start again.

oh dear. suppose you travel 30 miles at 30mph. This takes 1 hour.

Now travel at 20mph for 30 miles. In one hour you travel 20 miles, and it takes a further 1/2 hour to travel the remaining 10 miles. The total journey takes 1.5 hours.

original time 1 hour, extra time 0.5 hours or 50% longer.

If you parked your car on your drive with the engine running for half an hour it would use fuel and emit pollution. It wouldnt surprise me if this is equivalent to the extra pollution from the slow journey compared to the fast journey.

Oh dear indeed. How often does anyone travel 30 miles or even 10 miles at a constant speed in a 30 or 20 zone with no traffic and without frequent stops?