[Closed] Blanket 20mph speed limit for Brighton

We have it in wirral and liverpool as well as some roads in chester, no enforcent and lots of signs , but only on non a and b roads.

Brilliant idea, should be all over Towns And Cities right now.

Won't be though will it.

Newcastle is supposed to be a 20 zone city.

IME it is either completely ignored or only applies on roads where you'd be lucky to get above 15mph.

Police seized the [url= http://www.mib.org.uk/NR/rdonlyres/1D369F14-3CD4-425E-BA31-F7FA6C8F5A0F/0/Millionth_Vehicle_Seized_as_UKs_Uninsured_Hotspots_Revealed_ISSUE.pdf ]millionth uninsured vehicle[/url] last year.

Expecting any sort of "self enforcement" from motorists is a bit naive.

Here is the reality of 20 zones in Newcastle City Centre (blue=20mph, red=30mph)

[img] [/img]
http://newcycling.org/news/20121110/plenty-twenty-newcastle

On my ride to work I use a "Pedestrian Zone" road that is closed to all traffic except taxis and buses and is supposed to be a 20 limit.

Pretty much every time I use it I see at least one private car fly through at 30mph+

Self enforcement doesn't work. They need to physically alter the road layout to passively enforce the limit (chicanes, bumps, narrowed junctions etc)

I'll struggle to keep to that coming down Bear Road in the morning, I should be ok going back up though.

Personally thinks it's really dangerous, cyclists will be overtaking cars no?!

They are fairly strict with their speed limits in Brighton anyway, possibly this is over the top.

doesn't make drivers any more competent

Constantly dropping speed limits without enforcement is very dangerous, all that happens is that drivers that would normally obey speed limits get hassled by those that don't which in turn makes them speed and get used to ignoring some limits. This then becomes self perpetuating. Either have speed limits and enforce them rigorously (theres plenty of evidence to support appropriate lower speed as a safety tool). If its important enough to implement they should have the balls to enforce it and deal with the consequences, ie hysterical pieces in the mail about taxing motorists. If it's going to be expensive make sure the fines pay for the enforcement. If you're not going to enforce don't implement the changes as all that does is reinforce a culture of non compliance.

Self enforcement doesn't work. They need to physically alter the road layout to passively enforce the limit (chicanes, bumps, narrowed junctions etc)

But that is incredibly dangerous for cyclists.
Junctions and width restriced areas are where most accidents happen and if you narrow them, all that happens is that vehicles will try and squeeze through when there isn't space to do so. Or the cyclist wil swerve to avoid a pothole but find there isn't sufficient room to do so without encountering a bollard or a vehicle.

It's effectively using cyclists to slow down the traffic - one impatient/inconsiderate driver, one ill-judged move and the two meet.

I'll struggle to keep to that coming down Bear Road in the morning, I should be ok going back up though.

I think that is outside the zone anyway. It runs from Sackville Road in the west to Freshfield Road inb the east and up to (but excluding) Old Shoreham Road. IMO it will not make any difference to how people drive round Brighton if there is no enforcement.

Another terrible idea imo. As a driver you automatically drive to a level of "risk", you don't probably know you do, but you do. now that level varies between people / skills. For an F1 driver it's going to be the upper end of the speed range, for Mrs miggins, 93 from solihull, probably the lower end.

A "blanket" speed limit that is inappropriately low in a modern car, just results in the average person ignoring it. Afterall the sign might say "20" but if they cannot see and stimuli that look like the requirement for 20mph then they will naturally ignore it.

Blanket limits therefore just undermine speed limits where they are really needed, and this means that the signs are now ineffective where once they might have been effective. For the vast majority of motorists they will drive their car, down the road they have driven down thousands of times before, at a speed that seems appropriate based on there experience of that road. If they can perceive a hazard, then a 20mph speed limiting sign is appropriate, otherwise not.

For example here are two streets, on which one is 20mph appropriate?

[img] [/img]

OR:
[img] [/img]

I'd suggest that 20mph was too fast in the first case, and too slow in the second case.

I suggest we teach drivers to understand, observe, and be responsible for their own speed as appropriate.

But that is incredibly dangerous for cyclists.

