[Closed] 20 MPH Speed Limits

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.

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.

There are two Toucan Crossings (peds + bikes) on my commute ([url= https://www.google.com/maps/ @54.970036,-1.692979,3a,75y,161.19h,87.13t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1s_85J2P1Pq0Rgk-fSdXArzA!2e0]here[/url] and [url= https://www.google.com/maps/ @54.965445,-1.663947,3a,75y,293.09h,91.19t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1s9OPf_CcOih6im0UCLVM7DA!2e0]here[/url]) where I regularly see cars blitz through them whilst the green man/bike is showing.

I won't cross there until there are vehicles stopped in all the lanes and I find myself warning others at the crossing of the danger.

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

Not that well it seems. Reading this poster the other way I take "A third of pedestrians are killed when they're using a crossing facility that's supposed to make them safe"

[img] [/img]

This poster actually scares me more than almost anything. We're so blase about death on the roads that we don't even seem concerned the people are regularly killed on crossings. Just how far from Vision Zero are we?

expecting the pedestrians to mitigate for poor driving is entirely backwards, it's better to address the driving

Suggesting I try and find an alternative junction to pull out of isn't really a viable solution!

No, of course; some junctions are tricksy, I know. But we seem to have segued from inappropriate speed limits to inappropriate speeding in this discussion; your example sounds like the sort of spot you'd want a speed camera.

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

When people speed on roads, particularly in built up areas it affects the behaviours of lots of other people

Not to mention the bizarre shift in their own behaviour, last winter I was unfortunate enough to be first on scene for a chap that had been knocked off his bike by a car pulling out of a petrol station, While I was there trying to keep him calm and conscious, covering him with my coat and calling an ambulance the amount of motorists squeezing past, a couple accelerating quite aggressively around us to 'get through a gap' and one complete twunt who actually honked their horn at us because they were held up really astonished me.

There's a fundamental shift in attitude for a lot of people once they climb into a car that somehow *their* journey is the most important and any minor rule breaking, rat running and such suddenly becomes fair game just to save a few seconds 🙁

But we seem to have segued from inappropriate speed limits to inappropriate speeding in this discussion

I see your point there, I did drift a little, but I guess what I'm alluding to here is that as per the OPs post, often the speed is inappropriate because drivers see the *limit* as the appropriate speed, when in a lot of cases it isn't. The crossing I'm think of is actually in a 30, but that section of road is not safe to negotiate at 30, so drivers are driving within the limit but not to the conditions.

I described that as speeding, when what I meant was driving too fast, not actually speeding as in exceeding the speed limit. my mistake as I should have clarified there because I do see you point.

What's clear from this depressingly-long thread from all the anecdotes is that we have a real problem with driver behaviour in the UK which is having all kinds of knock-on effects on quality of life for everyone.

We've managed to make significant inroads into crime, drugs, smoking, drink-driving following massive government effort and intervention.

I remember when I was at Uni in the early 90's and would come home after a night out with all my clothes stinking of smoke and you always felt that was a problem that seriously needed solving but wasn't showing any signs of being sorted.

I hope we can say the same about excessive driving and law-breaking and dangerous driving at some point in the future. It's causing untold amounts of damage... at the moment it seems to only be cyclists and parents of young kids who have enough perspective to see this...

that one is directly below a streetlamp and seems (not a great pic) to have hiviz/reflector on the very top,

It's regular ol' white paint. Mostly chipped off now if memory serves.

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

I sincerely hope you're right. I don't actually know either way, I suspect it's a bit of both on aggregate.

The crossing I'm think of is actually in a 30, but that section of road is not safe to negotiate at 30, so drivers are driving within the limit but not to the conditions.

Yeah, and herein lies the problem. Most drivers are exceptionally poor at driving to the conditions. If that weren't the case, we wouldn't need speed limits in the first place.

Cougar - Moderator

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?

Honestly yes. It doesn't happen a huge amount but it's not just a recent problem. My wife was almost hit by a neighbour when she was pregnant with our first child, so 11 years ago.

