Safe Speed Forums

The campaign for genuine road safety
It is currently Mon Aug 10, 2020 12:10

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 28 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Fri Dec 11, 2009 10:24 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2005 10:16
Posts: 7986
Location: Moved to London
BBC online wrote:
20mph speed zones cut road injuries by 40%, study says

UK cities should have more 20mph speed zones, as they have cut road injuries by over 40% in London, a study claims.

In particular the number of children killed or seriously injured has been halved over the past 15 years, the British Medical Journal reported.

The London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine study estimates 20mph zones have the potential to prevent up to 700 casualties in London alone.

At 20mph, it is estimated only one in 40 pedestrians is killed in a crash.

This compares with a one in five chance for someone hit at 30mph.

The researchers compared data on road collisions, injuries and deaths in London between 1986 and 2006, with speed limits on roads.

After adjusting for a general reduction in road injuries in recent years, they found that the introduction of 20mph zones were associated with a 41.9% drop in casualties.

The greatest reduction was seen in children under the age of 11 years and in the numbers of all ages killed or seriously injured.

Cyclist injuries fell by 17% once 20mph zones came in, and injuries in pedestrians have been cut by almost a third.

There was also no evidence of a higher rate of casualties in areas bordering the 20mph zones, as in areas adjacent to 20mph zones casualties fell by an average of 8%.

Expansion

Study leader Dr Chris Grundy, a lecturer at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, said: "This evidence supports the rationale for 20mph zones, not just in major cities in Britain, but also in similar metropolitan areas elsewhere.

"Indeed, even within London, there is a case for extending the currently limited provision of such zones to other high casualty roads."

He estimated that 20mph zones in London save 200 lives a year, but this could increase to 700 if plans to extend the zones were implemented.

A spokesman for the Department of Transport said the study backed their own research showing that 20mph zones help to reduce accidents and casualties.

"Our road safety strategy consultation recommends that local authorities introduce, over time, 20mph zones or limits into streets around schools, and which are primarily residential in nature, to protect pedestrians and cyclists.

"This will save lives and make people feel more secure in walking and cycling on those streets."

Kevin Clinton, head of road safety at the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents, said: "This research confirms that one of the most effective ways of protecting vulnerable road users, especially children, is the introduction of 20mph zones.

"It lends weight to calls for an expansion of 20mph zones, which RoSPA strongly supports and which we hope will become a crucial part of the new road safety strategy for the next 10 years."

Anyone know where I can find that study. I'm willing to bet there are unaccounted foufounding factors within it. (not that I'm saying all 20mph zones are a bad idea)

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 11, 2009 10:43 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 11:19
Posts: 1795
Why is the study leader a lecturer on Tropical medicine????? Surely it should be someone that actually studies transport or road safety. I'd try emailing him and asking where you can get the full report. The bmj site might have it too.

Seems curious this is the exact reverse to other studies that have shown injuries went up. But increased pedestrian safety is a factor. Also 20 mph zones haven't been around for long.

You'd also need to know comparative traffic levels. Others may go into other zones but those actually may be where the pedestrians aren't. So it isn't the speed that makes the difference just the absence of traffic so when you roll them out widely that reduction will disappear as there will be no alternative non 20 mph route.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 11, 2009 14:17 
Offline
Supporter
Supporter
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 16, 2008 13:45
Posts: 4042
Location: Near Buxton, Derbyshire
teabelly wrote:
Why is the study leader a lecturer on Tropical medicine?????


For the same reason that the LSHTM's chief surgical advisor on surgical procedure is a retired traffic cop. :twisted:

_________________
When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. H.G. Wells
When I see a youth in a motor car I do d.c.brown


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 11, 2009 20:20 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2005 00:15
Posts: 5232
Location: Windermere
BBC report wrote:
Study leader Dr Chris Grundy, a lecturer at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, said: "This evidence supports the rationale for 20mph zones, not just in major cities in Britain, but also in similar metropolitan areas elsewhere.
"Indeed, even within London, there is a case for extending the currently limited provision of such zones to other high casualty roads."
He estimated that 20mph zones in London save 200 lives a year, but this could increase to 700 if plans to extend the zones were implemented.