It [i]can[/i] be, but doesn't [i]have[/i] to be. They manage traffic speeds quite well in Netherlands etc by simple measures, such as raising the road up as it meets a T junction. Allowing pedestrian (and cycle path users) to cross without any kerb and forcing cars to slow down to avoid grounding themselves as they turn.

Other techniques include using cobbles, ridges, rumble strips, etc

A road near me has those build-outs that force traffic in one direction to give way to oncoming traffic. That seems to work quite well too and doesn't pose a hazard to cyclists.

Blanket limits therefore just undermine speed limits where they are really needed, and this means that the signs are now ineffective

I disagree. We already have blanket limits of 30mph in residential areas. Lowering those to 20 would be pretty easy.

Really bad idea. Responsible drivers will be doing less than 20mph in areas where they need to. For example, my self selected speed in my local estate is just over 20mph indicated. ie: 20mph.

Irresponsible drivers will carry on as normal.

The reductionists will believe that they've made a difference.

I would suggest that this is also about traffic management and keeping cars actually moving through the city. It works on congested motorways with lots of junctions, so it probably works in a busy city.

Expecting any sort of "self enforcement" from [s]motorists[/s] people is a bit naive.

cyclists are motorists and pedestrians

Really bad idea. Responsible drivers will be doing less than 20mph in areas where they need to. For example, my self selected speed in my local estate is just over 20mph indicated. ie: 20mph.

Irresponsible drivers will carry on as normal.

The reductionists will believe that they've made a difference.

This.

When I was last in the UK a lot of roads near my parents had been reduced to 20mph. I can't recall a single accident involving a pedestrian on them.

I ignored the limit and drove at a speed appropriate to the conditions, sometimes more than 20mph and other times less.

Brighton is a law unto itself ... esp now the Green Extrenist Party are in in charge. They don't seem to be able to tackle any difficult political issues - but buy, they know how to punish the car driver.
Taking a car into BTN now is just daft, parking charges are just ludicrous. Thankfully I can walk/ use a bus.
The worst offenders of driving like Fernando Alsono - the taxi drivers, the council workers and off course the for ever "it doesn't apply t use - the "on the mobiles chatting, indicator exempt, zig zag line parking, redundant rear few mirror" mothers dropping kids of at school.

As a side issue - the cyclist in BTH are a true pain in the arse. They're handing out fines to people for jumping red lights / going down one way streets the wrong way. Excellent news - there are arseholes on all forms of transport

It's not all of Brighton and just some areas also some areas have been that way for years. The new bits are just of the main roads. Some 40 bits are now 30. Not sure yet what diff it makes but I'm sure it will be better in certain parts of town.

As a driver you automatically drive to a level of "risk", you don't probably know you do, but you do.

No, there is very good evidence that most people overestimate their driving ability massively. This study of 100 drivers, which put motion-activated video cameras in cars, recorded over 9,000 near-misses over a period of around a year. The biggest cause was inattentive driving.

http://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/facts-research/research-technology/tech/100-car-naturalistic.htm

The reductionists will believe that they've made a difference.

Tom, do you actually know what "reductionist" means? 😉

Road safety and policing budgets are being cut across the board, so expecting enforcement to happen without some sort of pressure is unrealistic.

http://www.iam.org.uk/media-and-research/media-centre/news-archive/1039-the-end-of-the-road-for-road-safety

That doesn't mean that 20mph limits can't be enforced. Get along to your local [url= https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=PACT+meeting ]PACT meeting [/url]and kick up a fuss. Write to ACPO.

Mr Agreeable - Member

"As a driver you automatically drive to a level of "risk", you don't probably know you do, but you do."

No, there is very good evidence that most people overestimate their driving ability massively. This study of 100 drivers, which put motion-activated video cameras in cars, recorded over 9,000 near-misses over a period of around a year. The biggest cause was inattentive driving.

i think you've misunderstood him.

i'm sure he's referring to the idea that whoever you are, however confident/stupid/nervous you are, you drive at a 'level' where you get scared the same number of times per hour/mile/journey/whatever.

a confident/stupid driver may drive like a bat out of hell, but only gets scared 5 times in an hour*, a nervous old giffer pootling along at 7mph is still driving fast enough to get scared 5 times an hour*.

