[Closed] 20 MPH road speed limit on the roads in built up areas

20 mph zones should be self-enforcing’ through the use of traffic-calming features like speed bumps and traffic islands and that ‘there should be no expectation on the police to provide [b]additional[/b] enforcement beyond their routine activity’

I obey (well when I remember, and I need to prodding every now and then) and would like to see it everywhere.

I can't see a logical or moral reason why cars should not be ltd to 70mph, and then try and enforce an f1 pit style remote speed limiter arrangement in lower speed areas. Then the traffic cops would be virtually redundant. Gradually the hegemony of road aggression and death will decline and the world will become a better place.

Whislt I am dreaming I would liek a pony, a new fat bike and my own island with big mountains, snow on one side, dry dusty trails on the other, chairlifts, great surf, no sharks, bountiful sea and land and 16 hot wives..

Eu directive to have all new cars installed with telematics devices from 2018 (date from memory) hopefully you'll all[s] just explode as soon as the limit is exceeded[/s] have your speed electronically limited after that.

Toys, you had me going then....

Tomhoward, I am deadly serious about the speed limits etc. Just not convinced the sad lame petrol heads (of which I am/was) will ever be placated. You think the fluffy kitten/child's face brigade are barking, along with the tobacco lobby, but the motorists lobby is so mental. An Englishman's car is an extension of his castle.

Eu directive to have all new cars installed with telematics devices from 2018 (date from memory) hopefully [s]you'll all just explode as soon as the limit is exceeded [/s] have your speed electronically limited after that.

Happy days!

So do you obey non enforceable 20 mph speed limits when driving, and should they be legally enforced, fines and bans for repeated flaunting of the rules.

What do you mean "non enforceable"? Surely if they are proper red circle 20 signs* then they are already legally enforceable, like any other limit, it's just that the police had decided not to bother as it was such a "minor" offence?

(* as opposed to advisory signs)

I can't see a logical or moral reason why cars should not be ltd to 70mph, and then try and enforce an f1 pit style remote speed limiter arrangement in lower speed areas. Then the traffic cops would be virtually redundant. Gradually the hegemony of road aggression and death will decline and the world will become a better place.

Speed is only one (minor) part of vehicle control.

Speed is only one (minor) part of vehicle control.

True, but it is one of the easiest ones to control via electronic solutions.

Where's the statistical analysis to find out what kind of speeds are being seen in 20mph limit areas, and whether or not accident rates are affected. And whether it's even the same in all parts of the country.

Anecdote based policy making?

Bah, it stands to reason, you must believe that you have way more time to make decisions at 20 than you do at 40, and that speed makes a huge difference to survivabilty of a crash.

If you are doing 0 mph you won't have any crashes..

Urban limits are pretty much the only ones I pay much attention to, tbh! I know it's anecdoty but speeding in our 20mph area (and in the neighbouring 30mph areas) is fairly constant, there's speedbumps etc but they don't really do the job.

Where's the statistical analysis to find out what kind of speeds are being seen in 20mph limit areas, and whether or not accident rates are affected.

Some analysis of speeds here:

There is a lot more that could be done on urban planning in residential areas to naturally reduce speeds.

But it would be great to see traffic enforcement move from easy catches on high speed roads into residential areas.

There is a lot more that could be done on urban planning in residential areas to naturally reduce speeds.

But it would be great to see traffic enforcement move from easy catches on high speed roads into residential areas.

A road near me is a slalom, it's literally not straight for more than 100m but dickheads still do 40 down it, you can hear the tyres screeching at 11pm+

I actually saw someone overtake someone going over a speed bump the other day.

Edit: no, i don't live at the red dot 😀

It should be blocked off then. Thats the thing residential areas should be the last or first few hundred metres of anyone's journey, not a through route. People need to start making the mental connection that these are the streets we live on, where our and our neighbours kids play.

They need separating from roads used for through traffic.

It should be blocked off then.

20 sign yeah i stick to 20, think all residential should be 20. Residential A roads I'm not too sure

A cars ability to safely negotiate a stretch of road is not the only reason to set a speed limit.

Road through one of the local villages (Painswick) is a 20mph limit, i drive through at 20mph and the attitude of most drivers is not good.

