[Closed] 20 MPH Speed Limits

To me that suggests it wasn't "simply a money making exercise" or they'd have gone where people were regularly breaking the law surely? Confused.

I didnt explain myself correctly.
I am very familiar with the area as I walk, run, ride and drive and where the police were positioned they were more likely to catch people breaking the 40mph limit as the volume of traffic is higher and given the lack of pavements, houses, pedestrians etc a greater proportion of drivers speed here as they perceive it as not a built up area (immaterial I know) In short there are a larger number of law breakers along the stretch the police were monitoring.
The other road however has a slightly lower volume of traffic but if you were familiar with it you would see that there are lots of children, pedestrians, houses, driveways etc.
As a local, and given limited resources I would prefer one to be more heavily policed than the other.

If we continue to pander to the lowest common denominator, we will soon all only be staying in bed all day just in case someone gets hurt somehow.......

well, we've got to the sorry situation where people in the UK are now dying of fatness... in part because they drive everywhere and the masses are too scared to cycle... so choose your method of early death!

I've not found the source of the figure but Chris Boardman quoted 30,000 a year dying of obesity-related diseases... so people [i]are[/i] getting hurt in large numbers from excessive use of cars

[quote=Cougar ]Sure. I like picnics as much as the next person, but wouldn't have one in the middle lane of the M6. Roads are for facilitating movement of traffic (cars, horses, bicycles etc), not for the local kids to spend their afternoons 'accidentally' bouncing cricket balls off cars.

I'm so tempted to post my usual image for your M6 example - I don't see any disparity between wanting 20 limits for where people live and 80 limits on motorways where they don't (and people don't cycle or walk).

Part of the whole issue is that roads are only seen as being to facilitate motorised traffic, not the other modes you mention, that and far too much emphasis is placed on reducing the delays for motorists at all cost.

ahwiles- why not 10mph ? That would be even safer. The point is that there are risks involved in life and we should not try to legislate the whole nation to protect everything and everyone from every eventuality. I walked to school on my own or with friends from a very early age ..about 7 I think . I had a road to cross but I was taught where and how to do it. I biked to secondary school everyday for 5 years which involved cycling thru' a busy town centre about 10 miles return. People still do this. Pedestrians/children aren't all retarded and need special protection they just need commonsense and to apply care in their everyday activities. And yes my kids all used to bike around our town but they all have those nasty cars now.

Roads are for facilitating movement of traffic

Yes "Roads" are, but "Streets" should be for people.

I'm not sure how old you are but I'm very nearly 40 and like the folks in that video I posted earlier, a great deal of my childhood involved playing in the road outside my house: riding bikes, kerbie, kick the can, doing "street luge" on Jolly Giant skateboards, jumpers for goalposts, happy days.

Not to mention happily walking a couple of miles to school, walking to friends houses, taking ourselves off swimming, or indeed down to the park.

I didn't live in some "suburban paradise", I lived in a pretty normal residential street in a town outside Glasgow*, where cars came by knowing there would be kids around and did a sensible speed, so parents felt safe letting kids play out without constant supervision and high-viz jackets.

* ([url= https://www.google.com/maps/ @55.934412,-4.317996,3a,75y,175.28h,75t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sbp2W4IZkwjnZA-98xbbi4Q!2e0]here in fact[/url] which, ironically enough, now appears to be a 20 zone)

Part of the whole issue is that roads are only seen as being to facilitate motorised traffic, not the other modes you mention, that and far too much emphasis is placed on reducing the delays for motorists at all cost.

+1

Cougar I think you mix up a number of things. I dont think anybody is saying roads have ever been anything but dangerous and children (and pedestrians) need to take care however as aracer points out the emphasis on the "smooth" flow (for smooth read fast and uninterupted) of cars takes such a priority that IME I see less people stopping at crossings, more people jumping lights and refusing to give way and less people letting buses pull out etc than I did even a small number of years ago. I am nervous riding on the road and sadly I actively encourage my children not to ride on the roads because it IS dangerous. This is not a myth!

your children want to cycle to school, would you rather they had to mix with traffic doing 20ish, or 30ish?

Well of course, if I were a parent then I'd want all the traffic removing from the route completely, along with kiddie fiddlers, broken glass, drug dealers, sweet shops (soame thing?), dog poo and children of the opposite sex. Meanwhile I shall stand outside my house, beat my chest and proclaim, "the world must bend to ME now, for I have reproduced!"

Personally I'd help them find a quiet route where practical, and then I'd ensure that they were equipped with sufficient road craft and common sense that it wouldn't matter so much what the halfwits in cars were doing. I'd ride in with them for the first few times, until I was happy that they knew what they were doing.

What I almost certainly wouldn't do is start making demands about blanket speed limits and then think "sorted, Little Bradley can take the Grifter to school tomorrow now."

maxtorque - Member
Easy to implement, as as we have seen both ineffective and likely to result in drivers ignoring other, much more important limits at critical times!

There was a call for better education and testing. It already exists in the form of the Highway Code and driving tests. People ignore it wholesale, all road users.

There was also a call for less road signs because it's distracting for drivers. So change the urban speed limit to a blanket 20mph and enforce it through speed cameras and police presence.

Speed restrictions at critical times, school opening and closing times, doesn't work I admit. It's obviously too confusing for the poor driver to obey the rules of the road.

I biked to secondary school everyday for 5 years... my kids all used to bike around our town but they all have those nasty cars now.

Which makes you old enough to have enjoyed streets as a kid before they became so busy and hostile.