(*whatever the value is, it's different for all of us, but we all drive to [u]our[/u] limit, or at least that's the idea)

cyclists are motorists and pedestrians

[url= http://www.economist.com/news/britain/21571200-stringent-restrictions-are-coming-road-near-you-slowing-britain ]Interesting article[/url]

The gist being, although the new speed limit was largely ignored accidents did actually come down. Which is good news, right?

ahwiles - Member

(*whatever the value is, it's different for all of us, but we all drive to our limit, or at least that's the idea)

i'm going to disagree with myself now, online, i'm an idiot.

i meant to say - whatever the value is, it's the [u]same[/u] for all of us, but the level/conditions/incidents that trigger it are different.

basically, we're all just driving along fast enough to get scared 'X' times per hour (or whatever).

carry on.

They don't seem to be able to tackle any difficult political issues - but buy, they know how to punish the car driver.
Taking a car into BTN now is just daft, parking charges are just ludicrous. Thankfully I can walk/ use a bus.

Sounds like it works then. If we can break the complete reliance on cars in built up areas and get more people using far higher density public transport, cycling or walking, then the cities can keep functioning and people can keep moving and pollution gets driven down. The pollution levels on / beside main arterial routes in cities are universally awful.

So how can any of that be a bad thing? Couple more cyclists on the road with a slower traffic, it all gets safer and reinforces cycling as better.

Or did you just want to grumble about something?

As a driver you automatically drive to a level of "risk", you don't probably know you do, but you do.

Which is why to self-enforce these limits you need to increase the perceived risk (of damaging the car) with rumble strips, cobbles, build-outs, tighter turns etc

When I was last in the UK a lot of roads near my parents had been reduced to 20mph. I can't recall a single accident involving a pedestrian on them.

Could that be because pedestrians and cyclists stayed away, because of all the fast cars?

All the evidence shows that 20mph limits do work.

I live in a 20mph area, in south Bristol. There's no enforcement, and the result is average traffic speeds have reduced by just 1mph. So, a complete waste of time.

There's a lot of 20mph limits in residential areas in Burnley. Again, stats support the claim that they do reduce accidents. But then it's been done properly with speed bumps every 30 or 40 metres with "bike channels" to the left of them.

I live in a 20mph area, in south Bristol. There's no enforcement, and the result is average traffic speeds have reduced by just 1mph. So, a complete waste of time.

They had a similar drop in average traffic speeds in Portsmouth. Accidents reduced by a huge amount; 40%, IIRC.

crazy-legs - Member

But that is incredibly dangerous for cyclists.

It doesn't have to be. For example, build-outs can have a cycle bypass. Or the speed bumps example above.

[img] http://www.transportscotland.gov.uk/files/documents/reports/j185500/j185500_g12 [/img]

i'm sure he's referring to the idea that whoever you are, however confident/stupid/nervous you are, you drive at a 'level' where you get scared the same number of times per hour/mile/journey/whatever.

a confident/stupid driver may drive like a bat out of hell, but only gets scared 5 times in an hour*, a nervous old giffer pootling along at 7mph is still driving fast enough to get scared 5 times an hour*.

(*whatever the value is, it's different for all of us, but we all drive to our limit, or at least that's the idea)

Interesting idea, but the point I'm making is that drivers tend to overestimate their ability by a fair whack. That's why I'm sceptical of the people who claim that things like speed limits are unnecessary.

There is also an argument that a new generation of drivers will help.

Current drivers were told [i]"streetlights mean 30mph unless signed otherwise"[/i]

The generation learning now [i]should[/i] be taught that [i]"streetlights on a road without 20 signs mean 30mph, or faster if signed"[/i]

Hopefully at some point we'll get to a stage where [i]"streetlights mean 20mph unless signed otherwise"[/i]

I live in a 20mph area, in south Bristol. There's no enforcement, and the result is average traffic speeds have reduced by just 1mph. So, a complete waste of time.

Cultural change? Introduction of the idea that narrow residential streets like the ones around Bedminster aren't just for cars?