Anyone know how many people died on London's roads last year from ALL causes?
You mission (should you choose to accept it) is to report back here with those fatal stats.
Remember Dr.Grundy says they would be 200 worse were it not for 20 mph limits, and if there were MORE 20 mph limits, then MORE (700) extra would be saved.

And in case you ask, I do know the answer, but I don't want to be accused of twisting the statistics, or not being peer reviewed... please find out for yourself!

Unless he has been misreported, then perhaps the reason Dr Grundy is a fellow of the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, is that he provides them with snake venom, and talks with a forked tongue (parcelmouth)?

_________________
Time to take responsibility for our actions.. and don't be afraid of speaking out!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 11, 2009 22:19 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member

Joined: Fri Sep 24, 2004 23:26
Posts: 9272
Location: Treacletown ( just north of M6 J3),A MILE OR TWO PAST BEDROCK
Any mention of increased accident rates in adjacent areas ,not subject to 20 ,to see if perhaps traffic is moving to avoid these areas to avoid the 20 limits and the inevitable tank traps .Perhaps a study of traffic flow (to reflect increases in other adjacent areas ,as happens when a cash machine (aka safety camera) is installed) might show traffic movement trends .If traffic density decreases ,then if follows that accidents will decrease .Like the provision of animal road bypasses -(think it was for hedgehogs) -once installed the death rate plummeted .

_________________
lets bring sanity back to speed limits.
Drivers are like donkeys -they respond best to a carrot, not a stick .Road safety experts are like Asses - best kept covered up ,or sat on


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Dec 13, 2009 08:39 
Offline
Supporter
Supporter
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 16, 2008 13:45
Posts: 4042
Location: Near Buxton, Derbyshire
Ernest Marsh wrote:
Anyone know how many people died on London's roads last year from ALL causes?
You mission (should you choose to accept it) is to report back here with those fatal stats.


I choose to accept your arduous mission and after a full two minutes searching came up with this http://www.freedomfordrivers.org/Road_deaths_in_London.htm (unfortunately the link to TfL is broken)

You will observe that between 1993 and 2006 the number of deaths has varied between 200 and 300 a year. Whilst I didn't find figures for the last three years i think it unlikely that they have risen to exceed 700 without massive press coverage. I suspect that the good Doctor might be confusing KSI with fatalities.

I am actually in favour of 20mph zones but not of using bogus statistics to promote them. The real statistics are compelling enough.
http://www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downloads/ResearchSummaryNo2_20mphZones.pdf

_________________
When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. H.G. Wells
When I see a youth in a motor car I do d.c.brown


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Dec 13, 2009 12:59 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2005 10:16
Posts: 7986
Location: Moved to London
dcbwhaley wrote:
I am actually in favour of 20mph zones but not of using bogus statistics to promote them. The real statistics are compelling enough.
http://www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downloads/ResearchSummaryNo2_20mphZones.pdf

We have to know the criteria for selection of these 20 zones. Could there be an element of RTTM?
(the same illusion that applies to speed cameras)

As it is, that report conceded that traffic flow reduced by 15%.

What of long-term trends. This effect must have been quite significant too. The timeframes used in this report are "Before period September 1992 to October 1997, after period November 1998 to October 2001" which is before cameras did their damage. The 2005 RTTM study showed that trend is worth 10% for only 3 years before and 3 years after (a shorter timeframes). Hence we could write off another 15% for that alone.

Then we have 'bias on selection': other safety measures applied within these zones such as crossings, barriers and cycle lanes. Don't forget, these are densely populated urban areas, so one can expect other safety measures to be applied. If not then one has to ask why not? Surely these are the areas what would benefit most?

These four confounding factors (RTTM, less traffic, long-term trends, BOS) together will go a long way to explaining that KSI trend – it is beyond question that the claimed KSI 42% reduction is an over estimate (in terms of 20 zone effectiveness).



