[Closed] 20 MPH Speed Limits

I never realised how conservative and resistant to change the 'great' British public were until we started trying to enforce speed limits and safe driving in 1990's and onwards. The general response to 'please drive more carefully so you don't kill other people and their children' has been "waaah waaah waaah, I want to drive however I like, nasty government telling ME what to do, why should I?"

Honestly, it's embarrassing seeing the tantrums grown ups get themselves into when driving...

[quote=amedias ]If it really is a small town then how far is it across town, 2-3 miles tops? so even driving right from one side of town to another at 20 instead of 30 the impact on your journey is a couple of minutes maybe?

Not even that. [url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brampton,_Cambridgeshire ]Brampton[/url] apparently has a population of more than 5000, but even the [url= https://www.google.co.uk/maps/dir/Brampton,+Cambridgeshire/52.3281468,-0.2410463/ @52.3245997,-0.2391889,15z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m9!4m8!1m5!1m1!1s0x4877c2e29705089d:0x8b2d8a912b564aba!2m2!1d-0.220177!2d52.320278!1m0!3e1]longest possible route from one side to the other[/url] is only 1.1 miles, so we're talking at most an extra minute.

The other point the OP seems to be missing, which you'd think being on a cycling forum he ought to be keen on* is that slowing down cars to cycling speeds has a significant impact on encouraging cycling - not only because there is no perceived speed advantage from driving, but also because the perceived risk is significantly reduced.

*I do appreciate there are plenty on here who get upset at cyclists getting in their way when driving their Audi to the trail centre with their Orange on the roof.

I think it's time we brought back the Green Cross Code adverts, for a start. Where I live is hardly yummy mummy cul-de-sac central, and there's still almost as many kids playing football in traffic as there is cars.

Do you think that's a bad thing?!

Do you think that's a bad thing?!

D28boy - would you not be better having this discussion with your local councillor(s) than here?

As for why a blanket on the whole area - either their perception of the risk is different from yours (and bear in mind they will know about all KSI accidents in the area, the police feedback, other public opinion etc). OR when the manager of the roads department looked at the paperwork and cost involved in one big area v's lots of small areas he didn't see a compelling case for keeping some roads at 30.

Enforcability has been discussed - IF the police officer said that he's (a) an idiot (b) trying to show off OR (c) ill informed. However it is possible that they have put up RED 20 signs without a TRO in place which would be unenforceable but appear to anyone who hadn't checked the paperwork to be valid.

midlifecrashes - Member

Police have chosen not to enforce them, who you gonna call, the police?

Not true around here, have seen the mobile camera near me several times in 20mph zones.

Several sites detailed here:

http://www.safecam.org.uk/CameraSites/CameraList.aspx?d=6

Nowadays I find myself looking for speed signs rather than watching for pedestrians/cyclists/emerging

Seems a strong argument for blanket 20mph. Much clearer and less problematic for those poor put upon drivers. Much of Europe has managed this with 30kmh zones very widespread and in some countries rigorously enforced with proper penalties.

Police attitude in the UK is unacceptable. They are public employees and the public (via our democratically elected governors) has determined that lower speed limits are desirable. The Police should be enforcing.

Amedias--yes I probably meant mildy annoying..you on the other hand are infuriating.

Now I've calmed down from my rant I've researched what stats I can from our local council & find for the 10 years to 2010 there were 4 reported pedestrian accidents in the whole of the area that is covered by the 20 mph zone in that period. The fact that none of these incidents have taken place at either of our schools is re-assuring as is the fact that we have had no fatalities.So our contribution the the National Annual 25,218 pedestrian casualties in 2012 is comfortingly low though regretable nonetheless. I would imagine the stats for pedestrians injuries involving a fall would be significantly greater and so I stick with my compulsory helmet & body armour recommendation Graham S.After all why wait for the accident to happen to take preventative action.

Rant over ....

FYI there was no consultation with the local community over this issue simply a request by our council to the Government to proceed as a trial area I believe.

you on the other hand are infuriating

hurrah 😀

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 😉

FYI there was no consultation with the local community over this issue simply a request by our council to the Government to proceed as a trial area I believe

I reckon that will have been driven by something, either pressure form a local group or council on a mission, but either way they will have had to justify it.

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!) that speed limits are "advisory". There eyes tell them the road is clear, and "normilisation" tells them that yesterday, and the day before, and the day before that (x1000) they drove down this bit of road fine at 28 mph or whatever.

