Better knowledge of Highway Code changes to protect cyclists and more 20mph speed limits recommended by professor who argues active travel is "best buy" for improving nation's health

Rich_cb wrote:

We should have reasonably conclusive proof in a few years in the form of road casualty statistics assuming the policy survives that long.

Hope it not only survives but catches on here in Scotland also (been rejected once).  There are some small encouraging signs here like some *practical* movement on pavement parking.

End of the day, it is about choices - we can do the sums but we have to decide what, how much of it we want and if it's worth the cost.

So "go a bit faster sometimes, which summed over everyone travelling could be expressed as a net economic benefit - and we're happy for an unlucky few to pay a higher cost in lives and livelihoods as there's a small chance it'll be us.  (And which - though most of us don't think about it - we will all end up paying for financially)" .  With a much more immediate political dividend of "we're behind you, the users of motor transport, as opposed to that lot who are taking away your rights".

Vs. "slower in the slow places, may take a few minutes longer for any given journey" but a gain of "nicer places, potentially less suppression of active travel (because fast motor traffic is unpleasant to walk next to or cycle among), reduction in casualty totals and property damage (with economic savings)".

I hope it survives because if it goes it'll take all the old 20mph zones with it and I live in one of those!

I'm sceptical about the impact on casualty figures but time will tell.

Rich_cb wrote:

A lot of roads including pretty much all the high risk roads by schools etc were already 20 in areas I know.

Lots of places didn't have 20 mph limits around schools. People, including schoolchildren, live and move in all parts of the towns and cities, so why should they not be provided with the same reduction in risk?

And speed reduction in small villages is worthwhile, despite the obvious frustration of drivers often having to slow from a 60 limit to 30. You'd have no difficulty finding people in small communities complaining about speeding traffic, the difficulty of crossing the one road that goes through; small villages often don't have the same traffic density and infrastructure which slow the traffic (lights, junctions, pinch points, queues) so I'd suggest that the limits are valuable there for slightly different reasons.

In the end the limits are only asking drivers to drive a bit slower in some places. The impact on journey times is negligible but I find as a pedestrian and cyclist the difference is palpable. Is that really so unreasonable?

Simon E wrote:

]Lots of places didn't have 20 mph limits around schools. People, including schoolchildren, live and move in all parts of the towns and cities, so why should they not be provided with the same reduction in risk?

100% this. If anything the protection of lower speed limits is more necessary in surrounding areas, most people who aren't psychopaths now know to be careful and slow down outside schools, and many have crossing patrols, warning signs and lights et cetera. People do drive encouragingly carefully around the school zones around all my local schools, but once they are past them it's back to business as usual of driving 5-10mph+ over the limit, ignoring the fact that there are plenty of children still on the roads going to the school zones where they were just so careful.

You've missed my point.

By changing the default limit to 20 a huge political backlash has been created which risks the loss of all the previous 20 mph zones.

Those 20.mph zones were almost exclusively in 'high risk' areas where 20 mph would be most beneficial.

As those high risk areas were already largely 20 mph there is no benefit to be derived in those areas from a change in default limit which reduces the overall benefit of the default limit change.

Poor implementation and communication of the default change has put all the previous progress with 20mph zones at risk for little gain.

We'd have been far better off expanding the existing 20mph zones IMO. Those were widely supported by all political parties.

Rich_cb wrote:

I think there's a general misunderstanding about the Welsh Conservatives' position on 20 mph. They oppose the so called 'blanket' change to 20 mph across previous 30 mph zones but support 20 mph in built up areas, outside schools, hospitals etc.

That's simply not true, this from the Welsh Conservatives website:

Quote:

Labour's plan to change the default “national” speed limit in built-up areas throughout Wales, from 30mph to 20mph, will come into force on 17th September 2023. The plans would damage the Welsh economy, yet there is no evidence they would improve road safety or reduce air pollution as promised.  

Sign our petition for roads to only change to 20mph where appropriate, like outside schools and hospitals.

Clearly they do oppose 20 mph in built-up areas unless other factors are present.

Not quite. They oppose changing all 30 mph areas to 20 mph but support 20 mph where appropriate.

That's outside schools, hospitals etc but they have also previously supported campaigns for 20 mph in residential areas. That's what I was referring to by 'built up' rather than industrial estates etc.

Edit: It turns out there's actually a set definition of 'built up area'. Mea culpa. I was intending to refer to residential areas.

Damn that Barnett and his stupid formula! don't forget that just because I despise tories in england, see them as insignificant in Cymru, doesn't mean I support Labour. Have you seen the conservative and unionist leader, RT Davies's latest in that he's promising the gullible that he'll reverse ALL the 20mph zones back to 30mph, not the hospital and schools that put him in a similar position to Labour. All of them, he clearly hasn't thought this one through either. Neither the practicality nor the cost, you can see his level of thought when he constantly lies about "blanket" (100% coverage).

