Retired neurologist says increased weight and acceleration of electric vehicles will lead to rise in cycling-related fatalities unless 20mph speed limits are introduced

The IAM has been through a few top end people, and I'm not convinced the current mob, who are focused on ensuring the IAM is viable, are locked into the fundamentals of advanced motoring, the main one being safe driving. The IAM have slipped off message a few times, especially with sharing the roads with cyclists.

I don't think so.

It seems entirely rational.

That IAM comment seems to me to be an agreement for a comprehensive overhaul of everything. Even if that's not what they meant.

“If you have to change the speed limit on a road, you have to change the environmental cues to tell drivers what speed they should be safely driving at. And the problem with simply changing to 20mph without changing the road, is that drivers will continue to drive on at the previous speeds."

Again I'm missing the link but IIRC there *is* evidence (presented in the failed attempt to get 30mph default changed to 20mph as default in Scotland) that even just changing the signs has *some* effect. Though not making the average speed 20mph or below, but averages did come down.

I agree though, best way is to cue drivers through engineering:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=bglWCuCMSWc

... and obviously there *has* to be feedback if you're breaking the rules (eg. enforcement).

Isn't the problem though that the cues have already been there and they are not followed.

For example, our local High Street in Knowle has not been altered to be a 20mph yet it already had multiple cramped zebras, poor visibility due to bends, lots of pedestrians crossing away from the crossings It was never a 30 environment but people drove at that speed. Now it is a 20, I can guarantee I will get hassled by a driver who disapproves of me both driving to what I assess to be a safe speed and also to the limit.

After all, on Friday night, driving on an unlit 50mph single carriageway, semi-rural but with sparse housing, farm entrances and rural side roads, I got tailgated, flashed then overtaken by a 4x4 Porsche who disagreed with my fully law abiding driving on the limit (limiter set to 52mph which I have checked against a couple of gps's and various roadside speed signs and in the past, a measure red mile). There were plenty of cues there that overtaking was inappropriate let alone the speed which his would have been well above NSL.

So if drivers have demonstrated they are incapable of using existing cues appropriately, is he asking for instructive and annoying calming - unsightly street furniture and LA expense - for something that every driver should have the mental capacity to perform without physical coercion? He is basically saying he expects drivers to deliberately drive unlawfully - which of course we see every day from many many drivers.

Perhaps culture does matter here?

In UK we have been telling people for generations that speed is good. Or at least the speed limits are targets. That "free-flowing traffic" is a "social good" (eg lifeblood of the city, engine which powers the economy etc).

In some other countries people still want to go vroom! but there is a different emphasis eg. safety through keeping speed down. Strangely that applies even in some urban areas in the US!

Where the culture generally supports it then "driver cues" are more effective. In the UK I think the "to the minimum speed limit and beyond!" culture is ingrained. We'd need to change multiple sources of feedback eg. politicians / councillors, driving instruction, ads and media portrayals, enforcement, road engineering (no more wide sweeping turns where speeds should be low "because it's a safety issue" - for bad drivers)...

ubercurmudgeon wrote:

Doubtless someone will be along soon to say that the solution would be doubling the thickness of the foam in cycle helmets, and of course making them compulsory.

And super hi-viz, mandatory retina-ripper lights at all times, and body armour.  If it saves one life.......

All so much more preferabler than actually dealing with the cause of the problem.

Bmblbzzz wrote:

The IAM is a motoring organisation, not a road safety one!

And not a very good one if 'advanced motoring' does not include noticing 20mph speed limit signs or complying with them!

As for a blanket 20mph limit, what a great idea. When can we get it?

I did the IAM driver training/test years back. They empahsised driving was was safety first. Very glad I did it, because it made me a much better and far safer driver. 

Same here. Done a number of IAM and other additional driving and motorcycling training in my time. Safety through observation and anticipation is of paramount importance, way higher in priority than what might be termed advanced vehicle control, the mechanics of actually driving a vehicle.