So, now, what do we do when we need to make drivers aware of a "real" hazard? No ones, going to be looking at the plethora of signs afterall, and even if they are, they will be mostly ignoring them.

In a modern car, for the most part, 20mph is and feels incredibly slow, so people tend to exceed that speed. In fact, plenty of studies have shown that we simply drive to our perceived level of risk (make things safer, we just drive faster etc).

The fundamental SAFE approach to all driving is to "LINK SPEED TO VISION" and blanket bans both undermine this, and remove the driver from the decision making process. Time after time you hear, after an "accident" either "they were driving over the speed limit, like a madman" or "It's fine, they weren't speeding afterall". Both of which completely fail to negate the fact there was an accident of course! (Whilst driving on average more slowly can of course limit the effects of an accident, if we apply that to it's logical conclusion, we need a blanket ZERO mph limit.....)

I am going to suggest that driving and our roads in the UK have a more than acceptable level of safety / risk. Afterall, when was the last time you got into a car and before you drove you thought "ooh, need to be careful today, i might be hurt/killed". I'd say you are approximately 1000 times more likely to be thinking "wonder whats for dinner" or "have i got time to pick up the drycleaning" etc.

And that really is the point. Accident are the ABNORMAL state of our roads. Unfortunately, those abnormal states carry a penalty for those involved, but rather than place some personal responsibility on ALL parties for their actions (drivers, cyclists, pedestrians etc) we just keep lowering speed limits and hoping the problem "goes away" before the road systems grinds to a halt.

In the UK, we have around 4.3 road deaths per BILLION Km driven. That is a low number, and means not crashing is the "normal" state for the average driver of course.

If we actually want to reduce that (low) number by any significant margin, we need to have proper driver education and testing, and a proper road safety curriculum for schools and colleges, not some arbitrary and practically un-enforceable signs blanketing our roads.

/rant

[i]Police have chosen not to enforce them, who you gonna call, the police?
[/i]
Not true around here, have seen the mobile camera near me several times in 20mph zones.

Yep, we have that too, but when they get clocked between 20 and 33 in a 20 zone they either get a talking to or a letter of "advice". Pointless.

Couple of years back they took a group of our primary school kids out with the police to a 20 road near the school. Obviously two marked police cars, a local journalist with photographer and thirty kids in hi-viz meant not many were dumb enough to get caught, in fact they only got one guy who then got quite shouty and sweary in front of the kids. Shame he was the mayor!

If we actually want to reduce that (low) number by any significant margin, we need to have proper driver education and testing, and a proper road safety curriculum for schools and colleges, not some arbitrary and practically un-enforceable signs blanketing our roads

I agree very much on the training, educattion and awareness sides of it. The two are not mutually exclusive though.

You can have default 20mph urban speed limits AND proper driver education and testing, and a proper road safety curriculum for schools and colleges

Wasn't there an experiment ( in Holland I think) where they removed all the uneccessary road signage as it was preceived that the motorist had information overload leading to more accidents. Better to concentrate on looking at the road than reading a plethora of advisory / unecessary info.

Wasn't there an experiment ( in Holland I think) where they removed all the uneccessary road signage as it was preceived that the motorist had information overload leading to more accidents. Better to concentrate on looking at the road than reading a plethora of advisory / unecessary info.

Surely you're arguing for more road signage, not less? Having a 20 post at each entrance to town and then repeaters is easier than having to check whether side streets are 20 or 30 depending on whether you perceive there to be an increased level of risk.

Nowadays I find myself looking for speed signs rather than watching for pedestrians/cyclists/emerging cars.

you are a shit driver then

No Lemonysam what I think I was trying to imply is that 99.9% of motorists drive safely and at an appropriate speed for their surroundings. Only insurance fraudsters actively seek out an accident. Therefore if we're left alone to drive without big brother looking over our shoulders at every corner things would pretty much carry on as before and could even get better as people will be concentrating on what actually is most important looking at the road.

Afterall, when was the last time you got into a car and before you drove you thought "ooh, need to be careful today, i might be hurt/killed".

20 zones are not there to protect car occupants.

Conversely when was the last time most adults said to their kids: "Hey go out and play on your bikes in the street"?

We used to. It used to be commonplace. 🙁

In the UK, we have around 4.3 road deaths per BILLION Km driven. That is a low number, and means not crashing is the "normal" state for the average driver of course.

It's [i]quite[/i] a low number. Not as low as 3.3 in Norway or 3.4 in Denmark and Ireland. But not at all bad on the world stage.