Be interesting to know if your kid's kids will be biking 10 miles to school. Nationally the stats are not in their favour!

Cougar - Moderator

"the world must bend to ME now, for I have [s]reproduced![/s] a car!"

fixed, etc.

compromise, etc.

yes, i have a car, yes, i understand that more 20 zones might mean some of my journeys are slightly slower.

i'm ok with that, crazy i know.

D28boy - Member

ahwiles- why not 10mph ? That would be even safer.

i would be delighted if lots of residential side streets were limited to 10mph.

maxtorque - Member

The issue for me, is once again that "Blanket" limits only help to re-enforce in the general public's mind (ie the thick stupid drivers who aren't paying much attention to the road anyway, the majority these days!)

maxtorque - Member

If we continue to pander to the lowest common denominator, we will soon all only be staying in bed all day just in case someone gets hurt somehow.......

Are you saying that we shouldn't pander to the lowest common denominator, who you also say are the majority of thick, stupid drivers?

When I was older and could play out further afield, I used to go to the park, or [b]play in the back streets[/b], or indeed [b]anywhere except the middle of the road[/b]. Because it's a bloody dangerous place.

Cougar, do you not see any inconsistency between the two bolded bits?

Streets aren't [u]just[/u] for facilitating the movement of traffic. They're also where people live. And slowing traffic makes them much more pleasant places, as well as safer.

ahwiles- why not 10mph ? That would be even safer

I imagine we all probably think that is too slow, but it is actually hard to put into words why we come to that decision, and where exactly the line is drawn and under what circumstances...

An interesting though experiment for us though, if the speed limit in urban areas (residential streets, town centre etc) were to be lowered to 10, or even 15mph do you think that would have a noticeable impact on the amount of people using cars?

I imagine it would as primarily the reason people use them is either
because using the car is quicker, or they cant be bothered to walk/cycle/ etc. If the speed differential between using a car and using a bike or walking was drastically reduced then I bet you'd get a lot more people who could suddenly be bothered to walk or ride.

In rush hour now it is almost always quicker to cycle, and often quicker to walk over short distances.

I know the above is very town/urban centric and does nothing to address the needs of people travelling into or out of a town or who just need to pass through, some of that could be addressed with park and ride schemes which already do very well in some cases, but it's kind of interesting to think about for a bit

The point is that there are risks involved in life and we should not try to legislate the whole nation to protect everything and everyone from every eventuality.

Totally agree with not living in a cotton wool world but as an ex-skydiver and rock climber I firmly believe in being able to choose when and where and why I take a risk with my life - actively choosing that risk is ok.

However, when I cycle, despite wearing hi-vis, helmet, lights, 37 years of experience + recent Bikeability training, I'm struggling to minimise the risk - it's being inflicted on me by other road users

e.g the guy who tried to hit me on Saturday - then got out of his car to rant at me, and scurrying back into it when a couple of large pedestrians pointed out to him the error of his ways 🙂

Or the Range Rover who came close to riding over me a couple of weeks ago when I stopped at an amber light (check it - amber DOES mean stop) which he thought didn't apply to him....

Because drivers are inflicting this risk on the general public who didn't ask for it and aren't confident with handling it, they're not letting their kids out to play and they're not riding or walking themselves. Instead they're dying of fatness...

So excessive and dangerous driving is imposing risk on the rest of society. Which is not the same as putting people in cotton wool by reducing speed limits is it?

Yes "Roads" are, but "Streets" should be for people.

Should they? I must have missed that memo. You could readily solve the problem completely with a few concrete bollards at the end of this 'street' then.

I'm not sure how old you are but I'm very nearly 40 and like the folks in that video I posted earlier, a great deal of my childhood involved playing in the road outside my house: [etc]

I'm a couple of years older than you, and had a fairly similer childhood by the sounds of things. The street I lived on when I was little was a side street not disimilar to yours, and then later a main road. But I don't think I ever played in traffic, I did all those things in back streets or up the local park.

Yes "Roads" are, but "Streets" should be for people.

And here we have the distinction......sorry to bang on about it again but the Netherlands do seem to have sorted this out. Drivers are just as idiotic and dangerous there as the UK but the environment has been made safe.

Motor Traffic has been largely removed from the towns and villages. Bypasses have been built and the centres made very difficult for vehicles to cross (in the UK we build bypasses and carry on allowing large volumes of traffic through the centre.). In town speeds are low and there is a hard line between roads - your traffic arteries - and streets which are for living on. Streets have through traffic removed and pedestrians/cyclists given priority (the shared space idea we get so wrong in the UK - you have to remove the through traffic and prevent rat running).

I grew up on a cul-de-sac and spent my youth playing in the street but when I was 8 or 9 years old I was cycling through the lanes of Essex around Chelmsford in relative safety. Cars were slower then and people did drive more considerately. I almost got run over in a supermarket car park the other day by someone who couldn't even keep their speed down there.

or to think of it another way;

if 20mph had been the urban default since forever, what would be the arguments around raising it to 30?

for: it'll shave literally minutes off some car journeys.

against: thousands of people will die.

You could readily solve the problem completely with a few concrete bollards at the end of this 'street' then.

They've done exactly that on one of the housing estates round here and turned a lot of the residential streets into either no-car or no-through roads, and put small trees up the middle so that traffic has either disappeared form them completely or is only ever travelling 100 yards so is going very slow, end result, people everywhere, it's great!

