Viewing 38 posts - 81 through 118 (of 118 total)
  • Why is the urban speed limit not 20MPH by default?
  • Junkyard
    Free Member

    I dont think you would neccesarily fail your driving test if you never achieved the speed limit at any point during your test. You may be ok doing 35 in a 30 45 in 50 but not 35 in a 50 for example.

    Cougar
    Full Member

    Increaso ad absurdum, lets set them at 70mph then.

    Works for me, then people (drivers and pedestrians) might have to take some responsibility for their actions. I’m quite the fan of natural selection.

    It’s the bloody pedestrians who need educating.

    It’s everyone, drivers and pedestrians alike. Drivers need to pay more attention, pedestrians need to stop wandering around in the middle of the road with their eyes closed. Presumably most of these pedestrian fatalities weren’t killed by drivers mounting the pavement. Everyone needs to be more aware of the world around them, we’ve got lazy. Easier to blame everyone else.

    Driving out of town just now, I’d to dodge two separate groups of kids who were playing football in the middle of the street. When I were their age if I’d have stepped off the kerb unsupervised I’d have been punced to the other side of the road. Consequently, I’ve made it into my late 30s without being run over and whilst I’ve had a couple of close calls over the years they’ve invariably been my own stupid fault for having my mind on something else.

    Cougar
    Full Member

    I dont think you would neccesarily fail your driving test if you never achieved the speed limit at any point during your test. You may be ok doing 35 in a 30 45 in 50 but not 35 in a 50 for example.

    Specifically it’s called “failure to make progress.” The example you give could indicate a lack of confidence in your control of the vehicle.

    Fresh Goods Friday 696: The Middling Edition

    Fresh Goods Friday 696: The Middlin...
    Latest Singletrack Videos
    Junkyard
    Free Member

    yes it could so it is not neccessarily a fail then I think we agree 😆
    I am now in danger of just arguing for the sake of it. Of course you and m_f have a point here but the object of every journey is to reach the other side alive having not killed anyone. Eveything else is a bonus doing it unimpeeded by other road users is just unrelasitic whatever the speed limit

    ebygomm
    Free Member

    I always think when they trot out the statistics about 5 times more likely to die if hit at 30 mph instead of 20 mph it would be nice to know what the likelihood is of still having severe life limiting injuries.

    ragleyrider
    Free Member

    Is that being hit by a car or wagon at 30mph, surely its what happens to you when you get hit determins wether you die, if you get hit then get your head run over by a 30tonne wagon wheels you will die, if you get hit at 30 by a Vauxhall calibre say for instance and go up the bonnet and fall off the side you will probably survive.

    miketually
    Free Member

    That’s sensible, unlike the suggested blanket 20mph for all roads regardless of context.

    I was suggesting 20 was the default, not a blanket limit.

    At the moment, the default is 30 unless a 20 zone is put in place. I was suggesting switching that.

    epicsteve
    Free Member

    That original quotation from the 20’s plenty site is impressive for just how little truth is actually in it. I’ve driven in most European countries and while, like us, they have occasional 20mph(ish) speed-limits, most have similar urban limits to our own. Most also have higher accident rates overall, so the percentage quoted is useless without further information.

    I’d like to see 20mph limits more widely used in appropriate locations (or at appropriate times) but a blanket 20mph urban limit isn’t by itself all that useful.

    miketually
    Free Member

    “Failure to make progress” doesn’t mean “not hitting the speed limit”.

    Junkyard
    Free Member

    ragley rider I dont want to worry you but half the population are below average at statistics are you one of them ?

    surely its what happens to you when you get hit determins wether you die

    You are trolling aren’t you no one is this daft are they?
    do you not think it is true that the faster the crash the more likely the perdestrian is too die? Does this seems somehow farfetched

    mastiles_fanylion
    Free Member

    miketually – Member
    “Failure to make progress” doesn’t mean “not hitting the speed limit”.
    POSTED 50 MINUTES AGO # REPORT-POST

    Agreed but if the examiner thinks you should have been driving at the speed limit because conditions allowed you to do so then you could be failed – as said above – it shows a failure to show confidence and it also displays that the driver could be unaware of conditions around them.

