Ever tried driving at 20 km/h (12 mph) for long?

LordSutch · 17-02-2015 08:24PM #1

As the title says, ever tried it?

I had a go in our estate tonight and I couldn't get out of 1st gear.

30 km/h makes much more sense, but 20 is just not practical or logical.

force eleven · 17-02-2015 08:28PM

I walk faster.

Dog of Tears · 17-02-2015 08:30PM

Tried it today coming home in our estate.

Think it's a bit slow tbh.

Would fully agree with 30kph being implemented though.

jamo2oo9 · 17-02-2015 08:30PM

My sperm moves faster than you...

The_Valeyard · 17-02-2015 08:31PM

Are we going to see speed vans in estates now?

Stheno · 17-02-2015 08:31PM

Its ok in an automatic but horrible in a manual

FloatingVoter · 17-02-2015 08:32PM

LordSutch wrote: »

As the title says, ever tried it?

I had a go in our estate tonight and I couldn't get out of 1st gear.

30 km/h makes much more sense, but 20 is just not practical or logical.

Stop stealing bicycles from young children.

RebelSoul · 17-02-2015 08:33PM

20 is plenty

LordSutch · 17-02-2015 08:33PM

As I have already said, 20km/h = 12 mph which equals 1st gear all the way

Crazy.

The_Valeyard · 17-02-2015 08:34PM

RebelSoul wrote: »

20 is plenty

It won't be enforced and people will not stick to it.

Greenmachine · 17-02-2015 08:35PM

The_Valeyard wrote: »

It won't be enforced and people will not stick to it.

Don't think my speedo registers speed less than 20kph.

RebelSoul · 17-02-2015 08:36PM

The_Valeyard wrote: »

It won't be enforced and people will not stick to it.

Grand sure

Just a little Samba · 17-02-2015 08:36PM

LordSutch wrote: »

30 km/h makes much more sense, but 20 is just not practical or logical.

30 also leads to more fatalities when you run into a toddler because you're too self important to take your time leaving a residential area and decide to to put children's lives at risk. Sure why not 50 or 80?

The_Valeyard · 17-02-2015 08:39PM

Just a little Samba wrote: »

30 also leads to more fatalities when you run into a toddler because you're too self important to take your time leaving a residential area and decide to to put children's lives at risk. Sure why not 50 or 80?

Hard to get around estate corners at 80.

*rolls eyes*

Pinch Flat · 17-02-2015 08:39PM

They seem to be able to do this in continental europe handy enough, are the cars here different or something?

mada82 · 17-02-2015 08:39PM

Just a little Samba wrote: »

30 also leads to more fatalities when you run into a toddler because you're too self important to take your time leaving a residential area and decide to to put children's lives at risk. Sure why not 50 or 80?

Have you got the stats to back up less accidents at 20?

the_syco · 17-02-2015 08:41PM

Firstly, you'll spend more time looking at your speedometer than out the front window, and secondly, people will more likely walk across the road in front of you thinking that they have more time than they actually do, to cross the road.

Keith186 · 17-02-2015 08:44PM

Just a little Samba wrote: »

30 also leads to more fatalities when you run into a toddler because you're too self important to take your time leaving a residential area and decide to to put children's lives at risk. Sure why not 50 or 80?

Sure ban cars altogether and have zero fatalities.
Or go with 30km/h which more drivers are more likely to respect than a pathetic limit of 20km/h.

My name is URL · 17-02-2015 08:45PM

I've seen funeral processions move faster than that

UCDVet · 17-02-2015 08:46PM

Just a little Samba wrote: »

30 also leads to more fatalities when you run into a toddler because you're too self important to take your time leaving a residential area and decide to to put children's lives at risk. Sure why not 50 or 80?

Why are these toddlers running free in street? Surely, there are people more equipped to watch these toddlers than strangers driving in a vehicle.

Just a little Samba · 17-02-2015 08:47PM

mada82 wrote: »

Have you got the stats to back up less accidents at 20?

I never said less accidents, I said less fatalities.

If a pedestrian is hit by a car at 30kph they have a 50% chance of dying.
If a pedestrian is hit by a car at 20kph they have a 10% chance of dying.

Source.

LordSutch · 17-02-2015 08:47PM

Just a little Samba wrote: »

30 also leads to more fatalities when you run into a toddler because you're too self important to take your time leaving a resendential area and decide to to put children's lives at risk. Sure why not 50 or 80?