The streets were there long before the cars, we're jsut rying to shoe-horn more and more vehicles into them, I'm not even that old (30s) and I can remember when having cars parked in the street was a bit odd, they were all on the drives or in the garage, and on the terraced streets there were a few cars, now they're all bumper to bumper with parked cars down both sides with other cars zipping up and down the middle at full pelt.

why not 10mph ? That would be even safer

Yep, and probably appropriate in town centres. Most commercial/industrial sites that have people and vehicles moving around together have limits much lower than 20mph. 5 or 10mph signs are common in those situations. We treat "accidents at work" seriously and there are large financial penalties.

When there is a death or injury it's properly investigated and measures taken to prevent in future. On the roads it's just 'collateral damage'.

[url= https://waronthemotorist.wordpress.com/2014/07/11/7-years-4-months-and-18-days/ ]this is a good piece on how the railways were made safe after Ladbroke Grove[/url]

there used to be frequent deaths on the railways. It's been 7 years, 4 months and 23 days since the last fatal train crash. In that same period [b]there have only been 27 days[/b] when we can expect there to have been zero fatal crashes on Britain’s roads.

yes, i have a car, yes, i understand that more 20 zones might mean some of my journeys are slightly slower.

i'm ok with that, crazy i know.

So am I, as I thought I'd said.

Cougar, do you not see any inconsistency between the two bolded bits?

I think maybe you misunderstand what I mean by "back streets", I'm not talking about quiet side roads. I lived (and still do) on an East Lancashire terraced road. The "back streets" are areas between back doors of houses, usually cobbled and often impassable by car.

If we're doing show and tell, [url= https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@53.745239,-2.373947,3a,75y,32.68h,71.86t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1s7WRnACSYkRhm7p8FwozHkw!2e0 ]this is the sort of place[/url] I used to play. You'd have been hard pressed to drive at 20mph on those surfaces, limits not needed.

These threads are duller than a shop full of Giant brand bikes.

The same petrolheads spouting the same illogical arguments in defence of the indefensible. Life is better on the ouside of your box fellas, try it.

The only reason motorised traffic has the priority it does is because lots of commerce(banking/oil) is reliant on the industry and our politicians are corperate lackies.

Amazing what happens when people take back a street:

http://www.livingstreets.org.uk/make-a-change/local-action/streets-for-play

These threads are duller than a shop full of Giant brand bikes.

I'm glad I've something better to do than read threads I think are dull. How empty must your life be to do that?

The same petrolheads spouting the same illogical arguments in defence of the indefensible.

I'm just an advocate of driving on roads and playing in playgrounds. I'm also against playing in roads and driving through playgrounds. Not immediately seeing how that's illogical.

I don't disagree with making non-through-road residential areas safer by use of such things as traffic calming measures and 20mph limits. What I disagree with is the NIMBY attitude that goes with that, and the implication that it's someone else's job to take sole responsibility for their child's road safety.

... which is the point I was trying to make in the first place, don't we teach road safety any more? These things should work in conjunction with each other, not despite each other. Educate the drivers to drive more defensively where there's likely to be kids, educate the kids to stay out of the road or cross with care where there's likely to be cars.

The "back streets" are areas between back doors of houses, usually cobbled and often impassable by car.

Not everywhere has those. In fact I'd say they are pretty rare in any modern development.

Our current terraced house does have a back lane like that, and it is also on a dead end, specifically because I want my kids to be able to play out safely.
But even then we get cars coming down the street and the back lane without playing proper attention.

One of our friends spoke to a woman driving "enthusiastically" down the back lane to access her garage and she asked her to keep her speed down because children were playing. Her response: [i]"Well perhaps these houses aren't suitable for people with children"[/i].

A back lane. In a cul-de-sac. In a rural village. "Not suitable for children" 😯

I've skimmed most of the thread, but I work in that Brighton & Hove with the legal 20mph limit. I don't commute in/out twice a day, I work out of a van and zig zag all over it during the day.

The 20mph speed limits don't bother me. I'm not saying I always remember to stick to them, but generally the traffic is slower.

I also like the cycle lanes by the greens - everyone seems to love moaning about them but at least they are well designed. The same people who moan about them also like to shout at cyclists to 'use the cycle lane!' which just proves the general attitude towards cyclists. They seem to become conveniently deaf when suggesting that 20mph down a shared cycle/pedestrian path is inappropriately fast and surely the road is the best place for those type of cyclists.

It does seem to be you Vs the rest of the thread though, so I take some comfort in the fact I have the backing of the other PC do-gooders on here

Nope, I'm with D28Boy, mildly infuriated.
And don't get me started on randomly spaced, randomly sized speed bumps, encouraging drivers to swerve into your lane at the last minute whilst you approach.
Infuriating. Makes me spit out my boiled sweets.

[quote=GrahamS ]

The "back streets" are areas between back doors of houses, usually cobbled and often impassable by car.

So that people know where I'm coming from, I actually live at the end of a very quiet cul-de-sac, with block paving and no pavements which emphasises the sharing of space with pedestrians (there's a significant area of road in front of our house which we actually own). So my kids can and do play in the street - there is a critical mass of kids here and everybody does drive slowly and carefully - I'd probably have words with somebody doing 20!

Therefore none of this is for the benefit of me or my kids - it's a totally altruistic position!

[quote=slimjim78 ]Infuriating. Makes me spit out my boiled sweets.

Not Werthers Originals?

I'm just an advocate of driving on roads and playing in playgrounds.

This is probably the most ingorant twaddle youve ever written and theres strong competition in that catagory.

edit: that quote is from cougar a moderator on a cycling forum btw.. what hope?

encouraging drivers to swerve into your lane at the last minute whilst you approach.