    Similarly you would be failed if you blatted down a narrow road outside a school with cars parked everywhere and kids around.

    I am just saying you should drive to the conditions and driving at 20mph ‘just in case’ isn’t doing that.

    Junkyard
    Free Member

    m_F in the broadest sense you are correct but driving on the roads does demonstrate that many drivers are not capable of making wise judgements. Forcing everyone to drive slower is a broad stroke but it does seem likely to reduce deaths.

    miketually
    Free Member

    if the examiner thinks you should have been driving at the speed limit

    You should ever get to the speed limit, if you think about it…

    ragleyrider
    Free Member

    In a way i believe speed doesnt kill you. because the speed inpact is usually on the legs and i wouldnt say broken legs kill you, its what happens after that what kills you

    mastiles_fanylion
    Free Member

    I’m thinking and it’s hurting..

    solamanda
    Free Member

    I think that advocating business tax breaks for allowing employees to work from home and to shift school hours to outside the rush hour, (eg: 10am start) would be far more effective for reducing road deaths. This would help resolve some of the traffic issues that result in roads too crammed, (more chance of crashing) and reduce road rage/speeding between traffic jams. It would also stop children walking along roads during the hours of highest traffic levels.

    billysugger
    Free Member

    In that case why not ban petrol, alcohol and tobacco altogether?

    Oh yeah…

    ££££££££££££££££££££££££

    Junkyard
    Free Member

    In a way i believe speed doesnt kill you

    In a way I believe you dont understand physics.
    Why dont I hit you gently with a hammer then very hard with the same hammer let me know which did most damage
    at 30 more people die than at 20 at 40 more die than at 30. Force is dependent on speed of impact. The greater the force the more the bit after it [as you technically call it] affects you – how high or hard you are thrown it is still an effect of the actual crash/speed
    ask your teachers about it on Monday bet they can show you with lego cars or something 😉 and 🙄

    crikey
    Free Member

    I notice ragleyrider is from Calderdale; perhaps he could ask his Mum/sister/auntie or his dad/brother/uncle to help him understand this?

    billysugger
    Free Member

    I failed my first motorcycle test because it was hammering down and I was riding at 26 in a 30 zone when schoolies were filling the kerbs.

    Apparantly my riding could be construed as encouraging them to cross. So next time I kept it pinned, road like a total donut, made a ton of mistakes and passed.

    £££££££££££££££££££££££

    Grimy
    Free Member

    Molgrips got this bob on!

    Britain has congested tight urban roads – I’d say more so than most other countries. It’s busier here than most other countries I’d bet – peds and cars – which will automatically lead to more accidents.

    I wonder if you take car/ped density into account if we’d still have such dangerous streets?

    I don’t think there’s any point in lowering the limit to 20 – what we really is enforcement, but what we really desperately urgently need is a sense of responsibility.

    Most of our speeding debates have been centred around motorways and open roads – it’s very hard to argue for speeding in towns and cities I feel.

    Just for the record, during my driving test the olny minor error I had recorded was for failing to make due haste, or words to that effect, it was a long time ago and I forget the exact phrase used. I was given it whilst driving past a school in a residential area at 20mph. You cant win. 🙄

    br
    Free Member

    I’ve been in Germany this week, and while you will get a telling off for crossing at a red ‘man’, you also won’t get run over.

    Also France is a damn site better place to motorcycle, as at least they look out for us.

    We need a change in the law in the UK; pedestrians, cyclists and motorcyclists are not at fault unless proven, in any collision with a bigger vehicle. And on the plus side, get rid of motorway speed-limits, stop reducing NSL roads to 40/50 limits.