This is exactly what I worried would happen and wrote about in comments on here.

It's actually, AFAIK, impossible to reverse the default 20 mph default/blanket limit without reverting all the previous 20 mph zones to 30 mph. Each 20 mph zone that previously existed would then have to be reinstated.

A badly communicated/implemented policy from Labour now risks undoing a lot of previously good work that had cross party support. Such is politics. Hopefully it won't happen but there is now a reasonable risk that it will.

How can a manifesto promise followed by a 2 year consultaion period (which by default makes "blanket" a lie) be considered "badly communicated"? You'd have to be pretty stupid to have missed all that. Some might say, that the right whingers are doing their upmost to destroy the democratic process. What is it the brexiteers say? Suck it up? Get on with it? You have to do your bit to make it work? Or are these phrases for selctive use only?

One has to assume that everyone knew what they were voting for.

EDIT: I have just seen RT wanging on about 97% of 30mph roads changing and in the same breath repeating the "blanket", which we all understand as 100%, lie. This is the man who tried to call out Drakeford with a point of pedantry. Like most tories, things only go the one way.

Hardly anybody knows what they're voting for.

Most people trot out to vote for the same party they've always voted for regardless. Elections are usually decided by a tiny number of swing voters in marginal constituencies. Most of us are largely irrelevant to the process.

Labour are still polling well in Wales yet the 20mph limit is very unpopular even amongst Labour supporters.

If most people supported 20mph pre law and most people now oppose it then you have to consider that the implementation and communication involved have been spectacularly bad.

Edit: The difference between 97% and 100% isn't really worth getting so worked up about. Politicians deliberately use phrases like that to divert the discussions away from the underlying principles and onto pointless semantics. Don't fall for it.

That's only anecdotal, there is also plenty of anecdotal that says that the 20mph is working fine and people support it.

A manifesto pledge and a 2 year consultation period, a damn sight more than the damaging brexit, but here you are complaining that you didn't do your research and perhaps things should change. Clear numbers tell us brexit is a failure, there is no question that we were lied to, and that brexit was wrong. Apparently saucking up is that's needed and everything will be fine.

Can you please pick a position on the knowing/not knowing being suffient? Then stick to it.

Final point, the number of 20mph zones in england and across Europe is a clear sign that the conservative and unionist party or right whingers have no problem with 20mph zones. This is, and always has been, an attack on devolution/independence. RT Davies has nothing constructive to add (to any argument, he's a bitter, hate filled man) to anything.

Quote:

Edit: The difference between 97% and 100% isn't really worth getting so worked up about. Politicians deliberately use phrases like that to divert the discussions away from the underlying principles and onto pointless semantics. Don't fall for it.

But RT got extremely worked up, to blood vessel popping levels, with his pedantic demands for Drakeford to use clear language. Again pick which side if the argument you want, and stick to it (and I will continue to compare attitudes to this and attitudes to brexit).

You Gov polling shows widespread opposition and the numbers are getting worse.

https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/survey-results/daily/2022/07/14/874...(popup:search/Speed%20limit)

https://d3nkl3psvxxpe9.cloudfront.net/documents/Results_BarnCymru_Decemb...

To get to that point with a previously popular policy shows botched implementation and/or communication.

The exemptions to 30 I was referring to were the pre existing 20 mph zones which were, in my experience, quite widespread already.

Lol at You Gov, about as reliable as an MP trying to get tax payers to pay for their stables. You do know that there was a huge spike of Google searches for Welsh postcodes for "that" petition, don't you?

Have another You Gov poll where 51% would rejoin EU https://yougov.co.uk/politics/articles/48260-four-years-after-brexit-wha... Which You Gov poll should we act upon and which should we ignore?

Which is why "that" petition wasn't reliable.

I'm not sure there's any such evidence against this you Gov poll?

I'm sure that the market research company founded by corrupt Nadhim Zahawi is 100% above board and in no way biased. I can't put my finger on it, but there's something that makes me question the reliability and integrity of the tory and unionist party And again, an english market research company polling on Welsh issues is never a good start either. I'd add that there is nothing in that poll that says it's exclusively Welsh, and still open to the corruption of the petition.

There's the bit in the top left corner of the second poll which states it was based on the responses of 1004 adults in Wales?

In Dwyfor Meirionydd or Montgomeryshire?

I'd love to see a more up to date poll too.