As for comments about speed control, it is very clear drivers can not be trusted to use common sense. Only have to think about Isle of Sheppy this week to understand that. I am not sure if it could be done now, but can't be far away, where rather than have the gantry tell you how fast you should be going the car is told how fast it can go and limited with no input from the driver.

Re 20s I wish they'd sign these better as a few times I've pootled down a road at28 only to find Iwas 8mph over the limit.

Re speed limiting cars to 70 - I can't see this saving any cycling lives, I'd prefer black boxes in all cars that provide evidence on driving so drivers don't squirm out of dangerous driving charges

Re 20s I wish they'd sign these better as a few times I've pootled down a road at28 only to find Iwas 8mph over the limit.

Re speed limiting cars to 70 - I can't see this saving any cycling lives, I'd prefer black boxes in all cars that provide evidence on driving so drivers don't squirm out of dangerous driving charges

Good, 20s are a good idea.

I hate speed bumps though, both in the car and on my bike. The ones that are just islands, rather than the whole way across, mean that drivers swerve to get them between their wheels, they cut in too close.

Forty Hill is a 20. NO ONE STICKS TO IT. When I drive along it I go 20, with a group of tailgating cars 2" off my bumper. When I ride along it they swerve in and out behind me trying desperatey to get past. FFS wait! It's only a couple of km long, and there are lights on the bridge half way down anyway.

There are 20s all over on my route to work, people simply don't observe them.

When I am Queen there will be stiff penalties for speeding in residential areas - proper loss of licence and freedom penalties (plus when they are in jail they will be put on a chain gang to build cycle ways), but I shall allow my subjects to go fast (faster than now) on motorways and other suitable trunk roads.

There will be no danger to cyclists, horsists, and footists because there will be proper alternative, convenient, pleasant, viable routes for them which are separated physically from the motorised traffic. On routes where it is not possible to separate squishy road users from hard ones, the hard ones will just jolly well have to slow down OR ELSE see above.

I like 20's. Need to be better signs though. Also some drivers just sit behind too close to you, ignoring the limit.

The problem as I see it, is that there is peer pressure on the roads, and people are reluctant to slow down for the fear of holding others up. And because it's so uncommon, that automatically makes you an outsider if you were to slow down [i]even[/i] if there's no one else there. There is always this fear of acting outside social norms.

That type of behaviour will only be changed by direct intervention, for example by campaigning or enforcing the limits. I probably wouldn't be as aware as what I am if I wasn't so familiar with being a vulnerable road user. It makes you think differently when you can physically [i]feel[/i] the traffic passing you.

K o 9.

You have my vote for your place in royalty!

It shouldn't require physical measures of humps chicanes etc as there is an intelligent being piloting the vehicle
Itds funny when riding a motorcycle fast on an A road and the 40 mph dodderers that hold you up on an A road carry on at 40 through a village...

Always abide by speed limits, I think the 20mph limit is the only reasonable limit that should be both enforced and expanded into current 30mph limits.
If the police can't be bothered with enforcement, then they need sacking and replacing with a police force that should enforce the law.

I can't see a logical or moral reason why cars should not be ltd to 70mph, and then try and enforce an f1 pit style remote speed limiter arrangement in lower speed areas.

Physically limit the speed of cars and drivers will then drive at that limit, whether appropriate or not. You can already see this behaviour in HGVs.
If you start to remove people's need to be responsible then they will gladly oblige by being less responsible.
I know regulating speed is easy, but I would rather we concentrated on aspects of bad driving that are responsible for far more accidents than the 4% caused by excess speed.

So do you obey non enforceable 20 mph speed limits when driving, and should they be legally enforced, fines and bans for repeated flaunting of the rules.

There is a 20mph limit by a school near me that I generally obey, although It's possible I might be travelling a little faster at 3am on the way home from work.
Im my ideal world there would be no speed limits, so zero enforcement*. Couple that with no speedometer in cars and people would be forced to think a little harder about what speed is appropriate.

*Drivers could still be prosecuted for driving too fast, if they travelled at a speed that would not enable them to stop in the distance they could see was, and could reasonably expect to remain, clear, for example.

toys19 - Member

I can't see a logical or moral reason why cars should not be ltd to 70mph, and then try and enforce an f1 pit style remote speed limiter arrangement in lower speed areas. Then the traffic cops would be virtually redundant. Gradually the hegemony of road aggression and death will decline and the world will become a better place.