    And for anyone that thinks the UK is congested, try Naples.

    catfood
    Free Member

    I like the model in Germany where side streets are limited to 20mph, makes lots of sense.

    I dont see why we cant have variable speed limits at speed sensitive hotspots at certain times, such as 20 limits outside schools in the morning and afternoons when there are lots of kids coming and going.

    I live on a one way residential street with cars either side and a childrens nursery half way along it and people drive up it like bats out of hell, there should at least be a sign warning people about the nursery so they might think about their speed, presumably it doesnt qualify for one as it is private.

    TandemJeremy
    Free Member

    It damn well should be – a lot of european cities it is and its all over the netherlands along with the “empty streets” or whatever it is called
    http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/12.12/traffic.html.
    30 mph limit should go. 40 mph where cars and trucks can be separated from pedestrians and cyclists, 20 mph for all residential and shopping streets.

    For cyclists it has a major advantage in that the cars don’t try to hustle past yuo so much.

    Journey times are actually not increased much if at all – better more even flow of cars and you don’t need traffic lights ‘cos at 20 mph crossroads can be negotiated.

    Having ridden a bike in the 20 mph limits in the Netherlands I loved them

    Spongebob
    Free Member

    The stats shown earlier in this thread by miketually were from 2004!?

    The statistics don’t take into consideration the density of population, number of vehicles, accidents per capita, or tell you at what speed the vehicles that did the killing were travelling at. Neither do they show which type of streets the accidents happened on, or whether the pedestrian was behaving recklessly. So the stats are a bit useless.

    I think narrow residential streets, streets with high numbers of pedestrians, or any streets with parked cars should have a default 20mph limit, but on condition that all forms of traffic calming in these places are removed.

    Urban freeways and main routes should have limits set according to risk to pedestrians and other road users. If main arterial roads were restricted to 20 mph, people would just ignore the limits.

    These days, the sheer amount of traffic lights, traffic calming and other things that impede a driver’s progress is cumulatively enough wind them up over the course of their journey. I find people are more inclinded to jump red lights, not give way, accelerate towards people crossing roads etc. I believe this behaviour is due to sheer frustration with the “safer” road schemes created by the numpties in council highways departments. These people overzealously interfere with our roads in the interests of “road safety”, citing how their intervention saves lives! I reckon that most schemes are implemented because of a few complaining residents, not because of actual accidents.

    I could quote several alterations near me that have been created lately, which are just dangerous and have caused delays and frayed tempers. There was no issue before the council came along and wasted our ever scarce public money!

    One type of traffic calming is particularly dangerous in my opinion. Namely where tables are installed on road where pedestrian trafic islands have always existed, but where there is no pedestiran crossing. This feature clouds who’s right of way it is, giving pedestrians the feeling they are using a proper pedestrian crossing when they aren’t. There was a fatality on one near me last year. Both driver and pedestrian were in their 70’s and the driver thought he had right of way. Clearly, the deceased pedestrian did too. Tragic!

    aracer
    Free Member

    I’d vote for a 60mph limit on the motorway while we’re at it.

    Well I’d vote for a 20mph limit in towns and an 80 (or maybe 85) limit on the motorways, given my totally unresearched opinion is that the 70 limit feels too slow for a lot of drivers, hence decreases the respect for speed limits as a whole and makes people more likely to speed in more important speed limits. But we’ve done motorway limits and I’m bored with that, so let’s move on.

    Despite the fact it would inconvenience me a bit, I’d vote for a blanket switch from 30 to 20 if that was the only thing on the table. Checking Google maps it would add ~1.5 minutes each way to my commute given how far I tend to do at a steady 30mph (and that the waiting time at the junctions is independent of how fast I drive either side). As much as 4 minutes on a journey I make occasionally on the same basis. Would happily sacrifice that for the real improvement in road safety. Though as has been suggested, better would be for some major urban roads to remain as 30 limits (strange to have such a consensus on a driving issue). That would probably actually change my commute route, as I’d imagine some of those roads would be 20, whilst the alternative would be 30 (come to think if it, given the small difference in time maybe I should go that way anyway as I’d be on roads with less ped traffic).