This tells you how getting into a car seems to fundamentally screw with people's essential psychology and empathy...

<sees speed bump in residential street>
Option 1: slow down - which is the legal requirement? no...
Option 2: slow down because that's why the speed bump's there? no...
Option 3: keep ragging it but swerve into oncoming traffic just to save myself a moment's inconvenience - yay, best option!! 😯

On the one hand, it tells you the infrastructure is ill-designed for the purpose - good speed-control infrastructure should be impossible to drive fast through. On the other, it's gob-smackingly ignorant on behalf of the driver to drive like that...

I keep making the point on these threads that you never get the levels of bad behaviour on the Tube that you do on the road, despite conditions being unquestionably less comfortable - there really is something about being in a car which seems to lead to somekind of breakdown in empathy and connection with the impact of your behaviour on other people...

Not everywhere has those. In fact I'd say they are pretty rare in any modern development.

Sure. But modern developments have other things instead, gardens and lawns. It's probably worth differentiating.

I was talking about my experiences the streets we grew up in, and I still live on. The streets weren't a safe place to play on, so we weren't allowed to, and we were lucky enough to have a local park.

Modern developments are often self-contained areas with no obvious through route. The "streets" are used effectively as "shared use" areas, where kids are allowed to play, but light traffic still exists and sometimes rat-run routes get established.

So why not go the whole hog here and make these areas shared-use officially? Paint them a different colour and treat them like pedestrianised zones in the high street? Then kids can play safely without learning that "it's ok to play in streets", and traffic knows that it's passing through as an exception to the rule.

This is probably the most ingorant twaddle youve ever written

I find that hard to believe. I've written some [i]serious [/i]twaddle in the past, I'm hardly trying here.

edit: that quote is from cougar a moderator on a cycling forum btw.. what hope?

I'm not sure how my IT skills make me particularly more or less qualified to talk about driving.

Do you have a particular point to make, or are you just going to sit in the peanut gallery attempting to be irritating? Only, all we've had from you so far is how dull this is, how it's the same old arguments, that "petrolheads are defending the indefensible" (whatever that may be is left as an exercise for the reader), and that I specifically am talking twaddle. Exactly what sort of twaddle isn't clear.

I put it to you, sir, that in comparison to the constructive input you've had thus far the discussion, I (and most of the rest of the contributers here) are veritable Tolstoys and Oscar Wildes.

So why not go the whole hog here and make these areas shared-use officially? Paint them a different colour and treat them like pedestrianised zones in the high street?

That sounds like what aracer is describing as his street - and, as he says, it works very well.

Then kids can play safely without learning that "it's ok to play in streets", and traffic knows that it's passing through as an exception to the rule.

Rather than making that the exception, why not just change the rule so that all residential streets are like that and are 20 mph by default?

Seems a lot cheaper and more sensible than ripping up and repaving every residential street in the country.

It [i]should[/i] be okay to play in the streets!

Ironically, as a pedestrian the only place where I really feel unsafe is one where 20mph is pretty much top speed. The local cyclepath at commuting time is extremely intimidating... I don't think you change people's mindsets just because they get into cars.

[quote=GrahamS ]That sounds like what aracer is describing as his street - and, as he says, it works very well.

Exactly - but as I said before, not everybody is lucky enough to live somewhere like this, and I don't see why those people should be forced off their streets by the hegemony* of the car. What we have should be the norm.

* just had to drop that word in 😉

why not just change the rule so that all residential streets are like that and are 20 mph by default?

Because rash generalisation is ALWAYS(*) a bad idea?

I'm not sure how you'd define "all residential streets". Everywhere that's 30 currently? The simple answer is "because it's not an appropriate limit in all those places." The logic lends itself well to reductio ad absurdum and men with red flags.

(* - generally, obviously)

It should be okay to play in the streets!

We're going to have to agree to differ on this. It shouldn't be [i]necessary[/i] to play on the streets. With the money you'd have to spend on infrastructure to traffic calm all those areas - which as we've seen from the ACPO guidelines would be essential - you could have built parks, créches, football pitches, skate ramps, communal sports centres, youth clubs...

The reason kids played on the streets was due to lack of traffic. You still can't play on the streets if there is a string of cars going by at 20mph. I wouldn't be too chuffed either as a cyclist if every residential road I went down was a playground...

I'm not sure how you'd define "all residential streets". Everywhere that's 30 currently?

Same way we currently identify residential streets with a default 30: houses, street lights, bus routes.

The simple answer is "because it's not an appropriate limit in all those places."

Neither is 30.

So let's do the opposite of what we do now: default 20 with some bits made 30 (or more) by signs.

That would be more consistent and send a much clearer message about appropriate speeds in these areas.

With the money you'd have to spend on infrastructure... ..you could have built [s]parks, créches, football pitches, skate ramps, communal sports centres, youth clubs[/s] lots of places to drive kids to a couple of times a week.

FTFY

Cougar- I'm not arguing the points because these debates have been had infinitum and the outcome is 20mph speed limits. This thread is about enforcement and for some it appears if a law is not enforced it makes it optional which is rather sad.

Respond with all the flowery words you like, your argument is lost.

With the money you'd have to spend on infrastructure to traffic calm all those areas - which as we've seen from the ACPO guidelines would be essential - you could have built parks, créches, football pitches, skate ramps, communal sports centres, youth clubs...

er.....where? There wasn't a lot of waste ground/empty building space in London (or any other city) the last time I looked. Of course we could dig up some of the roads and grass over them but I don't think that's what you meant. Of course outside the big cities we could build them next to the out of town shopping centre. Yes, that solves the problem.

why not just change the rule so that all residential streets are like that and are 20 mph by default?