Doing 20 km/h is the same as a fast walk or a slow jog. Its not realistic, its not practical, and its on the cusp of 2nd gear in many cars, which has your engine revving too high.

30 km/h would make perfect sense IMO.

Pinch Flat · 17-02-2015 08:48PM

mada82 wrote: »

Have you got the stats to back up less accidents at 20?

Id say less severity of the outcome at 20kph rather than less accidents per se.something to do with mass and speed that fella newton was banging on about in the 1600's

Just a little Samba · 17-02-2015 08:49PM

UCDVet wrote: »

Why are these toddlers running free in street? Surely, there are people more equipped to watch these toddlers than strangers driving in a vehicle.

They aren't running free in the street, they are playing on green areas in residential areas. Or Walking to the park with the parents, or bolting out the front door when their mum turns her back for 4 seconds.

We don't live in some ideal world where nobody slips up and lets a toddler get out of their control for a few seconds. Nobody can claim they have had 100% control of a toddlers movements at all times, anyone claiming otherwise is a liar.

pablo128 · 17-02-2015 08:49PM

"Oh Holly, and Herbert, remember I said to look both ways when crossing the road? Well now there's a new speed limit and you can dart across the road if you like, as all those cars can stop in plenty of time now. Off you go, out to play now."

kneemos · 17-02-2015 08:50PM

Do we have many accidents in housing estates?

My name is URL · 17-02-2015 08:51PM

Just a little Samba wrote: »

I never said less accidents, I said less fatalities.

If a pedestrian is hit by a car at 30kph they have a 50% chance of dying.
If a pedestrian is hit by a car at 20kph they have a 10% chance of dying.

Source.

That page goes on to refute the claim and figures stated

Señor Fancy Pants · 17-02-2015 08:51PM

Just a little Samba wrote: »

I never said less accidents, I said less fatalities.

If a pedestrian is hit by a car at 30kph they have a 50% chance of dying.
If a pedestrian is hit by a car at 20kph they have a 10% chance of dying.

Source.

If a child is not on the road they have almost 100% chance of not being hit by a vehicle.

AlekSmart · 17-02-2015 08:55PM

UCDVet wrote: »

Why are these toddlers running free in street? Surely, there are people more equipped to watch these toddlers than strangers driving in a vehicle.

Many years ago,I drove mini-buses on a hail'n ride Local Bus Service Network.

The almost universal lack of comprehension,interest or concern of a great many adults for infants/toddlers in their care is beyond belief.

It was not only a few,it was the majority of adults,who in live-traffic situations were fully comfortable with allowing tiny children to wander freely onto the roadways and hide between parked cars as buses drove by.

On the occasions where myself or any colleagues,were sufficently concerned to intervene and attempt to interest the "responsible adults",the responses were almost always aggressive,confrontational and at times physical...eventually,the services had to be removed from the estates due to the dangers posed by the combination of unregulated car parking and roaming children.

There's little point in pointing to what European Countries do in these situations,as it usually bears little resemblance to what WE do...:mad:

UCDVet · 17-02-2015 08:55PM

Just a little Samba wrote: »

They aren't running free in the street, they are playing on green areas in residential areas. Or Walking to the park with the parents, or bolting out the front door when their mum turns her back for 4 seconds.

We don't live in some ideal world where nobody slips up and lets a toddler get out of their control for a few seconds. Nobody can claim they have had 100% control of a toddlers movements at all times, anyone claiming otherwise is a liar.

If we expect pet owners to do it, why can't we expect the same from children owners?

I own a dog. I don't let it play in the grass near a road because, it will go into the road. I don't ever let outside of my control - EVERY SINGLE TIME I take my dog outside it is completely contained. If that means people need a leash on their small children, then that's what they should do. If that means only letting them play in areas far away from a road, then that seems like a prudent thing for adults to ensure.

My dog is always either in a contained area I control, or on a leash. And my dog is bigger, faster, stronger and less intelligent than a toddler. If I can control my dog - why can we not expect parents to control their children?

Harry Palmr · 17-02-2015 08:55PM

Teach Your Children and stop blaming others

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PEssgMQ1O_k

Ever tried driving at 20 km/h (12 mph) for long?

Comments