    Can’t agree with TJ’s 20/40 suggestion – plenty of roads I can think of where 30 would be OK (in a world where most urban is 20), but not 40. With him on the empty streets thing though.

    One important point I don’t think I’ve seen is that 20 limits encourage people out of cars onto bikes – both because there’s less perceived speed advantage to the car, and also because the lower speed differential makes cycling seem safer, and the roads a generally safer place.

    Mugboo
    Full Member

    The TRL research has shown that accidents caused by excessive speed are about 8%

    Of these about 4% involve drink or drugs.

    That leaves excessive speed at fault for 4% of accidents…

    Lack of concentration/focus/falling asleep/not enough training, etc is the real problem.

    Also how many kids killed or injured on the way to school are hit by cars mounting pavements?

    Better road safety training from parents would help too.

    Hairychested
    Free Member

    From my experience the most speed limit obedient driving happens in UK, near and around London.A camera after a camera, speed restrictions all the time, sheer volume of traffic. I felt much safer driving on a limitless autobahn at 95mph when virtually everybody else did 120+mph, they have better roads there.
    BTW Did you know the Irish points don’t count in the UK and vice versa?

    verticalclimber
    Free Member

    this might be contentious but without reading all of the posts here has anyone thought of the extra fumes created by cars doing 20. i saw a program / report last year that actually suggested 20 in urban areas would drastically increase standing fumes as they dont disperse as easily as well as obviously cars do not running as efficiently at 20 then 30.
    personally enforcing 30 would be a massive improvement just to start with and making sure people cross at lights not when they want to which would help cyclists as well i’ll think all you commuters would agree

    craigxxl
    Free Member

    There is a lot more factors than just a speed limit to take into account. The standards of driving here compared to the rest of Europe is very poor, anyone who has driven through Europe will appreciate this.
    Pedestrians are also responsible for their own safety too despite this you still see kids jumping into the road and playing chicken with not just motor vehicles but cyclist too. They think they are somehow hard but the usual conclusion is the road or vehicle that collides with them is a damn sight harder than their soft organs. This isn’t just limited to kids either as god knows how times I’ve had to take action to avoid a pushchair that has been pushed into the road as the parent stands at the kerb with the child overhanging into the road. This normally happens when they are 10 meters away from crossing but too lazy to walk the extra distance.
    Both users of the streets be it road or paving need to improve. The 30 limit should be enforced firmly and not by sleeping policeman as they have little effect as drivers swere round them or speed then brake to the next one. Kids need educating to the dangers of the roads and enforcing too with parents who can’t set a good example.

    Junkyard
    Free Member

    i was thinking off changing down a gear from when I did 30 so that the revs were roughly the same at 20 as at 30 🙄

    Efficiency and fuel consumption are not the same thing.
    my car may have peak efficiency – ie use more of the fule energy value at 90 than at 30 but it still uses more fuel per mile [less mpg] at the more efiicient rate.

    There is a lot more factors than just a speed limit to take into account

    I dont think you can disagree with that nor can you disagree that more people will die at crashes at 30mph than at 20mph. Enforcing a lower speed limit would seem a better way of reducing deaths than educating the populous on how to cross a road properly – which we already do.

    TheSouthernYeti
    Free Member

    Such a plan would mean I’ll spend at least an extra 24 hours a year sat in my car. Not to mention the increased polution…

    Oh, and I’ve not read all your reasoned comments over the last three pages. But I disagree…. with all of you.

    catfood
    Free Member

    making sure people cross at lights not when they want to which would help cyclists as well i’ll think all you commuters would agree

    So you would like to introduce a jaywalking law to the UK? No thankyou.

    The standards of driving here compared to the rest of Europe is very poor, anyone who has driven through Europe will appreciate this.