Yep. The UK's road system is a mass of over complex markings and signage with excessively high 'default' limits.
- move to default 20mph limit in areas with street lights (currently 30).
- default 40mph limit where no street lights (currently 60 which is ludicrous on country lanes)
You then only need to sign where higher limits apply. Since the default is lower it should encourage more caution (rather than the 'must be 60, must do 60 we have at present).

- do away with all yellow lines on the road. Parking in marked bays only at times shown on local post. Again, moves the balance - gets rid of the 'wasn't a sign saying I couldn't park within the requisite Xm' nonsense we have at the moment' and improves clarity. Significantly cuts congestion and improves traffic flow (all those country lanes where idiots park and obstruct the road, parking opposite junction etc etc).

Much less infra to install and maintain, lower cost. Better environment. Easy to transition as well - there's no need to actually remove any of the existing yellow lines, they can just have no status and fade away.

Neither is 30.

So let's do the opposite of what we do now: default 20 with some bits made 30 (or more) by signs.

Or, we could appraise all those roads and make sensible decisions accordingly, regrading where appropriate, rather than defaulting to one or the other being "correct except when it's not."

Cougar- I'm not arguing the points because these debates have been had infinitum and the outcome is 20mph speed limits.

Where's that then? If you could provide a link to that absolute unequivocal conclusion, we could move on to something else (and save a lot of people a lot of work).

This thread is about enforcement and for some it appears if a law is not enforced it makes it optional which is rather sad.

It was about two pages back. It's drifted a bit since.

Respond with all the flowery words you like, your argument is lost.

Difference is, I have one to lose.

There wasn't a lot of waste ground/empty building space in London (or any other city) the last time I looked.

Well, no, but I think we can put London down as "special case." They have their own rules and everything, via TfL.

I'm sure you're not advocating kids playing in traffic in London, but from what I've seen there is an argument for driving more traffic out of central London and forcing people onto public transport. All those side streets beloved of cab drivers don't all need to be open access, do they?

I struggle with long sentences, 20zones here in Portsmouth and Southsea for at least a couple of years and I like them, as do the townsfolk.

It's impossible to zoom along in built up / urban areas nowadays anyway, so what's with the need for an extra 10mph that would increase the risks of death if a pedestrian or cyclist was hit at 30mph?

I'm finding it a good way to chill the **** out, slow down a bit and the slower speed enables me to be more aware.

Sounds like the OP has a case of nimby 😉

Or, we could appraise all those roads and make sensible decisions accordingly, regrading where appropriate, rather than defaulting to one or the other being "correct except when it's not."

We [i]could[/i] but appraising every road in the country seems like a lot of work. And having no default means you'd need to put up millions more speed signs.

If you have a default 20 then people will complain when it is too slow and a 30 is more appropriate. It's like crowd-sourcing by complaint.

And again that's just the opposite of what happens now, where people currently need to campaign to get 20 zones put in.

The difference is that defaulting to 20 is safer overall. Defaulting to the safest option is a pretty good approach in my experience.

I'm sure you're not advocating kids playing in traffic in London, but from what I've seen there is an argument for driving more traffic out of central London and forcing people onto public transport. All those side streets beloved of cab drivers don't all need to be open access, do they?

I'm not advocating kids playing in traffic anywhere. I'm advocating removing the traffic from the areas where people live - separating streets where people live from through roads. All of those streets should be made useful only for the people who live there (and will be default also become pleasant and safe for cycling on). Yes, people live on the through roads too be but they'll not be far from a quiet side street in future.

We could but appraising every road in the country seems like a lot of work. And having no default means you'd need to put up millions more speed signs.

You'd have to do that anyway.

The difference is that defaulting to 20 is safer overall.

Why not default to 15 then? 10? Getting out and walking?

I take your point, I do. But it's a simplistic answer. It'd be ignored en masse, just like the 30 limits largely are now; it's a bigger problem which requires a bigger solution than just replacing one arbitrary number with another one.

The problem IMHO in this country is we suffer from 'the boy who cried wolf'. Limits are inconsistent, too high in places, too low in others. Therefore, many drivers (rightly or wrongly) treat them as advisory. If they were more appropriate generally then the great unwashed would take them more seriously.

I saw this in action recently, on holiday in France. Limits are actually lower overall than here, but they are much better at letting drivers make progress when it's safe to do so and then slowing them down again when it's not, that almost everyone drives at the speed limit or close to it. At 70mph in the UK you're constantly either overtaking or being overtaken; at 110kph in France everyone's moving at pretty much the same pace (and lane discipline is SO MUCH better).

Our "intelligent motorways" are a massive step in the right direction; drop the limits when there's a problem, raise it when there isn't. The system demonstrably works. But a blanket dropping of urban speed limits will make precisely no difference until we've got SPECS cameras everywhere, or satellite monitoring. Which is probably only a matter of time.

I'm not advocating kids playing in traffic anywhere. I'm advocating removing the traffic from the areas where people live - separating streets where people live from through roads.

No arguments here (pretty sure that's what I just proposed), so long as you teach your kids how to cross roads when they venture beyond the borders. I think that's a great idea at least in theory.

There can be no reason to object that isn't plain selfish. An objection to the extra tie taken is easily overcome. start a few minutes earlier.
Equally there is no reason to object to reduced motorway speeds. Start earlier.
Anything else is just typical of the selfish world we live in.
There is no justification for anyone saying that they need to exceed any speed limits. The suitability of the road to do so is irrelevant. Better minds than yours have decided otherwise.
Speeders = selfish beyond contempt.