Complete tosh....why 70mph? It's perfectly safe doing 120-130mph down the E* roads in Germany or even 130 kph in France even.

Problem in the uk is people don't respect lower speed limits and can't drve at speed

why 70mph? It's perfectly safe doing 120-130mph down the E* roads in Germany or even 130 kph in France even.

Law says 70mph in UK, end of really, If you are a driving god and think you are safe at 80-90 then you are actually an idiot and are breaking the law. Mind you if your driving in thick fog and doing 70 you are still an idiot, so speed is only half the story.

What i would also mention is speed differentials, when i first started driving and using motorways it took a little time to get used to overtaking, i was doing 70 seeing what seemed a safe gap to move into to overtake only to realise the car that was in the faster lane was doing a ton and far closer than first appeared.

I know regulating speed is easy, but I would rather we concentrated on aspects of bad driving that are responsible for far more accidents than the 4% caused by excess speed.

True that for 2011 "exceeding the speed limit" was cited as a contributory factor in just 5% of accidents, but it was responsible for 14% of fatalities.

Complete tosh....why 70mph? It's perfectly safe doing 120-130mph down the E* roads in Germany or even 130 kph in France even.

Because the major UK roads were specced and built for a 70mph?
Presumably that affects things like the length of slip roads, width of lanes, radius of corners, crash barriers, sight lines, road surface, etc?

I know a few places where you have to floor it in a small engine car to get up to traffic speed from the slip road.

Also, how do our accidents rates compare to Germany and France?

Speed limits need to be respected and you should always drive to the conditions.

The 70mph speed limit was set in the UK in 1965 and that still the limit.

My point is that a lot of UK drivers do not compare to the better standards on the EU.

Our motorways, slip roads in the UK are as good as those on the EU, (our slip roads tend to have a lot of run off) the problem is we are an island all fighting for the same piece of tarmac.

If you want to drive fast, do track days or go to the North Loop.

My point is that a lot of UK drivers do not compare to the better standards on the EU.

Maybe but IME driving standards in Spain and Italy are far, far worse.

By the way there's a slip road (going north from Lancaster) near me that's horrifically short. If people don't get out of the slow lane you sometimes have to start from standing, going up a hill, and when the slip road runs out there's a bridge so no hard shoulder.

My point is that a lot of UK drivers do not compare to the better standards on the EU.

But our roads are some of the "safest" in the world:
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-related_death_rate

(For a specific definition of safety)

The only reason more pedestrians aren't K/I is that no one walks any more because the constant use and abuse of motor cars makes so many places untenable.
Historically motoring is probably the cheapest it's ever been.

I always thought 20s were legally enforceable and exceeding the signed limit in a 20 carried the same weight as a. 30, 40, 50, etc...

So yeah I obey 20s, many don't...

So far as I understand the intention of our limits in the UK, they are supposed to be proportionate to the risk along that specific stretch of road, Hence many 20s are near schools, parks or other locations where you are likely to find children (perhaps lacking in traffic awareness).

Blanket 20s for all residential areas? Dunno, obviously there are kids about perhaps not in the same numbers but volume of children shouldn't be the only point to consider. I don't think current 20s are well enough enforced and putting in "traffic calming features" often seems to have the opposite effect, drivers seeing them as a new chicane to spice up their drive home.

Making a road 20 without any visible enforcement regime seems to mean that over time drivers end up treating it as a 30, which might be the real (unstated) goal, using the majority's habit of exceeding the signed limit by a certain percentage o get them to do more or less what you want.

The other benefit might be nothing to do with safety but actually about public spending, our local residential roads are a wreak, potholes galore and that is certainly due to speed, a vehicle braking hard from 30 - 0 chucks a lot more energy into the road that one slowing from 20, plus the increased reaction window means drivers will be doing less panic braking and might read the road ahead a little bit better. Road repairs fall to local authorities, so expect them to be all in favour of anything that limits the now annual post winter patch up costs.

The 70mph speed limit was set in the UK in 1965 and that still the limit.

cars might be "better" but the drivers are still the same people, in fact there are plenty of drivers who were driving in 1965 and have never been retested since despite there being huge changes!