There are plenty of reasons for this, not least that we are a rich country driving modern safe cars on modern roads, and that most of our population are too intimidated by roads to cycle or let kids near them.
And of course that figure is just for deaths, not injuries.

And it really needs to be put in context with other UK travel risk figures*

Air: 0.00 deaths and 0.01 injuries per billion km
Rail: 0.0 deaths and 25.0 injuries per billion km
Bicycle: 24 deaths and 3816 injuries per billion km
Pedestrian: 23 deaths and 1403 injuries per billion km
Motorcycle: 67 deaths and 3929 injuries per billion km

(Source: RAS53001, DfT RRCGB 2012)

Look at Air and Rail. [i]Those[/i] are low numbers and yet they both have much tighter regulations than driving.

(The Space Shuttle only had 5.99 deaths per billion km!)

arbitrary and practically un-enforceable signs blanketing our roads.

No need to blanket the roads with signs if 20 was made the new default speed in residential areas.

Incidentally what is it about a 20 limit that makes it "practically un-enforceable" compared to a 30 limit?

anagallis_arvensis - Member
Nowadays I find myself looking for speed signs rather than watching for pedestrians/cyclists/emerging cars.
you are a shit driver then

Sorry Stig

I was trying to imply is that 99.9% of motorists drive safely and at an appropriate speed for their surroundings.

I'm not sure where you live but it doesn't sound like anywhere in the UK I've been!

99.9% of motorists drive safely and at an appropriate speed for their surroundings.

Whilst driving on average more slowly can of course limit the effects of an accident

Yes that is correct. It's the basic fundamental part of risk assessment, (I nearly said the *&* word).

Risk = Likelihood X Consequence.

The hazard is vehicle v vulnerable road user. Hit a pedestrian with a vehicle at 40mph, most will die or be very seriously injured, at 30mph the outcome is more favourable to the pedestrian, at 20mph less again.

When trying to reduce the risk there is a hierarchy of control measures.

[img] [/img]

Some are impossible to do, some are already in place, some can lead to other problems. A blanket 20mph speed limit is easy to impliment and changes the consequence drastically.

I'll take my Hi-Vis jacket and hard hat off now, so you're safe from the Safety Elves.

INRAT

I'd rather they enforced a 20mph zone next to a school at 3pm than sat in a layby enforcing a 60mph outside town for half a day, like they do around here.

+1. In one of my more "arsier" moments I asked a couple of coppers why they were using a speed gun to catch drivers who were breaking the 40mph limit near my house when there were no pedestrians, houses etc, and the stretch became a 60mph road a couple of hundred metres later. I suggested that within 600m of where they stood people regularly drove 50+ in a built up 30mph area with lots of pedestrians, cyclists etc.
He had little to say so I assumed it was simply a money making exercise and not related to road safety.

I suggested that within 600m of where they stood [b]people regularly drove 50+ in a built up 30mph[/b] area with lots of pedestrians, cyclists etc.

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

I'm guessing that more people break the speed limit where the coppers are - just less of a risk of people having accidents. I suppose it's all target based but the wrong targets? If targets were based on number of accidents then maybe they'd change their approach?

I support 20 zones in all villages unless there's an obvious A road (with pelican crossings) then it should be 30.

I was trying to imply is that 99.9% of motorists drive safely and at an appropriate speed for their surroundings

I've stopped laughing enough to post now.

This feels very relevant -
[url=
http://aseasyasridingabike.wordpress.com/2014/07/15/asking-people-to-behave-instead-of-making-them/ ]"these homemade signs .... wouldn’t exist if drivers responded properly to their environment; there wouldn’t be any need to exhort them to slow down to an appropriate speed if they were already doing it. Moreover, there wouldn’t be any need for barriers to stop children crossing the road where they want to, if we could rely on drivers approaching schools at a sensible speed.

What these signs demonstrate are that ‘soft’ measures – education, exhortation, awareness, and so on – don’t work. We need physical environments that make people behave, and that design in safety.[/url]

And also this -
[url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-22570898 ]Half of parents driving their children to UK primary schools live under a mile away, walk-to-school campaigners say.....while 80% had walked to school when they were young[/url]

And this -
[url= http://www.****/news/article-1291970/Couple-threatened-social-services-children-ride-bikes-school.html ]Couple threatened by social services for letting their children cycle to school[/url] Daily mail link so will be blocked but this also relevant ([url= http://news.bbc.co.uk/cbbcnews/hi/newsid_7380000/newsid_7385200/7385279.stm ]BBC[/url])

Parents don't allow their kids to walk or cycle to school because they perceive it's not safe. That's not a successful road safety strategy and neither sustainable (pollution) or healthy (fat kids).

local village near me, 20 mph speed limit past school, no speed camera operatives, but hugecongestion caused by stupid people double parking etc, last night 17.00 2 speed camera operatives , taking car numbers, only 1 and ahalf hours late, but it was a nice night for them

OP - read this comment from one of Simon's links in his post above and please stop being a tit! There's MASSIVE downsides for everyone from the dominance of cars and the inability of drivers to think outside their tiny boxes...