As an aside, the case for 20 mph limits hasn't been helped by the DfT's misrepresentation of accident statistics.

http://fullfact.org/articles/road_safety_20mph_zones_limits_casualties-27766

I'm sceptical of the people who claim that things like speed limits are unnecessary.

I frequently hear people (including people on here) say things like [i]"I ignore the speed limits and drive to the conditions. I only speed when it is safe to do so"[/i]

But then I drive on the A1 and I watch folk doing 80+ through the 50 limit in lashing rain, fog, ice or snow. Which makes me wonder what conditions they think are [i]unsafe[/i] to speed in?

When I was last in the UK a lot of roads near my parents had been reduced to 20mph. I can't recall a single accident involving a pedestrian on them.
Could that be because pedestrians and cyclists stayed away, because of all the fast cars?
All the evidence shows that 20mph limits do work.

Or maybe all the pedestrians are too lazy to walk anywhere and take the car now.

I'm all for trafilc calming and 20mph zones.

I'd rather they used bike lanes though. Through Wokingham there's a few 6ft6 width restrictions which really force you to slow down. And lots of parking bays zig zagged to force trafic down to one lane with alternating priority. Which is fine, but it's a PITA for cycling through. I'd rather they stuck and extra kerb in and narrowed the roads leaving a segregated cycle track.

Got to disagree with maxtorque entriely though. Yes drivers may drive to a percieved risk. The problem is people who don't percieve enough risk. A 17year old who feels invincible isn't a better driver than dorris, 93 from Stockport, but they'll drive like they are. That's why there's a maximum limit, to catch them, Dorris can still do 20 in a 30 if she feel's safer.

I'm all in favour of a 20mph speed limit for pedestrians in residential areas as well.

Wait, what?

[img] ?quality=80&size=650x[/img]

Or maybe all the pedestrians are too lazy to walk anywhere and take the car now.

But prior to the 20 limits being introduced they were walking? How does that work?

Cultural change? Introduction of the idea that narrow residential streets like the ones around Bedminster aren't just for cars?

As an aside, the case for 20 mph limits hasn't been helped by the DfT's misrepresentation of accident statistics.

http://fullfact.org/articles/road_safety_20mph_zones_limits_casualties-27766

You misunderstand me - I think 20mph zones are a very good thing. But unless there is some effort to enforce them, they aren't going to do very much - the trivial reduction in speed around S. Bristol would seem to indicate that there's not much cultural change so far.

Get along to your local PACT meeting then (If you can also tell them to take bike theft more seriously too, that'd be brilliant).

On a similar theme, "shared space" seems to be working in Poynton.
It's a bit long, at 15 minutes, but shows what can happen when revolutionary ideas are tried.

miketually - Member

All the evidence shows that 20mph limits do work.

With all due respect, that's utter horseshit.

MidlandTrailquestsGraham - Member

On a similar theme, "shared space" seems to be working in Poynton.

Shared space is a great, and proven idea. It forces (all) people to be responsible for each other. This leads to increased safety.
Removing responsibility decreases safety.

With all due respect, that's utter horseshit.

With all due respect, that's utter horseshit.

[url= http://www.bmj.com/content/339/bmj.b4469 ]British Medical Journal[/url]:

The introduction of 20 mph zones was associated with a 41.9% (95% confidence interval 36.0% to 47.8%) reduction in road casualties, after adjustment for underlying time trends. The percentage reduction was greatest in younger children and greater for the category of killed or seriously injured casualties than for minor injuries. There was no evidence of casualty migration to areas adjacent to 20 mph zones, where casualties also fell slightly by an average of 8.0% (4.4% to 11.5%).

20 mph zones are effective measures for reducing road injuries and deaths."

And [url= http://www.trl.co.uk/online_store/download_form/download_complete.htm?id=5097 ]the Transport Research Laboratory seems to agree[/url].

Both found via this [url= http://fullfact.org/factchecks/speed_humps_20_mph_limit_zones_plenty_Portsmouth_KSI-27588 ]fact check article[/url], which concludes (my emphasis):

[b]There is considerable evidence to support the view that 20 mph zones do reduce road casualties[/b]. Some of the more comprehensive findings actually suggest the effect is better at lessening the severity of accidents rather than the frequency with which they happen - possibly owing to reduced vehicle speeds.
...
[b]That there are casualty benefits when 20 mph zones are brought into action is well backed-up by the evidence.[/b]

With all due respect, etc.