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

A lot of sadly familiar stories here, had the twunts driving along the pavement (god forbid you drive a bit away from where you are delivering to or negotiate that 2" cliff without a drop kerb) nearly knocking me over at the end of the path.

This bit https://maps.google.co.uk/maps?q=eastern+avenue,+largs%5D&hl=en-GB&ll=55.796243,-4.854321&spn=0.000024,0.019205&gbv=2&hnear=Eastern+Ave&gl=uk&t=m&z=16&layer=c&cbll=55.796243,-4.854321&panoid=n53GPX6GxmuJeKuIXvWr2w&cbp=12,187.72,,0,0 just along from my house is the worst. Looks nice doesn't it? Schooldays there's usually a bus parked there, on the pavement, on the opposite side from where most cars park (I say that but...). The amount of cars parked there has increased exponentially since that picture was taken, most times of the day that road is jam packed and you're lucky to get along the length without having to use a side street or pavement as a passing place. Should be a 20 but even that is too fast on the bends. Speed bumps would be nice but some helpful individual ripped the last one upso they could get their scene trash about town quicker.

I'd happily blanket the entire area and have traffic wardens round the schools and town centre, a bigger bunch of selfish a**eholes you will never encounter.

20mph zone in Camden borough now, feels more like something to aim for rather than a limit, wish I could drive that fast!

What's clear from this depressingly-long thread from all the anecdotes is that we have a real problem with driver behaviour in the UK which is having all kinds of knock-on effects on quality of life for everyone.

This is the real issue and I think uenforced 20 mph limits will make it worse as it becomes normal for most people to ignore speed limits. The general trend of dropping speed limits without enforcement or changes to the road layout is making the roads less safe. We need to enforce existing limits with harsher penalties. The main reason drink driving was cut was the likelihood of severe sanction in losing your licence. If it had been 3 points and £60 I doubt many people would have changed.

The people mist at fault are the road planners not designing the roads to cope with human inability to do the obviously most sensible thing. I trail build with the FC and it's taken us a while to realise if we want riders to stay on the trail (riding off the edges quickly destroys the trail) we have to design it so they can't ride off the trail or provide official alternate lines. We used to moan about it but not treat it the way we treat trail design to cope with rain, it's an act of nature that won't follow The Rules.

From the the House of Commons Transport Committee on Cycling Safety report just published - this is all very relevant to this thread:

Basically, 20mph is reckoned to be pointless without police support (for which there isn't the money) because the Great British Public are just a bunch of criminals with no regard for the law when they get in their cars...

StumpyJon's point about learning from trailbuilding is very valid IMO. I'm also part of a trailbuilding team and in our experience we can get people to ride where we want them to by the way we design the trail and sightlines.

Speed bumps and naked roads are all trying to achieve this I guess - but as yet we've clearly not found an effective solution which will work in all circumstances.

OP - the answer to your complaint about a blanket default of 20mph lies here too - because drivers can't be trusted to drive carefully where the community needs them to, and the council/police can't afford to put in infrastructure/enforce it - a blanket 20mph is the only (cost) effective solution

