I must admit this thread has made me rethink my attitude. I was in Cardiff 2 weeks ago and the 20 zones were really getting on my nerves, especially being tail gated. I'm pretty good at sticking to or below the 30 limit but struggled keeping it close to 20, no excuse as I have an automatic. Can't really argue with many of the points that have been made so like many others I'll have to suck this up and it will become the new normal.
I think in reality it will reduce speeds from 35 to 25 rather than 20 but that's still significant reduction in harm in the event of a collision.
One has to wonder about priorities when you consider the large NHS waiting lists in Wales vs the costs of implementing this speed change – signage, etc.
That did cross my mind too but it doesn't negate the value of the speed reductions. Be different budgets anyway so it's not like it's taking money away from the NHS.
Personally I'd like to see much harsher penalties for all sorts of traffic offences and much better enforcement. The government loves talking tough, creates lots of rules but hates enforcement. Council parking (offroad) is a prime example, councils can't use ANPR at the moment which is much cheaper, much more effective and much more consistent than wardens. Something to do with Joe Public not trusting the technology and preferring the human touch.
Should have done the whole UK, and used my plan.. switch speed limits to kmph and keep the signs as is on day one... upgrading signs as you go along where safe to do so (apart from motorways, they can be upped immediately to 120kph as a small win for the motorheads).
One has to wonder about priorities when you consider the large NHS waiting lists in Wales vs the costs of implementing this speed change – signage, etc.
This is the old argument against [anything I don't like]. The standard response of how the money would be better spent on [things I do like]. The old "whataboutery" argument, as though it's one thing OR the other but couldn't possibly be both.
Maybe - just possibly - the safer roads as a result of lower speed might result in fewer NHS resources being used up in dealing with road crashes, injuries, and deaths...? Radical thought, I know.
You don't always need to chuck money at the actual issue if you can address the cause of it further back in the link.
Higher speeds = more crashes and more severity of those crashes = more NHS resources to fix the broken people and clear up the dead ones.
Lower speeds = fewer crashes, fewer and less severe injuries and deaths = NHS savings downstream without actually having to just chuck money into the bottomless pit of the NHS.
Plus other related benefits such as lower emissions, less noise pollution, less congestion...
One has to wonder about priorities when you consider the large NHS waiting lists in Wales vs the costs of implementing this speed change – signage, etc
Currently each road fatality is £1.2m according to someone earlier in this thread.
This document -
Has some useful nuggets:
- in 20mph zones there were 42 Killed or seriously injured - and 10x that number (421) in 30 mph zones
- so just on cyclists and pedestrians alone (as well as the human cost) we are looking at what, £400m a year in costs?
So reducing road deaths in our urban areas is a place where there can be massive savings in health care and emergency services care.
Those protesting / objecting - do you really think your right to drive at 10mph faster is more important that the death of a child or a neighbour? Get over yourselves and the silly political point scoring - this is you, yours and your neighbours at risk so you can get to work 30 seconds quicker.
There is a lot of moaning about the delay's commuting to work etc, but, certainly where I live, it can take an hour to drive a 10 mile commute. At best 30 minutes, so in ideal conditions you still aren't averaging more than 20 mph - I suspect traffic will flow better at lower speeds.
An unheralded positive:
Morons willingly making themselves known to the general public.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-wales-66441825
There is a lot of moaning about the delay’s commuting to work etc, but, certainly where I live, it can take an hour to drive a 10 mile commute. At best 30 minutes, so in ideal conditions you still aren’t averaging more than 20 mph – I suspect traffic will flow better at lower speeds.
So why bother lowering the speed limit then? If you cant go quickly enough to break the proposed lower limit what’s the point?
I still think this is all just revenue driven. If the government was serious about road safety why do they continually design and approve dangerous roads? New roads are built with speed cameras from new despite the law saying you have to show there is a need to prevent accidents. The only legal justification for new roads with cameras is they are dangerous. Why not improve sight lines by more restrictions for on street parking? How about insisting on wider pavements and adequate off street parking on all new developments and more pedestrian crossings?
In 5 years time someone will prove that you could cut the death rate by another 50% if we made the speed limit 5 mph and had to have someone walking in front of the vehicle with a red flag.
Came here to see all the sensible arguments in favour have already been made, So I'll just say that I think its an excellent idea, and like most decent things has already been implemented by a lot of our European friends.
if we made the speed limit 5 mph and had to have someone walking in front of the vehicle with a red flag.
No we won't, but don't forget to tie a red ribbon to your car.