Serious question, there are less deaths on the roads now, but miles driven, does anyone know if the number of accidents is better or worse? What i am trying to get at, is it simply cars are safer or that less cars hit each other?

grum - Member
If people [b]don't get out of the slow lane[/b] you sometimes have to start from standing, going up a hill, and when the slip road runs out there's a bridge so no hard shoulder.

No such thing as a slow lane.

This is a prime example that people who are traveling along the carriage way are not reading the road. I guess you mean M6 J14, yes its a short slip road, into 3 lanes of traffic.... so i'm not sure what your point is ?

Restricted speed limits are also set in Germany by the way...

Serious question, there are less deaths on the roads now, but miles driven, does anyone know if the number of accidents is better or worse? What i am trying to get at, is it simply cars are safer or that less cars hit each other?

Given that pedestrian injuries and fatalities have fallen at around the same rate over the years as those of motor vehicle occupants I'd say it is at least partly, maybe mostly, less accidents.

This will be, as always, due to various factors. Less drink driving. Transfer of traffic from mixed use roads to motorways. Roads engineering, for example reducing the number of junctions on main urban routes by closing off some side streets.

Given that pedestrian injuries and fatalities have fallen at around the same rate over the years as those of motor vehicle occupants I'd say it is at least partly, maybe mostly, less accidents.

Two ways to reduce the number of accidents - take away the cars or take away the people. We've done the latter - Much less walking and cycling. Children no longer allowed to play outside in the street.

Cars are much safer - seatbelts, airbags, crumple zones, ABS brakes. But they're not significantly safer when they hit a human (a little tinkering around the edges but offset by more, and bigger cars, being driven faster). 4x4s are a nightmare for ped's - much more likely to kill as they hit you higher up so the impact is greater (you're less likely to go up and over the bonnet - more likely to 'bounce' off which means more force).

As ever the stats are interesting but I'm not sure what conclusions you can really draw from them.

Modern cars are safer for their occupants in a crash? (Anyone use the sheppey crossing Thursday morning?)

Our road designs and urban layouts help reduce accidents or their severity by segregating traffic and peds more? (And giving priority to motor vehicles in terms of the most expedient best "flowing" routes?).

A smaller proportion of the population walk or cycle hence the number of car on ped or car on cycle RTAs is relatively small? (But how severe are those that do still occur?)...

And how does any of it relate to "stronger enforcement" of 20 mph zones? I'd hazard a guess that most peds and cyclists are actually hit in 30 or 40mph zones? Any stats on which speed limit zones yield the most ped and/or cyclist injuries through RTAs? Or is that a bit too detailed to have been covered by any studies?

As I put earlier and Simon has repeated above, the reason why K&Is are going down is that pedestrians and cyclists are deterred from going near roads. You just have to see the number of posts from stw-weekend warriors who refuse to commute by bike because of the perceived danger from the over-running of roads by motorists.

I can't see a logical or moral reason why cars should not be ltd to 70mph

Because a) it reduces your options when you need to get out of the way of the myopic and b) the people who most need limiting would bypass it.

Plus, arguably, the places where you really need limiters are 20 / 30 zones, not 70. Collisions on the motorway are relatively rare compared to residential areas, and whilst they tend to be more expensive you generally don't mow down children chasing footballs across the M6.

no expectation on the police to provide additional enforcement beyond their routine activity’
Important word there. Completely changes the meaning of what ACPO have been reported to have said

Routine activity is not to enforce speed limits though isn't it? Last Police I spoke to claimed they couldn't enforce 20mph limits because they didn't have the equipment.

20mph ultimately is a good thing. Read an interesting interview with a traffic engineer. He said that once you've got a 20 limit you can really start designing the road differently - not speed humps so much, but roundabouts and junctions. If road spec is 30mph they have to be designed to take a large vehicle (think bin lorry) at a 'high' speed. If you no longer have to do that you change the bend radiuses such that they slow everyone down.

Limits need to be enforced, and enforced as limits, at all times of day. Driving licences need to be taken away from people who show they don't have the attitude and self control to be permitted to control a vehicle.

A ride out in the **** Kentryside today again made unpleasant by motorists speeding through lanes and gritting their teeth rather than slowing down as they passed.

Personally, I think the first step in rehumanising our roads is to drop the 'national'/default speed limits. This would radically reduce the amount of re-signage needed across the country and mean that motorists who claimed to be unawere of the limit would err on the slow side and not the fast.