To finish off:
"In greater London" there are target reductions of "40% and slight casualties by 10% by 2010 compared with the 1994-98 average."
In 2003 the London Congestion Charge kicked in which displaces and reduces traffic.

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Dec 14, 2009 00:17 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 02:17
Posts: 7361
Location: Highlands
There is more to this than meets the eye check out these links!
Here
Here
Here

Quote:
The Transport and Health Group is a multi-disciplinary group of researchers interested in the links between transport and health. This includes: evaluations of the impact of large scale transport interventions on public health; research on the health outcomes of different transport modes; and research into the wider public health implications of transport systems. Our research addresses public transport, private motorised transport and active modes, such as walking and cycling, in the context of a broad definition of the public health, which includes physical, mental and social well being.

The Transport and Health Group has completed several high profile studies, for example, for the World Health Organisation we contributed to the World report on road traffic injury prevention, for the UK Department for Health we prepared the evidence base in Injury trends and social gradients for their accident prevention strategy, and for Transport for London we have conducted three studies into Deprivation and Road Safety in London; Road Safety of London's Black & Asian Minority Ethnic groups; and Evaluation of 20mph zones in London. The Group is also leading an international collaboration, funded by the Wellcome Trust, to provide evidence on the health effects of climate change mitigation prior to the UN Climate Change conference in Copenhagen in Dec 2009. This research includes transport case studies for London and Hyderabad.

_________________
Safe Speed for Intelligent Road Safety through proper research, experience & guidance.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Dec 14, 2009 00:54 
Offline
User

Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 04:10
Posts: 3244
http://www.lbhf.gov.uk/Directory/News/Road_deaths_halved.asp

http://www.haringey.gov.uk/index/news_and_events/latest_news/haringey_road_deaths_and_injuries_fall_to_record_low.htm

http://www.rsm.ac.uk/media/downloads/j06-08child.pdf

http://www.londoncouncils.gov.uk/London%20Councils/LondonCouncilsResponsetoDepartmentforTransportFINA.pdf

The last deserves a read:
Quote:
Also, consideration should
be given to devising legislation that supports the emerging design
principles of shared space, to enable priority to be given to
pedestrians and cyclists over motor vehicles.

Since "shared space" allocates no priorities to any group this would seem to be a bit of a puzzle.
Obviously "shared space" in their minds means no space....since how are drivers to know the priorities without signs....which defeats the object, surely ?

_________________
The world runs on oil, period. No other substance can compete when it comes to energy density, flexibility, ease of handling, ease of transportation. If oil didn’t exist we would have to invent it.”

56 years after it was decided it was needed, the Bedford Bypass is nearing completion. The last single carriageway length of it.We have the most photogenic mayor though, always being photographed doing nothing


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Dec 14, 2009 01:15 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2005 10:16
Posts: 7986
Location: Moved to London
http://www.lbhf.gov.uk/Directory/News/Road_deaths_halved.asp
I found this to be particularly disengenuous.

Quote:
The number of fatalities on the borough's streets has halved in the past year as the number of road accidents continues to fall.

Latest figures show there were three fatalities on H&F streets in 2008, including two motorbike riders and one pedestrian - compared to six in 2007.

A conclusion based on just three occurences? - come on!
Is that really statistically significant, or are they trying to capitalise on noise on top of low figures? :roll:

Quote:
A total of 91 people were seriously injured in accidents on the borough's roads in 2008 compared to 97 in 2007.

Hold on, how can they claim to have effected a halving of K when SIs have hardly moved?

Quote:
Road safety experts say the decreases have been achieved through the council's road education and publicity programmes, local safety schemes, 20mph zones, cycle and bus schemes and a range of highways improvements - like Puffin crossings.

BS! It's nothing more than fluctuations. Next year a different council will have the glory of having a temporary negative spike, and this one will quietly exit stage right.

