Does this make any sense?

Does the first sentence of this paragraph read correctly to you


[size=36]"In the distance you can stop a car travelling at 20mph, a 30mph car would still be doing 24mph. And when someone is hit at 30mph, they are around 5 times more likely to be killed than when hit at 20mph."[/size]


[size=36]This has gone out to millions of Welsh homes.[/size]

Yes it does but I had to read it several times. At best it's very clumsy English.

It's certainly a bit convoluted.

I guess what they're trying to say is that when doing 20mph the stopping distance is shorter that when doing 30mph.  

If you applied the brakes at a given point, then at the further point at which you'd have stopped from 20mph you'd still be travelling at 24mph had you been doing 30mph.  They then make a confusingly invalid comparison on chances of fatality since the valid comparison at that point should really be between 0 and 24 mph.

But I guess the general point they're trying to make is that 20mph is a safer speed than 30 mph in areas where pedestrians are present.

They've introduced it here in many of the local villages recently and it's hard to do it when the local buses come through driving up your backside, since if they stuck to it they'd no doubt find themselves behind schedule then have to speed up on the windy derestricted roads in between to make up time.

Got it now,  thanks. I read it over and over and couldn't grasp the first part but thanks to you for explaining.  
I've been through the already 20 town nearby this morning and it certainly doesn't get easier every time I go. I even use the speed limiter and the car doesn't like it, 20 is the lowest you can set it to.

For most cars at least double emissions at 20 than 30, so person being hit may survive but be gassed!!!?

Possibly made sense when drafted in Welsh but got lost in translation to English

Bilbobaggins wrote:Possibly made sense when drafted in Welsh but got lost in translation to English

I thought of that possibility.  I was reading it like 'in the distance....you can see...." which is why in the distance you can stop a car didn't make sense.

Paulmold wrote:
I thought of that possibility.  I was reading it like 'in the distance....you can see...." which is why in the distance you can stop a car didn't make sense.

Perhaps if the first word had been "at" rather than "in" it may have made more sense (or perhaps not )

Roger, that's exactly what the buses do having experienced them recently. I also got plenty of left arm exercise on the drive up from Leven to Anstruther, Anstruther to Cupar and Cupar to Tayport. It was almost comedy proportions with 70mph to 40, then 30, then 20, then 40, 50, 70, 30, 20, 30, 20 etc. Wait, the sign says 20, but only when the sign is lit. Confused, you will be

Hi, Without wishing to appear facetious, the logical conclusion of such a statement (made by underworked, overpaid government "experts") is that a car travelling at 1mph will brake to a stop whilst at 30mph it would still be doing 29mph. Highly dangerous to all. Best to bring back the good old days and place a walking man with a flag in front of vehicles, inc e-bikes and scooters. Regards

There was a protest by drivers tying red ribbons to their cars in reference to the red flag man reported in the press but I have to say I didn't see any cars wearing ribbons.

Mike23 wrote:Hi, Without wishing to appear facetious, the logical conclusion of such a statement (made by underworked, overpaid government "experts") is that a car travelling at 1mph will brake to a stop whilst at 30mph it would still be doing 29mph. Highly dangerous to all. Best to bring back the good old days and place a walking man with a flag in front of vehicles, inc e-bikes and scooters. Regards

Sorry - your conclusion is NOT correct. If you slammed the brakes on at 30mph the distance that you will have travelled in the time taken to stop from 1mph will be far greater then that travelled in the latter case. Try thinking of the change from 70mph to 69mph to see what I mean.

That's fine if you are on a straight road and can see 'the distance' in front of you and the person who walks out is at that distance.  The chances of that happening in a town are slim to say the least.

If you are doing 20 and someone walks out between parked cars 5 or 10 feet in front of you, they are getting hit.  Stopping distance doesn't come into the equation.  

As the Gov't seem to be keen to have everyone driving electric vehicles, as these don't require a radiator are they going to put big cushions on the front to reduce the impact of a hard surface?? Sounds daft but with the way things are going..

Tony, I hope you also enjoyed the transition from real speed bumps, including the ridiculous cooker-lid jumping one in Lundin Links that requires coming to a virtual full stop, to the dummy painted ones when going along above Lower Largo.

Hi Ron, Sorry , My comments were, I had thought obviously, "tongue in cheek",  I'm sorry I failed to take velocity, varying weight loads, tyre types and condition, weather and road conditions and driver reaction time etc into my equasion. I  stand corrected and will wear a hair shirt in penance for a week.Meanwhile very best wishes to a fellow senior citizen. Regards Mike

Dave Gee wrote:That's fine if you are on a straight road and can see 'the distance' in front of you and the person who walks out is at that distance.  The chances of that happening in a town are slim to say the least.

If you are doing 20 and someone walks out between parked cars 5 or 10 feet in front of you, they are getting hit.  Stopping distance doesn't come into the equation.  

As the Gov't seem to be keen to have everyone driving electric vehicles, as these don't require a radiator are they going to put big cushions on the front to reduce the impact of a hard surface?? Sounds daft but with the way things are going..

Around 15 years ago a friend who worked in automotive design told me that the manufacturers of vehicles were experimenting with explosive bonnet mountings that would fire the bonnet at pedestrians to reduce the initial impact. I suggested flyovers for pedestrians might be a better option, along with education. 

Although I am an advocate for driving carefully and considerately.

Around 15 years ago a friend who worked in automotive design told me that the manufacturers of vehicles were experimenting with explosive bonnet mountings that would fire the bonnet at pedestrians to reduce the initial impact. I suggested flyovers for pedestrians might be a better option, along with education. 

Although I am an advocate for driving carefully and considerately.

Our VW Tiguan has what is called Active Bonnet Technology for pedestrian safety.


The active bonnet hinges are designed to lift the hood's rear edge when involved in an accident or collision with a pedestrian.
Sensors detect any impact and pyrotechnic actuators immediately raise the hinges, which creates space between the bonnet and the engine and helps to cushion pedestrians, minimizing the risk of injury.

rogerblack wrote:Tony, I hope you also enjoyed the transition from real speed bumps, including the ridiculous cooker-lid jumping one in Lundin Links that requires coming to a virtual full stop, to the dummy painted ones when going along above Lower Largo.

Ah, these just added to the fun of the driving experience Fortunately we were able to get over the "pin cushion" ones without being shaken about as our wheels are sufficiently wide enough to hit the edges, not sure who had the idea of the painted ones but they deserve a medal ( just painted on them of course ).

When introduced, the full width ones were normally painted with chevrons or such, to warn you but most have worn off, and if you are not familiar with the particular stretch of road, it is very easy to crash into or over them, especially if you are more intent on the route ahead or stray pedestrians.

Straddling the pin cushion ones wears the tyre inside edges more quickly than the outside edges, so I have read somewhere.