20mph in all residential/urban areas
40mph on all other roads

Both unless otherwise indicated. Country lanes would lose the '60mph' limit they have at the moment, You'd separate out streets (where people live) and roads (arterial routes) in cities and towns. Mark specific roads as 30mph in cities, specific roads/sections of roads as 60mph outside,

I'm one of those people who only bothered taking (and passing) their test late at the age of 31.

Have to say that I'm more than happy to obey the speed limit wherever I am- at the age of 31 I do feel quite a lot of responsibility and really, really don't want to run over a child's face or something.

The problem is it seems no other ****er wants to bother. I occasionally commute to work in the car and on Friday I got honked by someone behind me (not a euphamism) for daring to leave a gap of 3 metres to the car in front (stopped at a set of lights), and then took a load of abuse for going 20 through the 20 zone past a school.

Pretty annoying and also slightly unnerving for a new driver and so no wonder some people just don't bother.

Because a) it reduces your options when you need to get out of the way of the myopic

Cougar, with the greatest respect, this statement is effen piffle. Do vans/lorries limited to 56mph get in trouble because they cannot speed out of the way? Surely they can just apply the brakes and wait for the idiot to pass?

this statement is effen piffle.

It's the classic claim of the petrol head "I need a fast car to accelerate out of trouble".

Because a) it reduces your options when you need to get out of the way of the myopic

Not hard to design it so that rather than a hard limit it lets you exceed for 30 seconds or so - plenty of time to get out of trouble.

Moving on from the plans of logging etc the sooner we get self driving cars like in Irobot the better IMO.

Lets faace it, day to day a huge number of motorists are just wanting to get from A to B in as little hassle as possible. If we have automated cars that talk to each other and the road network then cars would be able to work together to keep a city flowing. Fuel consumption would be down, accidents down, congestion down and journey times down. I love driving, always have done, but I get no enjoyment from 90% of my journeys which are filled with idiots driving badly and congestion.

I would happily let my car take control for most of my journeys, that way I could sit back and get on with other things on my journey like deal with my emails or do some ordering.

The key is going to be integrating the system with human driven cars but I can see ways to do this.

the sooner we get self driving cars like in Irobot the better

Totally agree.

As you say, for 90% of journeys, it would be much better. manual override has to be an option though.

I also don't have a problem, and don't think there is a problem, with people doing a ton on a clear motorway or 9pm on a nice day. It's the twonts that have no consideration for other users that are the problem, and the bad decisions brought on by 'get-there-itus'.

Was doing the speed [b]limit[/b] the other day down Strines Road and some dick passed me gesturing and clearly annoyed that I was doing the speed [b]limit[/b]. The amount of people I annoy by doing the limit really surprises me. But I do not care. I usually have my kids in the car and will never drive over the limit regardless of waht it is. Not worth it.

I've been driving up and down the A9 a lot recently, mostly in my Trafic van. That means my limits are 50/60. You'd be surprised (OK maybe you wouldn't) how many HGVs I get behind me, flashing at me to go faster!!

Conversely, people who are not doing the speed limit seemed to get annoyed when I overtake them

Conversely, people who are not doing the speed limit seemed to get annoyed when I overtake them

It is, after all, a limit and not a target . . .

sooner we get self driving cars like in Irobot the better IMO.

These are on the way...telematics for insurance is finally coming though, they will be in all cars soon(5/10yrs) then it'll be a small step to pay as go cars lined up at the road side.

Get in one, tap in a post code, swipe your card and of you go. Google is showing some software that works out the best routes and even accounts for lights changing etc.

I reckon 20/30 yrs.

Only problem will be establishing our social status when no one owns a car!

It is, after all, a limit and not a target . .

I see no problem with driving at the speed limit, or reason not to, conditions permitting of course

I will drive at the speed set by the highways agency, not the pootler in front who spends more time looking out the side windows at the scenery rather than the windscreen

what is annoying is when someone (normally elderly) does 30-40mph on a clear day in perfect conditions on a very wide and unchallenging 60mph road and then as they approach a built up area with a 30mph speed limit they seem to settle on 40mph all the way though.

IanW - I've seen the self driving/parking Audi but I still want to own my car. That way I can choose a car that suits what I need and leave my stuff in it. I can see a rise in street based hire cars (like the city car club ones) though and tbh they would pretty much replace taxis.