Having lived with a near blanket 20 limit for almost 10 years I can categorically state it's much better than a 30 limit. This might blow your mind but streets aren't just for cars
this is all just revenue driven
Not true at all, but I'd be perfectly happy if it was. No issues with dangerous drivers and law breakers paying for improving road safety and infrastructure for other road users
So why bother lowering the speed limit then?
To normalise it so everyone knows where they stand - especially people like you who try to find arguments against perfectly sensible safety measures.
Morons willingly making themselves known to the general public.
Oh look it's on a BMW.
especially people like you who try to find arguments against perfectly sensible safety measures.
Its not being done as a safety measure, its being done to generate revenue. As I have said in my earlier posts if it was about safety it would be part of a wider programme of redesign of existing urban areas and especially new ones. But none of that his a happening. New estates are being build with less and less space to park and narrower and narrower roads and footpaths, so developers can squeeze in more properties. If safety was the issue they would be mandated to be wider, with wider footpaths and adequate off street parking, more pedestrian crossings. But they aren’t. The 1500 home estate behind me that is being built at the moment doesnt have a single pedestrian crossing in it. Has streets so narrow 2 cars can barely pass and you would struggle to get a typical car onto the driveway let alone in the garage.
So why bother lowering the speed limit then? If you cant go quickly enough to break the proposed lower limit what’s the point?
Because you're getting confused with average speed and maximum possible speed. Even in London (average speed about 8-10mph depending on exactly what you consider as "London"), there are still areas where you can easily do 40mph, if only for very brief periods of time before you hit the next traffic jam, junction, set of lights etc.
The average speed of (let's call it) 10mph, is lower than 20mph but the maximum speeds possible on the short sections of clear road are well in excess of 20mph - which means more accidents, more delays, more KSI.
The point is that lowering to 20mph doesn't have much impact on the average speed - if anything it smooths traffic flow a bit so sometimes average speeds actually go UP slightly - but they do have an impact on the maximum possible speeds because now you won't be getting the short but dangerous bits of 40mph.
It lowers emissions as well - cars use a load of fuel in constant stop start acceleration / brake / acceleration cycles so smoother driving is better for fuel economy.
So why bother lowering the speed limit then? If you cant go quickly enough to break the proposed lower limit what’s the point?
Because it is an average speed - for every mile drivers sit in traffic, they speed up to 30 and more between delays. Thereby causing the risk.
What is interesting is that by reducing the maximum speed of vehicles in busy urban areas we actually see less congestion and delays - and often a few seconds more of journey time. IIRC there were some studies that saw faster journey times, particularly when cycling took off instead of using a car for urban journey.
Long term that 20mph may persuade many to walk, cycle or get the bus instead - and we know the average car journey in a city is something silly short. A good proportion of those cars on the school run, shop or commute could be replaced by walking, cycling or bus and that would be faster, cheaper and healthier. Why would you not want that for you community?
https://www.20splenty.org/20mph_limits_save_time_and_improve_traffic_flow
@chrismac So you would be happy with this if all the other things you mention were also implemented? So presumably you think it is a good idea from a safety perspective? Or do you want all the other things done and 30mph to remain in place on those better designed estates?
The 1500 home estate behind me that is being built at the moment doesnt have a single pedestrian crossing in it. Has streets so narrow 2 cars can barely pass
With the 20 limit it's much easier to cross roads without a crossing. Narrower streets help slow traffic too.
So why bother lowering the speed limit then? If you cant go quickly enough to break the proposed lower limit what’s the point?
Because average speed is not the same as peak speed at any point. Average speed determines how long it takes you to get to work, peak speed determines how dangerous your trip is for those around you.
The point being made is that you can reduce peak speed without having much impact on average speed.
As I have said in my earlier posts if it was about safety it would be part of a wider programme of redesign of existing urban areas and especially new ones.
How much would that cost and how long would it take?
A redesign and rebuild of every urban area within Wales. For a fraction of the cost and time, you can just put some 20mph limits in.
As a general rule, far and away the quickest, cheapest and most effective ways of improving safety in urban realm is to remove, or at least restrict, motor traffic. It's already restricted in many ways - one-way streets, pedestrianised streets, cul-de-sacs, traffic lights, bollards... they all, to some extent, restrict what traffic can and can't do. So telling the drivers how fast they can go is simply more of the same. It's not difficult.
If it is difficult, you might want to send your licence back to DVLA as you're clearly not capable of operating your vehicle properly.