It doesn't have to be. For example, build-outs can have a cycle bypass.

yeah trouble is what about all the residential streets with cars parked everywhere. Lots of councils seem very reluctant to reduce residential parking, residents might not be too happy either

Those streets should be self-calming.

"should"

miketually - Member

With all due respect, etc.

So how do you explain Portsmouth?
You know, the place where they introduced a blanket 20 mph limit and KSIs went up by over 50%?
I think the national trend was an increase of 2%, so you can knock a couple of points off if it helps. 🙂

Here's a StreetView of a street near me with build-outs like that on it:
http://goo.gl/maps/6bcbP

As you can see it is a 20-zone residential street that is long and straight. To the north it becomes an NSL as it leaves the village so drivers might have been tempted to go too fast on it.

The houses there have driveways for residential parking, so parking isn't a major issue and in my experience the build-outs work pretty well at calming the traffic.

(I don't think those are cycle bypasses on these build-outs by the way, I think they are just meant to keep the gutter flowing)

Shared access for town centre and residential streets is the way, make people think about every decision they make on the roads.

http://hembrow.eu/cycling/assenverandert.html

So how do you explain Portsmouth?
You know, the place where they introduced a blanket 20 mph limit and KSIs went up by over 50%?
I think the national trend was an increase of 2%, so you can knock a couple of points off if it helps.

More people walking and riding?

Are you saying you think lowering speed limits increases danger?

miketually - Member

More people walking and riding?

Are you saying you think lowering speed limits increases danger?

More people riding = increased safety, so it's not that.

I've already stated what I think; that removing people's responsibility decreases safety.

You know, the place where they introduced a blanket 20 mph limit and KSIs went up by over 50%?

Looking at raw figures like that is useless because it doesn't look at how many people were making journeys.

And looking at one year for a trend is useless, especially in a single city, because one major accident can cause a huge "rise" (e.g. one serious bus/coach crash could mean up to 80 more KSIs)

GrahamS - Member

Looking at raw figures like that is useless because it doesn't look at how many people were making journeys.

Then look at KSIs per mile driven; t'is the same.

And looking at one year for a trend is useless, especially in a single city, because one major accident can cause a huge "rise" (e.g. one serious bus/coach crash could mean up to 80 more KSIs)

You are right, but I don't remember any serious bus/coach crashes in Portsmouth that year, do you?

Just an example. Could also be a multi-car crash, roadworks, or an increase due to unusually bad (or good) weather that year etc etc

Absolutely.
I'm just a prevention is better than cure kinda chap, that is all.

I'm just a prevention is better than cure kinda chap, that is all.

Prevention = everybody stays at home and never leaves.

Although, 100% of domestic accidents happen in the home.....

sbob - Member

So how do you explain Portsmouth?
You know, the place where they introduced a blanket 20 mph limit and KSIs went up by over 50%?

[sceptical] really? [/sceptical]

miketually - Member

Prevention = everybody stays at home and never leaves.

Although, 100% of domestic accidents happen in the home.....

...and dwarf the number of accidents we have on our roads, just to keep things in perspective.

ahwiles - Member

[sceptical] really? [/sceptical]

Y, RLY.

Some things are hard to swallow when they go against what is to the individual, the natural and obvious conclusion.

For me, legalizing heroin sounds like an abhorrent suggestion, but get over the initial emotion and you can start to understand why it could work.

from the telegraph

which leads with the headline:

20mph limit has not made roads safer

In Portsmouth, the new, lower speed limit applies to all vehicles, at all times, on 94 per cent of the city's streets. It is not enforced by speed cameras or road humps, but relies on drivers to obey limit signs.

The analysis, carried out by the consultants Atkins on behalf of the DfT, found that prior to the reduction in the limit, an average of 18.7 people per year were killed or seriously injured on the streets covered.

After the reduction this rose to 19.9 per year.