20mph zones
Several witnesses called for a reduction in speed limits in local roads, noting that a cyclist involved in a collision with a car travelling at 20mph had a 2.5% chance of a fatal injury, compared to a 20% chance if the car was travelling at 30mph.
There was also, we heard, less chance of collisions when cars travelled at lower speeds, as they had more time to react to cyclists and take action to avoid collisions: Sustrans told us that there had been a
60% reduction in injury collisions in 250 existing 20 mph zones.24 Sustrans noted, however,that the “profound effects on road safety” that could be achieved with lower speed limits required the police to enforce these limits.
This was highlighted by several witnesses as unlikely, due to limited resources. Councillor David Hodge, Leader of Surrey County
Council told us:
The problem is that it is all very well putting in a 20 mph limit, but unless somebody is going to enforce it you have wasted a whole load of money. My view is that I have no intention of wasting public money putting in 20 mph zones. When I drove here today I went through Kingston and saw the extent of a 20 mph zone. Nobody was doing 20 mph, but 20 mph was painted on roads almost half a mile from the schools. It went on and on, and nobody was doing it. That is the problem. If you have a 20 mph limit and people obey it,that is fine, but I do not have the resources—I do not think the police in Surrey have the resources—to man nearly 600 different sites with a 20 mph limit, never mind looking at towns and everything else.
In Chichester, where West Sussex County Council introduced 20mph limits for all residential streets in 2012, the local cycling campaign group, ChiCycle, told us that the police had been “very reluctant” to enforce the 20mph limit, due to limits on their resources. The costs of introducing 20 mph zones were also highlighted by witnesses.
Councillor Ian Davey, Deputy Leader of Brighton and Hove Council, told there was a case for default 20 mph zones, due to the cost of introducing lower speed limits on certain roads:
At the moment we have to mark all the 20 mph roads as an exception. It just means that, as it is, there is a lot more work—a lot more infrastructure, paint on the ground, signs and expense—so changing that default would make it cheaper, easier and safer.
Councillor Davey added that, in his view, reducing speed limits, and making the roads safer would not have “anything other than a positive impact on the viability of local economies”.

We've just been reclassified as a 20 zone.

I'm pleased, tbh.
Wide roads, but lots of older residents and plenty of kids.

No bumps/excessive street furniture.

Hardly anyone raced around anyway, it's a quiet place.
20 feels safer than 30.

Happy.

Interesting brooess thanks.

Did anyone question [i]why[/i] the police couldn't possibly enforce 20 limits because the don't have the resources, but they can enforce 30 limits??

Or are they admitting they don't enforce those either?

More offenders?

massive reduction in dedicated traffic officers nation-wide. devon and cornwall have no dedicated traffic officers ( or didn't ) for instance.
speed limits exist to cater to the lowest common denominator. for sure. if we could trust everyone to behave themselves and just ' don't be a dick ' , then we wouldn't need half the legislation we have in all aspects of life, never mind road traffic law. sadly i think we're a long way from that.
oh - and yes, everyone should be watching out for everyone's kids. they don't know any better, and if the folks aren't around, it is incumbent on all of us to watch out for them.
keep an eye out for my dog, too, will you? 😉

[i] When I drove here today I went through Kingston and saw the extent of a 20 mph zone. Nobody was doing 20 mph, but 20 mph was painted on roads almost half a mile from the schools. It went on and on, and nobody was doing it. [/i]

I lived about 2 miles from Kingston centre about 21 years ago and large sections of the side streets were 20mph back then. It's hardly a new thing that people need to get used to.

Well, it's 3.20am and I've got really bad insomnia so being bad-tempered I thought I'd do some research about getting traffic wardens up here to book the cars on the pavement.

First stop the local government website but they don't cover pavement parking, the police do.

Of course on the police website there isn't anything like a form to fill in or similar, and it feels a little petty to be ringing the police to book cars when they have far too much to do anyway. Like fill forms in. 😆

But finally I found an online form section and had to laugh when the second option down (after [i]I have a recruitment query[/i]) is [i]I want to say thanks for a good service.[/i] 😆

Sadly no request for traffic wardens but I can [i]report a vacant house or business[/i]. I'll be awake until dawn wondering why I'd want to do that.

[b]*Resurrection*[/b]

Following this thread has anyone spotted the story about Southwark Council extending the 20mph limits to cover cyclists as well?

http://road.cc/content/news/124518-southwark-plans-crackdown-20mph-cyclists

I found this quote from the Met spokesperson astonishing:

"We also object to the implementation of the 20 mph limit where it is not obvious to the motorist through the look and feel of the road that the speed limit is 20 mph."

I can point them at several dual-carriageways and motorways that have 50 limits but they "look and feel of the road" suggests they should be 70 limits.

They don't seem to have an issue with enforcing those for some reason.