From the 20splenty link above
“By linking traffic lights in sequence along main routes into the city, it is possible to time lights so that motorists who travel at the prevailing speed limit benefit from a green wave of traffic lights. They can get to the city centre smoothly, without an endless cycle of starting, stopping and queuing”
Totally agree with this statement but it has nothing to do with speed, you could just as easily phase the lights for any speed.
With the 20 limit it’s much easier to cross roads without a crossing. Narrower streets help slow traffic too.
Narrow streets because they are full of parked cars obscures the view for both driver and pedestrian making it less safe for everyone. I dont see how the speed of the vehicle changes the difficulty of looking and walking a fixed distance. You just have to look a bit further up the road, assuming you can see that far because of all the parked cars obscuring everyone’s view. This happens because of poor urban design.
Totally agree with this statement but it has nothing to do with speed, you could just as easily phase the lights for any speed.
Thereby encouraging everyone to aim for 30mph no matter what. Don't slow for the child, or the cycle overtake.
The phasing for 20mph still has same effect - but the consequences at that speed are lower. Additionally, driver learn that to 'sit' at 20mph gets them those green lights - so no point pushing faster.
This happens because of poor urban design.
Agree.
But it is also caused by way too many cars being stored on urban streets.
We have to start a process of moving people out of individual cars and using other methods of transportation.
At the same time, we need to change the infrastructure radically to favour everything but the individual car.
How much would that cost and how long would it take?
It will take for ever given that the government is doing precisely nothing to even start the process. As for cost in residential areas it wont cost a penny as it becomes a planning requirement on the developers building the estates. THe market will determine if people are prepared to pay any premium the developer might put on these estate if thats what they actually want or it will come out of reduced developer margins.
But it is also caused by way too many cars being stored on urban streets.
Completely agree yet the government is doing nothing about changing the planning requirements to stop this happening in the name of safety. Why is that? You couldn’t argue it’s because they don’t really care about road safety so are allowing, even encouraging, badly designed estates that are not as safe as they could be.
How are housing estates full of cars zooming around at 30 mph desirable, this is the sort of thinking we had in the 60's that got us in this state, I'd honestly be glad of a 15 mph limit on our estate.
Completely agree yet the government is doing nothing about changing the planning requirements to stop this happening in the name of safety. Why is that? You couldn’t argue it’s because they don’t really care about road safety so are allowing, even encouraging, badly designed estates that are not as safe as they could be.
I *think*, and do no speak for the Government or policy makers, that it is also part of the plan to persuade folk out of personal cars. No parking places = people less likely to have a car in theory. I say theory, because reality....
We are I have to keep reminding myself in a period of transition. Up here in Scotland the phrase ' A just transition' is gathering pace - and it reflects the fact that we need to plan long into the future, and while radically changing our lifestyles need to be mindfull of being fair and practical.
Its not being done as a safety measure, its being done to generate revenue.
The only way to disabuse people of this nonsense is to replace fines with driving bans.
Meanwhile, a reminder that slower speeds mean less dead children. It should be pretty simple.
its being done to generate revenue.
Even if that were true (it's not), wouldn't that be ok? Police need money don't they?
For all these naysayers - this isn't some hypothetical thing we're discussing. It's real, it's already here, people live in it, and it's better. There's no 'what if' about it.
There is also a lot of bad urban design, as well. That could also do with fixing. We like good urban design. Thing is, 20mph limits on many streets ARE good urban design.
The only way to disabuse people of this nonsense is to replace fines with driving bans.
Agreed so lets see how long it takes for that to happen. Im going for not within my lifetime. I think the odds of the punishment of causing death by reckless driving being increased to match manslaughter is pretty low.
Agreed so lets see how long it takes for that to happen. Im going for not within my lifetime. I think the odds of the punishment of causing death by reckless driving being increased to match manslaughter is pretty low.
I have always been of the view that 'three strikes and you are out' would work
Could be applied as:
- three speeding fines = automatic and unavoidable 3 month ban.
- three 'compounding' issues at once (e.g. being found with no insurance, speeding and killed someone all at same time) = ban commensurate with the worst offence, again unavoidable. Plus your car seized and sold, for the general tax fund to benefit from.
Any road with a pavement should be 20mph limit, single carriageway without pavement 30mph, dual carriageway 40mph, motorway 50mph. All enforced with cameras and black boxes in cars. Massive fines / bans for exceeding the limit.
I think electric bikes should have their assistance limit raised to 20mph, that way there would be no reason for a motorist to overtake them in a 20mph zone.