The more salient point being one of respecting democratic process in Cymru, but good to hear that you support all things You Gov polls and are prepared to get behind the rejoin movement. https://yougov.co.uk/politics/articles/45910-britons-would-vote-rejoin-eu

AFAIK that's the latest one.

It doesn't specify which part of Wales but I'm not sure that's what you were really asking.

Nor does that answer my question about rejoining EU, based on the results of a YouGov poll. Are Yougov polls reliable or not?

Or the fact that this is a simple attack on Welsh politics by the conservative and unionist party. We all know the proliferation of 20mph zones in england.

20 mph zones were supported by Welsh Conservatives too. Blanket/97% switch from 30 to 20 was not.

I think they're as reliable as any other major pollsters. No major political decisions should be made based on a poll but they are usually a reasonable indicator of how a democratic vote will go.

1. Why are you still trying to shoehorn "blanket" into the discussion, if 4% was a big enough marging for brexit, 3% is good enough here, especially for a pedant like RT Davies.

2. There's no such thing as the Welsh Conservatives, it's the conservative and unionist party in Cymru.

3. They knew what they were voting for, suck it up, move on, the people have spoken, no one is interested, etc.

1. Just to annoy you. Blanket success so far.
2. https://www.conservatives.wales/
3. When even a majority of Labour's own supporters now oppose the policy the temptation to reverse course becomes ever greater.

it doesn't annoy me, it just makes the people that misuse the term as much a liar as RT Davies. And we all know he's just a noisy insignificance in Cyrmu, even his english overlords have no respect for him.

Why do you insist on showing me the lies from the prepetrators of the lies as if you think that it is suddenly a representation of the truth? It's not the first time, is it?

And, of course, point three applies directly to brexit. Something you refuse to address for some reason. Can't think what.

It certainly seems like it annoys you, you've mentioned it incessantly. Almost a blanket approach, maybe nearer 97% but who's counting right?

They call themselves the "Welsh Conservatives". The press refer to them as the "Welsh Conservatives" and IIRC that's what it says on the ballot paper too. But I'm sure on a pedantic level you're absolutely correct...

You want to change the subject of discussion. I don't.

Probably best to avoid the disasterous brexit, must be a bit embarrasing fot you.

EDIT: I can see why you'd think that two different monumental government decisions followed by public backlash, with YOuGov polls to offer supporting evidence, are two completely different topics. I can fully see why you believe a Labour decision, which demonstrably saves lives and reduces pollution, must be challenged and democracy overturned ensuring the involuntary union is not broken up, while an advisory referendum offered by the tories must be adhered to in spite of a wholesale change of minds and clear destruction of the economy, society and integrity within the government and ensures that the wishes of westminster are aplied to the Scots, and the Welsh ensuring the involuntary union is kept under english control. The similarities must be too few to comprehend. This is not an attack on 20mph zones, it is an attack on independence and democracy by a dictatorial english government.

Gosh, tories use Welsh tories, the good old press call them Welsh tories and a bit of digging finds that it's the Welsh branch of the tory and unionist party, who'd've thought a tory would be sucked into and continue the lie..?

It's much like Bannau Brycheiniog, the refusal to use the correct name says more about the people that refuse, and as stated, it's a lie, as you admit.

You have nothing constructive to add, to I'll allow you to leave.

Remind me, do you actually live in Wales?

Or are you one of those nationalists who can't even bring himself to reside in the country he apparently loves so much?

Welsh Conservatives is the name used to refer to the party by virtually everybody including on official election paperwork. It's therefore entirely reasonable to use that title and in no way misleading or dishonest.

By your own standards though referring to them as 'Tories' is also a lie. That's not their official title and isn't used on any official paperwork.

Who'd have somebody that simultaneously wants independence from one political union but despises those who wanted independence from another could be so hypocritical...

I am a Welshman who can trace his family roots way back in to the history of Cymru, currently I travel, so I don't actually live anywhere. Are you going to try and tell me it's none of my business?

tory is probably a historically more accurate name than conservative, but you keep on perpetuating the lie that Welsh tories are not just a sub division of conservative and unionist party based in england. It even says it in their title, ffs! Perhaps you'd prefer oruidhe or toruighe?

Who'd've thought that a tory wouldn't understand. If an independent Cymru votes to rejoin EU, so be it, if not, so be it. However that goes, we will not be governed by a foreign country.  But thanks again for misunderstanding, but that is the crux of EU membership for the unionists, they perceived they had no power in EU, which is bad, but can weild their power over Scotland, Wales and N. Ireland, which, for them, is good. Big fish in an ever decreasing pond. #Bless.

So that's a no.

The UK had power in the EU in the same way that Wales has power in the UK.

Lol at the unionist trying to tell the native how to live!

Now you are saying EU was good? Or UK is bad?