Taking into account people with less serious injuries, overall road casualties fell by 22 per cent after the scheme was introduced.

so, not really.

wtf?

with decimal places like that in the stats, how many years has Portsmouth had the 20mph limit?

rounding up to whole numbers, is a jump from 19/year to 20/year just an increase of 1 due to the natural variation in accidents and numbers of people involved? or is it a significant 5.25% increase? with numbers like that, percentage increases/decreases are total b******s. one single incident could sway the stats by 50% just by a p155ed driver taking out a bus stop, and the next year a 50% improvement by that not happening.

More people riding = increased safety, so it's not that.

Increased safety for cyclists, as a percentage or per mile or whatever. But the number of accidents overall could still increase as you're still moving people out of cars and onto bikes.

Lots of councils seem very reluctant to reduce residential parking, residents might not be too happy either

At some point, people are going to have to wise up to the fact that a square of public highway to park your car on isn't a god-given right.

http://bamboobadger.blogspot.co.uk/2008/01/car-parking-ill-just-leave-this.html

(I've linked to this post before, but it's genius)

Increased safety for cyclists, as a percentage or per mile or whatever. But the number of accidents overall could still increase as you're still moving people out of cars and onto bikes.

Yep fraid so. Road injury rates are higher on foot or bikes than they are in cars - so getting some people out of cars can mean an increase in injuries.

(I don't think those are cycle bypasses on these build-outs by the way, I think they are just meant to keep the gutter flowing)

offs[/url] with cars when I've gone into a build out and they've driven in aswell blocking my exit, both sit there for a while shouting at each other. Ho Hum.

Build outs like all other road facilities need to be done right otherwise they endup being dangerous in other ways even if they do achieve their primary function.

At some point, people are going to have to wise up to the fact that a square of public highway to park your car on isn't a god-given right

so getting some people out of cars can mean an increase in injuries.

*like sticking 5p on a litre of petrol and suggesting people stick to speed limits.

trouble is build outs without a bypass can lower speeds but cause more aggro, how often do cars yield when you have right of way? IME not very

Not had any issues on that road - though usually I'm towing a double child trailer along there so cars tend to give me a wide berth anyway. 🙂

I agree it could be an issue - but if they were more common then drivers would soon learn.

but hopefully less KSIs long term

If you reduce car use then yeah there should be - but it is hard to make any significant dent in it. We are so unbalanced at the moment that 100 more people walking would be a huge percentage increase, but might not even be noticeable in terms of traffic volume.

it'll take a long time to convince some people. We're a car centric society top to bottom

I don't think this is entirely true. If you talk to people who are actually involved in urban planning then the focus is very much on getting people out of their cars, making towns and cities walkable, and all the stuff that the tabloid motoring columns sneer at.

You have to remember that around 50% of people in the UK don't own a car, and many car owners aren't particularly attached to them either. The Poynton video GrahamS posted above is an example of an ambitious expensive project that must have been pushed through over some pretty vocal objections, and if it can happen there it can happen in other places.

ahwiles - Member

from the telegraph

which leads with the headline:

20mph limit has not made roads safer

In Portsmouth, the new, lower speed limit applies to all vehicles, at all times, on 94 per cent of the city's streets. It is not enforced by speed cameras or road humps, but relies on drivers to obey limit signs.

The analysis, carried out by the consultants Atkins on behalf of the DfT, found that prior to the reduction in the limit, an average of 18.7 people per year were killed or seriously injured on the streets covered.

After the reduction this rose to 19.9 per year.

Taking into account people with less serious injuries, overall road casualties fell by 22 per cent after the scheme was introduced.

so, not really.

2010 - 92 KSI
2011 - 143 KSI

Care to dispute that?

2010 - 92 KSI
2011 - 143 KSI

Care to dispute that?

Are those figures for all streets, including those not covered by the reduced limit? What are the 2012 figures? What were the pre-2010 figures?

If 2010 was a particularly low year and 2011 particularly high it could just be a blip.

Taking into account people with less serious injuries, [b][u]overall road casualties fell by 22 per cent after the scheme was introduced[/u][/b].

sbob - Member

Care to dispute that?

i'm not looking to dispute anything, i'm just naturally skeptical, so i ask questions - like: 'are you sure?'

or simply: 'eh?'

and in this case:

where'd those numbers come from?

I got them from the internet. 🙂

link?