There is no justification for anyone saying that they need to exceed any speed limits. The suitability of the road to do so is irrelevant. Better minds than yours have decided otherwise.

So every speed limit in the country is exactly right in all conditions. Neither too low or too high. I stand in awe of those better minds.

It's a maximum speed, not a target. You can drive slower if conditions dictate.

@wwaswas - spot-on.

20MPH seems a reasonable limit in tight urban areas. There's a chance that some drivers will get closer to a range of 20MPH to 30MPH in a 20MPH zone. Certainly more chance than in a 30MPH max zone where folks seem to think 35MPH to 50MPH is acceptable.

Enforceable? Well, if it's a legal limit then it's surely enforceable. Whether the police can practically enforce it. Or even catch anyone who exceeds it. Well, that's a different thing all together.

Anecdotally, I have a 20MPH zone that starts near where I live. The speed bumps are the gentle sort. It's not unusual to get folks doing >40MPH out of the 20MPH zone into the 30MPH zone. Yes, I've idly sat and timed them over a known distance, and yes, I have some idea of the imprecision in the measurements.

@slackalice. I like your style. I find that thinking seriously about speed limits in urban areas and respecting them makes driving more relaxing and has really helped make me not bother about getting across the next set of lights in the next change. Hey, they'll change sometime and I'll get where I need to be. Maybe I should've set off more promptly if it looks like I might be late.

& so when they lower the limit, a speed which was safe yesterday no longer is today?

I think the point is that to everyone outside of your car that the existing speed limit is probably too high. Living in London it's hard as a pedestrian to cross roads because people speed. But then they also knock pedestrians down like the poor guy I happened across earlier tonight.

& so when they lower the limit, a speed which was safe yesterday no longer is today?

No, the speed yesterday was still less safe than a slower speed today.

It's about relative risk. An absolute value of "safe" or "not safe" makes no sense at all.

But you knew that.

OK, so the relative risk yesterday is the same as it was today. So those driving at 30mph in a 30mph limit are not taking any extra risk over those drivng at 30mph in a newly created 20mph limit. So why the opprobrium?

There can be no reason to object that isn't plain selfish. An objection to the extra tie taken is easily overcome. start a few minutes earlier.
Equally there is no reason to object to reduced motorway speeds. Start earlier.

Better minds than yours have decided otherwise.

It's a maximum speed, not a target. You can drive slower if conditions dictate.

You can, but you'll fail your driving test for "failure to make progress" if conditions don't dictate and you don't drive at the limit.

Old chestnut, anyone?

imnotverygood - Member
OK, so the relative risk yesterday is the same as it was today. So those driving at 30mph in a 30mph limit are not taking any extra risk over those drivng at 30mph in a newly created 20mph limit.

There's a number of things here.

The risk is actual, not relative.

The risk is not to the driver, but to the vulnerable road users, pedestrians and cyclists.

There would be a higher risk to the vulnerable road users if the driver was speeding than adhering to the new 20mph limit, because they should, incorrectly in this case, expect the driver to be obeying the speed limit and would base their decisions based on expected circumstances rather than unusual or out of control actions.

New about-town limit is 5mph. New motorway limit is 10mph. There's no reason to object to that unless you're selfish. Off you go.

But at those speeds there is no way those organs I donated will make it to the recipient in time.

There you go 😉

"Better" minds decided fairly arbitarily based on road conditions in the 60s.

You say this as if traffic engineers are looking at modern roads and saying "well we better make that road a 30 because there is no way my Morris Minor will make it round the corner at 40."

You can, but you'll fail your driving test for "failure to make progress" if conditions don't dictate and you don't drive at the limit.

Has that ever actually happened to anyone?

Not knowing the limit or hesitating far too long at a clear junction would be an issue, but has anyone really failed for doing 25 in a 30?

My instructor advised me to do 20ish in all residential streets and slow further if there were kids about. I did and I passed. If I'd done the limit I'd have failed.

I saw this in action recently, on holiday in France. Limits are actually lower overall than here, but they are much better at letting drivers make progress when it's safe to do so and then slowing them down again when it's not, that almost everyone drives at the speed limit or close to it. At 70mph in the UK you're constantly either overtaking or being overtaken; at 110kph in France everyone's moving at pretty much the same pace (and lane discipline is SO MUCH better).

I've driven 1000+ miles in France annually for the last 6 years or so and I think this is another fallacy. On the Autoroutes the limit is 130/80 but it's 110 when it's wet. They're less congested than in the UK (France has the UK population in nearly 3 times the area) which helps and as a result often 2 lanes not 3 which gives the illusion of better discipline. On the autoroutes the max speed is generally obeyed because there are a lot of speed cameras, they're fairly covert, and radar/satnav notification is illegal.

Off the autoroutes the French drive too fast, too close and too drunk. Their accident stats probably look OK because no-one walks anywhere in the country (certainly in the south).

It's definitely more relaxing driving in France but I'm not sure it's anything to do with more appropriate speed limits and I don't think they're really any lower.

You can, but you'll fail your driving test for "failure to make progress" if conditions don't dictate and you don't drive at the limit.

Has that ever actually happened to anyone?

I remember being told to make progress by my driving instructor on hitting a 40mph or 50mph road coming out of town in a 30.

You say this as if traffic engineers are looking at modern roads and saying "well we better make that road a 30 because there is no way my Morris Minor will make it round the corner at 40.