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Dec 14, 2009 01:24 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2005 10:16
Posts: 7986
Location: Moved to London
http://www.lbhf.gov.uk/Directory/News/Road_deaths_halved.asp
The 'deaths and injuries' figures in this one are suspect.
From 2000 to 2003, the 'deaths and injuries' rate is steady at about 200 per year. From 2004 to 2007, the rate is steady around 100. Why that abrupt step change between 2003 and 2004?

More significantly, why aren't figures for deaths alone never mentioned? Weren't those figures quite as nice looking?

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Dec 14, 2009 01:43 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 02:17
Posts: 7361
Location: Highlands
This recent road peace link shows all deaths ... here
dft-RoadPeaceSpeech wrote:
Last year there were 405 fewer deaths than in the previous year. And road deaths have fallen by two-thirds since their peak in the mid 1960s. ........
Next year, our ten year strategy for road safety in Great Britain comes to an end. So we need to chart a course for the next decade and beyond. We need to design and implement the solutions that will cut the annual toll of deaths and serious injuries on our roads still further.
And that’s why we sought public views in the summer on how we should tackle road safety for the next ten years. And I’m, pleased to say there was a good reaction - we received more than 2000 responses before the consultation closed in July, showing the high level of public interest.
.......
Put simply our vision is to have the 'Safest roads in the world.' That means not accepting a situation where 7 people die on our roads each day, but challenging ourselves to do better - to improve our vehicles, our skills as road users and our road environment still further.
We don’t just want this country’s roads to be safer, we want roads across the world to be safer. I’ve already spoken of the chilling figure for annual global road deaths – 1.4 million. Well, the majority of these deaths, around 70 percent, occur in developing countries.

Worrying how Road Peace and the dft seem to be talking as 'one' !

_________________
Safe Speed for Intelligent Road Safety through proper research, experience & guidance.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Dec 14, 2009 09:35 
Offline
User

Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 04:10
Posts: 3244
dft-RoadPeaceSpeech wrote:
We don’t just want this country’s roads to be safer, we want roads across the world to be safer. I’ve already spoken of the chilling figure for annual global road deaths – 1.4 million. Well, the majority of these deaths, around 70 percent, occur in developing countries.


The ones with poor roads, and poor[er] drivers ?
Surely not the ones where entire families drive around on a single motorcycle ?
Image
While they're at it, why don't they also end death from starvation and drought ?
And from smoking.
All of which are much higher than in the "developed" (parasitic) countries.
Not to mention the hundreds of thousands killed in wars.
Now we pay them billions to stop emitting CO2: Weird.

_________________
The world runs on oil, period. No other substance can compete when it comes to energy density, flexibility, ease of handling, ease of transportation. If oil didn’t exist we would have to invent it.”

56 years after it was decided it was needed, the Bedford Bypass is nearing completion. The last single carriageway length of it.We have the most photogenic mayor though, always being photographed doing nothing


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Dec 29, 2009 18:40 
Offline
User

Joined: Sat Dec 06, 2008 14:14
Posts: 131
Ernest Marsh wrote:
BBC report wrote:
Study leader Dr Chris Grundy, a lecturer at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, said: "This evidence supports the rationale for 20mph zones, not just in major cities in Britain, but also in similar metropolitan areas elsewhere.
"Indeed, even within London, there is a case for extending the currently limited provision of such zones to other high casualty roads."
He estimated that 20mph zones in London save 200 lives a year, but this could increase to 700 if plans to extend the zones were implemented.

Anyone know how many people died on London's roads last year from ALL causes?
You mission (should you choose to accept it) is to report back here with those fatal stats.
Remember Dr.Grundy says they would be 200 worse were it not for 20 mph limits, and if there were MORE 20 mph limits, then MORE (700) extra would be saved.

And in case you ask, I do know the answer, but I don't want to be accused of twisting the statistics, or not being peer reviewed... please find out for yourself!

Unless he has been misreported, then perhaps the reason Dr Grundy is a fellow of the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, is that he provides them with snake venom, and talks with a forked tongue (parcelmouth)?