Precisely why I’m leaving the UK and moving to the Netherlands after years of badgering my local council to think about why 99% of the parents drive everywhere. I’ve said my piece, as have many others in the same position but our local authority, like every other say something like “the numbers of people crossing here don’t even justify a lolly pop lady”.
The flagrant abuse of speed limits and guidelines on driving appropriately to weather conditions is also partly down to cars being more designed to go faster than our roads allow – is there a gear for 20mph? Most drivers say it’s not easy to say around that speed.
In any case, I can’t see it changing, it needs at least 40% to revolt against it and the motor car has been taken into the hearts of pretty much everyone I know as a trusty safe friend, it’s depressingly unlikely that they will try to restrict a trusty safe friend. I feel like I’m in some bad film where almost everyone is brainwashed.
I can’t wait to live back in the Dutch sanity of going out for a drink with my friends…by bike.
The Netherlands is far from perfect (especially if you ask their cycle campaigners) but I will at least get to ride with my kids every day, which is very important to me.
The UK has failed my kids and boy, am I angry!

Well said simons_nicolai-uk (and brooess)

I think that's something that the OP and others miss. D28boy said:
[i]
"I've nothing against the idea of reducing speed in areas where there is a perceived level of risk...outside schools or hospitals for instance but why make the blanket change over the whole town."[/i]

But part of the point is a 20 zone [i]just[/i] outside a school doesn't make it safer to walk to school. It just makes it safer to drop the kids off at school in your car!

To encourage walking (and cycling) you need to make [i]all[/i] the residential roads a 20.

bigblackshed
A blanket 20mph speed limit is easy to impliment and changes the consequence drastically.

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!

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 said maxtorque. With you 100 [s]mph[/s] % on that ! 😀

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....

By "lowest common denominator" do you mean "children"?

[quote=maxtorque ]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!

Which other limits are more important?

(if you're an STW addict you'll note I was making the same argument earlier, but about 70 limits on motorways, which I do believe are a lot less important than 20 limits in places where walking and cycling need to be encouraged)

Oh and only ineffective because nobody is prepared to police them and the attitude of society (including the police) needs fixing.

The only reason those figures aren't higher is because most people are too scared of the roads to ... let their kids play in the streets for fear of the traffic.
...
Do you think that[kids playing in traffic]'s a bad thing?!

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 think there should be more, better places for kids to play, and I think the media need to be taken to task for their Noncegate reporting which has left parents scared to let their little darlings out of their sights for fear of men in polyester. Why do kids need to boot a ball across a main road when there's a park with three football pitches and a rec with swings etc not two blocks away? Why can't they play in their gardens or at least on the pavement instead of the road? Why is the onus now on society to supervise your children?

I have early memories of being told "STAY AWAY FROM THE ROAD" when playing out. I remember one time, shouting across the road to chat to my friend on the other side, but us not being able to play together because we'd both been told much & more by our respective parents not to cross the road. When I was older and could play out further afield, I used to go to the park, or play in the back streets, or indeed anywhere except the middle of the road. Because it's a bloody dangerous place.

What's the alternative? You teach kids that it's ok to play in the road and motorists etc will just have to take the responsibility for them? That if they hurl themselves under someone's wheels chasing a football it's all the driver's fault? What happens to little Hermione and Bella the first time they stray away from their suburban paradise at number 37 Lofty Equines Close, with no road sense and no traffic calming measures in place?

I'm all for reducing speed limits to 20 in some areas, especially around schools and suchlike. But it should be safety for if / when potential accidents may present themselves, rather than because it's fun to play in traffic.

so MaxT and D28 (and Cougar, it seems), your children want to cycle to school, would you rather they had to mix with traffic doing 20ish, or 30ish?

is there a gear for 20mph? Most drivers say it’s not easy to say around that speed.

The only reason it's not easy to stay around that speed is they've no experience of doing so. It's as easy do drive at 20 as it is to drive at 30, they're just used to it.

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.