I understand almost the opposite is true. If the engineers are told it's a 30 limit they have to engineer the corners and sightlines for a heavy vehicle (eg rubbish truck) to take them at that speed. That means conventional vehicles are encouraged by the road design to go much faster. Look at the Dutch approach to roundabouts - adverse camber put on to force people to slow down. If that was done here you'd have Daily Mail stories about 'dangerous road design' after people crashed taking them at 40.

Look at this FFS - [url= http://www.wimbledonsw19.com/default.asp?section=info&page=spateofwimbledonbollardcrashes.htm ]Wimbledon Bollard[/url]

A bollard put in place to protect the pedestrian crossing cause spate of collisions because drivers are trying to cut the corner to take the junction quickly instead of slowing down.

Woman rolls car in petrol station hitting kerb. Story is the 'dangerous kerb' of course. How fast adn incompetent would you have to be going to roll a car in that situation? http://www.northumberlandgazette.co.uk/news/local-news/motorist-in-danger-kerb-call-1-6590725

Infuriatingly slow, eh. Well. Perception of speed is relative. After having driven at 120mph on Autobahns being forced to slow to 50moh felt like being virtually stopped.

However, drive at 30mph for a while and then 50 feels quick.

You'll soon get used to 20mph, so just give up and stop worrying about it. It really won't make a drop of difference to your life.

I've driven 1000+ miles in France annually for the last 6 years or so and I think this is another fallacy.

Sorry, I should have said "in my experience." Thatwas talking about 850 miles over a fortnight driving from Calais to Senonches and back with various sight-seeing over those two weeks. Whether it's representative of France as a whole or not I don't know, but it's not really important; point was, I've seen a working system, whether or not it's a microcosm.

Look at this FFS - Wimbledon Bollard

Thus,

[url= https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@53.741946,-2.377906,3a,75y,59.85h,89.33t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sqs_C0EF4Xcu3ZupnXwKfEg!2e0 ]These[/url] are fun things when you're driving along in poor visibility in a 30 zone.

Could do with some reflectives on that bollard, but honestly if you're in a residential 30 in "poor visibility" then you really should be going pretty slowly (say < 15mph) so hopefully you'd have no trouble spotting it... or a child's face.

Yes and what if there's an injured Robin on the road too ! Will someone please think of our wildlife being decimated on our roads.

OP - why don't you just come out and say that you find other people setting limits on your behaviour infuriating, and then accept that pretty much everyone else is going to say, "Yes, sometimes you can't do things you want to do, because its been deemed by the majority to not be appropriate".

Wise words aP. Of course you're right .

Yes and what if there's an injured Robin on the road too ! Will someone please think of our wildlife being decimated on our roads.

When you cycle you see a lot of dead/totally flattened/dying animals on the roads. It's quite sad that no-one seems too concerned about it. It's actually pretty horrible to ride past a half-dead squirrel writhing in agony 😯

Yep, from what I've seen by the road we won't be needing a badger cull round this way any time soon. 🙁

Cougar - Moderator

No arguments here (pretty sure that's what I just proposed), so long as you teach your kids how to cross roads when they venture beyond the borders. I think that's a great idea at least in theory.

Is there really a problem in kids not knowing how to cross roads or is this just something you've made up for an argument? Or is the issue really that roads are increasingly difficult to cross because of lazy motorists who can't be bothered to stay within the speed limit, stop at amber lights or even indicate to let other know their intentions?

Should I mention how pavements are increasingly unsafe as well because of cars parking as far onto them as possible?

Should I mention how pavements are increasingly unsafe

2012 saw 27 pedestrians killed and 430 seriously injured whilst on the pavement!

(RAS30026)

Is there really a problem in kids not knowing how to cross roads or is this just something you've made up for an argument?

It's my perception, I may be wrong. I'm basing it on the number of kids I see regularly frolicking on main roads around where I live, and the propensity for mouth breathers to cross roads by walking diagonally across them (offspring in tow) with little or no warning before they drift off the kerb into traffic. I can only conclude one of two scenarios are the case here:

1) No-one's teaching road safety any more, or

2) They're teaching road safety and are being ignored.

Or is the issue really that roads are increasingly difficult to cross because of lazy motorists who can't be bothered to stay within the speed limit, stop at amber lights or even indicate to let other know their intentions?

That may well be the case too. Though I don't see what speed has to do with your ability to cross; are cars safer to stroll out in front of if they're doing 20mph? Traffic [i]volume[/i] is your issue there surely, rather than speed?

Have you considered using pedestrian crossings? They seem to work really well in my experience.

Should I mention how pavements are increasingly unsafe as well because of cars parking as far onto them as possible?

I agree that's really selfish and annoying, but how does that make pavements "unsafe" exactly? Are you talking about blocking them completely, forcing people onto the road?

That may well be the case too. Though I don't see what speed has to do with your ability to cross; are cars safer to stroll out in front of if they're doing 20mph? Traffic volume is your issue there surely, rather than speed?

Volume yes, but if the traffic is travelling faster it means any gaps in traffic are shorter.

there's a couple of roads I know where bends in either direction mean that line of sight is pretty poor and even when the road is clear you can get cars coming round the bend and the faster they are going the less time you have.

Though I don't see what speed has to do with your ability to cross; are cars safer to stroll out in front of if they're doing 20mph?

Have you never started to cross the road expecting the distant car to be within the speed limit only to have to skip across the last few metres when you realise that he's actually doing 40mph?

