Forum menu
maxtorque - MemberThe 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 - MemberIf 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.
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.
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?