This guy is in a health related employment area and yet he advocates 20MPH limits be extended. Does he drive? Does he understand the internal combustion engine? Does he realise the added pollution there will be from these speeds? Lower speeds equals more RPM, equals higher fuel consumption, equals more POLLUTION. Maybe he's short of patients to carry out his research? OLLIE


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Dec 29, 2009 23:26 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member

Joined: Fri Sep 24, 2004 23:26
Posts: 9272
Location: Treacletown ( just north of M6 J3),A MILE OR TWO PAST BEDROCK
Often wonder how much a Jaywalking bill would cut pedestrian casualities - ped taken to hospital to be given bill for medical treatment caused by own stupidity - that might just lower casualty rates

_________________
lets bring sanity back to speed limits.
Drivers are like donkeys -they respond best to a carrot, not a stick .Road safety experts are like Asses - best kept covered up ,or sat on


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Dec 30, 2009 00:21 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2005 10:16
Posts: 7986
Location: Moved to London
botach wrote:
Often wonder how much a Jaywalking bill would cut pedestrian casualities - ped taken to hospital to be given bill for medical treatment caused by own stupidity - that might just lower casualty rates

It is sad, but unavoidably true.
The great majority of pedestrian casualties (74%) have their own error as a contributory factor towards the accident (for factors such as 'failed to look' [table 4i, RCGB2007]).

This is a proposal so conveniently dismissed by many, especially those who believe enough could never be done to save lives.

I don't call for jaywalking laws, but I do call for enforced parental responsibility.

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Dec 30, 2009 00:55 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Fri Apr 22, 2005 10:30
Posts: 2053
Location: South Wales (Roving all UK)
Excellent research.

On the back of the success of the 20mph zones let me be the first to call for 10mph zones. Extrapolating from the data above i estimate that this could potentially save more lives than are currently being lost.

Yes, I truely believe that 10mph zones could actually create life.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Dec 31, 2009 01:42 
Offline
Life Member
Life Member

Joined: Sat Mar 27, 2004 13:50
Posts: 2643
Steve wrote:
We have to know the criteria for selection of these 20 zones. Could there be an element of RTTM?


I'd be willing to put money on it being totally down to RTTM, considering the following passage from the report: (my bold)

Quote:
The 20 mph zones studied have almost exclusively been implemented on unclassified roads that previously had a 30 mph limit and, prior to the introduction of the 20 mph zone, the number of accidents per km per year was, on average, more than twice that of other unclassified roads.


If the zones in question had more than twice the accident rate during the 'before' period, a 50-60% reduction is hardly surprising.

_________________
Only when ideology, prejudice and dogma are set aside does the truth emerge - Kepler


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Dec 31, 2009 18:54 
Offline
User

Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 04:10
Posts: 3244
civil engineer wrote:
Excellent research.

On the back of the success of the 20mph zones let me be the first to call for 10mph zones. Extrapolating from the data above i estimate that this could potentially save more lives than are currently being lost.

Yes, I truely believe that 10mph zones could actually create life.


If we reduce the limit to 1 mph we can probably expect that the accident rate will go into reverse, and we will have no deaths or injuries and more births.
After 10 years or so we will have replaced the previous 50 years carnage ?

_________________
The world runs on oil, period. No other substance can compete when it comes to energy density, flexibility, ease of handling, ease of transportation. If oil didn’t exist we would have to invent it.”

56 years after it was decided it was needed, the Bedford Bypass is nearing completion. The last single carriageway length of it.We have the most photogenic mayor though, always being photographed doing nothing


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jan 06, 2010 23:13 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2005 18:54
Posts: 4036
Location: Cumbria
I have a copy of the full report here as a pdf file if anyone wants it. Just PM me with an e-mail address. I haven't the time (or, if truth be told, the knowledge) to properly assess it, but if anyone on here understands statisticspeak, they're welcome to a copy!

Intuitively, I could believe that a 20MPH limit would save some lives / serious injuries compared to a 30. I also think a 10 MPH might save a few more. The question is whether there are better ways of doing this whereby we get to save lives AND keep all the benefits that the motor car brings!


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 28 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
[ Time : 0.246s | 14 Queries | GZIP : Off ]