    I have and I dont agree. Some parts of Europe the driving is good, some very bad, I found the driving in Italy to be appalling, they treat it like a video game, drive like their hair is on fire, sit right up your arse, overtake on blind bends etc etc etc.

    mogrim
    Full Member

    There is a lot more factors than just a speed limit to take into account. The standards of driving here compared to the rest of Europe is very poor, anyone who has driven through Europe will appreciate this.

    Not driven much in southern Europe, then?

    Spain’s considering bringing in a 30kmh limit for urban roads, can’t say I’m a fan: it makes perfect for some roads, at certain times of day, but little sense for others.

    anto164
    Free Member

    After being in 4 european countries over the past 6 days, and using nothing but taxis to travel when in the different countries, i have to say that i was glad to be back in the UK when it comes to being in a car.

    Sure, people say that uk drivers are bad etc, but come on.. have these people ever been to the continent? When i was in madrid, my taxi driver was doing 120kmph down the paso del prado at 5am (It’s a 50kmph road), and when in belgium, the amount of near misses were immense! Even driving into the city from the site i was on, we were in nearly 4 accidents, all because the drivers were erratic!

    My idea? The solution for the UK is to do nothing.

    With the price of the fuel increases, no-one will be able to afford to drive in 6 months, so it’s pointless the government pushing different speed limits etc.

    craigxxl
    Free Member

    Catfood, great comparison that we may not be as bad Italy, that makes me feel so much better. I can’t comment on Italian driving since I have never been there.
    Mogrim, thanks for mentioning Spain. The majority of their roads are in great conditon compared to ours thanks to billions from the EU.
    I have spent much time driving around Europe including many of the major cities and cannot say any of them were worse than daily commute where drivers ignore red lights, undertake and block box junctions. I gave up commuting by motorbike after numerous times when drivers would wonder into my lane because they were on the phone or texting. Other drivers thought it amusing to cut me up whilst laughing about it because I was filtering and no one would get past them even it did mean physical injury to me. All this is regulary witnessed during an 8 mile commute. Driving 1000’s of miles throughout Europe you do not see anywhere near as poor a standard of driving.

    billyboy
    Free Member

    Apologies if some already did this….

    As I understand it…………..

    Current regulations do not allow for anything under a 30MPH speed limit to be put into force unless the road conditions restrict speed physicaly in some way shape or form.

    Thus traffic calming schemes for most areas will therefore nescessarily have to include chicanes, pavements built out into the road, speed humps and other obstructions to slow traffic down physicaly before a 20MPH limit can be instituted.

    Given that cars are far more stable (and able to cope with any sudden emergency) when they are traveling in a straight line on a good surface, these chicanes etc are going to cause more danger than the status quo.

    SO you have to make the roads less useable and more dangerous to users in order to implement 20MPH limits unless you are talking streets that are already very narrow and twisty, in which case it is ok.

    Given that the main part of the problem in the first place is a lack of ability to control peoples’ speed….. there is little point in making driving conditions potentialy more dangerous with chicanes and obstacle courses when there are still no measures to disuade people from speeding through the new more dangerous traffic calmed road set ups.

    I’d be in favour of slowing cars to 20MPH in certain areas as long as the roads are left as wide and open and clearly signed as possible. It works in USA and I don’t see why our legislators cannot facilitate this.

    It is a typical “Yes Minister” type of bollocks regulations.

    mogrim
    Full Member

    When i was in madrid, my taxi driver was doing 120kmph down the paso del prado at 5am (It’s a 50kmph road),

    To be fair, the Paseo del Prado has 3 lanes in both directions, with a huge tree lined boulevard in the middle. 50kmh is a ridiculously low limit. The roads round where I live are 90kmh limit, one lane and no separation… massively more dangerous.

Viewing 38 posts - 81 through 118 (of 118 total)

The topic ‘Why is the urban speed limit not 20MPH by default?’ is closed to new replies.