Imagine if you are a 10 yr old and not used to judging speed, or experienced enough to understand the stupid things that drivers do. Or maybe imagine the day when you are not too mobile and not expecting cars to be doing 30%/50%/whatever over the limit.

Have you considered using pedestrian crossings? They seem to work really well in my experience.

Patronising? Have you considered travelling within the speed limit? 😉

Hmm, yes in theory. Until you have cars sailing through the red light. I reckon that I'd need to wait at the crossing near my house for all of 10 minutes before I spotted my first RLJer. Not safe for a child who's not expecting cars to do it. We have a big problem there but the council won't do anything because nobody has been hurt.

I agree that's really selfish and annoying, but how does that make pavements "unsafe" exactly? Are you talking about blocking them completely, forcing people onto the road?

I live on a main road with cars parked on the pavement all the way along. I've stepped out of my front door and had to jump back to avoid being hit by a parking car. I've had to stop my kids from running down the pavement ahead of me when I've seen a car about to park on the pavement and know that he won't see small kids hidden by the other parked cars. I've actually been hit by a minibus who pulled away seemingly unaware that the back end would swing further than the front end as she pulled off the pavement. I could add many more incidents to this but it would get very boring.

Yeah, and add in the pavement being blocked so that you have to walk in the road, etc.

This really isn't difficult stuff to work out?

if the traffic is travelling faster it means any gaps in traffic are shorter.

Ah, I see what you're saying; the gaps between strings of traffic need to be longer as speed increases, I was thinking about the traffic itself. Sure.

there's a couple of roads I know where bends in either direction mean that line of sight is pretty poor and even when the road is clear you can get cars coming round the bend and the faster they are going the less time you have.

I'd avoid crossing there if I were you, that sounds really dangerous. You'd fare better a little further down the road where you've better visibility, I expect.

Ah, I see what you're saying; the gaps between strings of traffic need to be longer as speed increases

Bingo, heavy traffic at speed is a nightmare to cross in, reduce either the speed or volume and it's a lot easier, fortunately on most roads where this is a problem there are decent (lighted) crossings. But it's becoming a bigger and bigger problem around some residential streets used as rat-runs and schools on big roads here.

I'd avoid crossing there if I were you, that sounds really dangerous. You'd fare better a little further down the road where you've better visibility, I expect.

Sadly life doesn't always live up to expectations 😉

I try to as well whenever there are roads like that, not always possible in some cases, and not everybody has the same presence of mind, and I wouldn't necessarily expect kids to think like that, or the elderly or people with mobility problems. Not to mention that expecting the pedestrians to mitigate for poor driving is entirely backwards, it's better to address the driving so that it *is* safe enough to cross there, its the cars imposing the danger, not the choice to cross, It is a perfectly safe place to cross there when traffic is travelling at appropriate speed.

You have the same problems as a cyclist and motorist pulling out of junctions that are placed like that too, bends/poor visibility in both directions, fine when people doing sensible speed but if they are not they can be round the corner and T-boning you in seconds. Suggesting I try and find an alternative junction to pull out of isn't really a viable solution!

But now we're into discussing the minutiae of specific roads, which isn't really productive as this is a general discussion.

Have you never started to cross the road expecting the distant car to be within the speed limit only to have to skip across the last few metres when you realise that he's actually doing 40mph?

It happens, but I'm usually a pretty good judge of speed. I take your point about the young / infirm though (I kinda misinterpreted the point I was replying to, as I said in my previous post, sorry).

Patronising? Have you considered travelling within the speed limit?

Presumptuous? I generally do, certainly in built-up areas anyway.

I've stepped out of my front door and had to jump back to avoid being hit by a parking car. [etc]

Good grief, really?

This really isn't difficult stuff to work out?

My front door doesn't open onto a pavement, so it wasn't something that had occurred to me. Plus I thought the issue being raised was one of [i]parked[/i] cars rather than those in the act of parking.

Incidentally, are you in London? Parking on the pavement is specifically illegal there, they have a bylaw for it. Good thing IMHO.

are cars safer to stroll out in front of if they're doing 20mph?

Absolutely.

When people speed on roads, particularly in built up areas it affects the behaviours of lots of other people. Other drivers pulling out of side roads are forced to drive aggressively as that car approaching from the right, say, if travelling at or below the speed limit gives them adequate time to pull out - however, as so many speed they are forced to accelerate hard to be certain of getting out safely. Cyclists end up riding on pavements or being forced off the road, pedestrians don't walk alongside those roads or when they do and want to cross the road take a lottery as to whether they'll be able to do so or not.
The overwhelming bias towards motor vehicles in our towns and cities disadvantages all of us - residents, pedestrians, children, cyclists, shop keepers... the studies are out there, Mayer Hillman for one has written for many years about how unfettered use of vehicles reduces or stops many other activities.

These are fun things when you're driving along in poor visibility in a 30 zone.

I get what you are saying about teaching kids about being safe on and around roads but I don't think the majority of those supporting 20 limits are against that, or advocating washing their hands of all responsibility for their kids on residential roads. The reclaim the street party vids from GrahamS' links are occasional fun days and promotional material, I doubt they are really expecting (or promoting) families to be having picnics in the middle of the road day to day.

I'd appreciate a lot more bollards in the middle of residential streets too, allowing what should be quiet narrow residential streets to become rat runs is a pretty bad failing of councils road departments. There's a "quiet" back road on my commute, the main A road has recently been reduced to 20 but the back road is still 30 so some drivers (not many have cottoned on so far thankfully) tear arse up and down that instead, daft planning.