This would most useful and sensible.
Never happen though 🙁
One of the reasons I support 20mph is it is not about drivers now.
https://twitter.com/fietsprofessor/status/1692521720433844513?t=sIoZ_yWC05yEgMRkG-F4RA&s=19
Even if that were true (it’s not), wouldn’t that be ok? Police need money don’t they?
I never understand why this is seen as a valid criticism. It is just an idiot tax after all.
The only way to disabuse people of this nonsense is to replace fines with driving bans.
Fines are a means of keeping the poorer sections of society in their place. A £60 slap is not going deter a rich person.
If only there was a way to avoid driving fines.
I think electric bikes should have their assistance limit raised to 20mph, that way there would be no reason for a motorist to overtake them in a 20mph zone.
The problem is then shared use paths. 20 is too fast for most of those
I think we’re too small a market for bike manufacturers to come up with different restrictions to the EU.
I’m sure there used to be guidance that you shouldn’t be on a shared use path if you’re doing more than 18mph, which frankly is achievable on the Hybrid of Doom with a bit of a negative gradient.
Fines are a means of keeping the poorer sections of society in their place. A £60 slap is not going deter a rich person.
In Finland fines are in proportion to your income.
It doesn’t have to be expensive. When they implemented it here they just put a 20mph vinyl wrap over every 30pmh sign. There was obviously some cost in labour and printing but they didn’t actually replace any signs.
£27m here in Wales - not chump-change: https://www.southwalesguardian.co.uk/news/23661719.welsh-government-spend-27m-changing-20mph-speed-limit-signs/
Looking at the general population in south wales a probably better use of the money to save more lives might be education on diet and exercise, the number of people here in South Wales who are grossly overweight and do nothing to maintain their health is very high, with loads of messages about mental health issues and support on social media apps for the area.
Especially crazy when you consider how much open-access land there is in South Wales and the valleys.
Looking at the general population in south wales a probably better use of the money to save more lives might be education on diet and exercise, the number of people here in South Wales who are grossly overweight and do nothing to maintain their health is very high, with loads of messages about mental health issues and support on social media apps for the area.Especially crazy when you consider how much open-access land there is in South Wales and the valleys.
Well there's two arguments there, one being that they're not walking/cycling becasue the roads are too dangerous (and that is overwhelmingly the message that comes back from any survey about travel habits - lack of infrastructure / roads too busy/dangerous) - so if you at least begin to address that with lower speed limits, you're getting somewhere to making it more convenient/attractive to walk and cycle.
There's a whole different argument there about access to the great outdoors and who uses it - it is vastly, overwhelmingly white middle class people.
All sorts of attempts to get various other demographics "outdoors" and all sorts of studies as to why they don't. And ultimately, you can only go so far with "education".
"You should get outside and walk a bit cos you're a fat git". Great message and everyone goes "oh yeah but..." and then comes up with a whole load of reasons why they can't or won't.
You can educate them til the cows come home, and spend all that money on education but it's not going to make the blindest bit of difference.
@gravedigger and the main thing people say is stopping them taking exercise or eg. commuting by bike is the danger posed speeding cars everywhere.
20mph limits help with that.
We’ve got to a place in the UK where people’s right to choose other forms of transport, their right to clean air, and their children’s right to play out is overridden by others’ right to drive wherever and however they please. None of this will change until we start to restrict traffic one way or other because over and over it’s been shown that carrot without stick doesn’t work.
The 20mph speed limits might actually be detrimental to them getting to somewhere to walk , providng another excuse to not go!
I am not talking about cycling here in the valleys anyway as there are too many uninsured youths in hotted up cars or motorcycles speeding and making the roads extremely dangerous - so I won't touch the roads myself, even though there are some great 'mountain' roads and climbs.
A lot of the land is open access meaning that you can walk anywhere but not, interestly, cycle. And there are precious few bridleways and many of those aren't really passable.
An upside is that there are more gravelled routes to provide access to the wind turbines, but some of these are closed off for access as well.
With all due respect, I think you’re missing the point here - it’s not about getting to somewhere to walk, it’s about helping people feel safe eg. walking the half-mile to school or the corner shop.
Over and over, the thing that puts people off the latter is speeding traffic.
I'm all for the speed limit changes and it will make a decent change to the quality of life for residents in such areas, unless that it is you want to get to anywhere in Wales at a speed beyond cart n horse pace.
Being a North Wales resident one of the things that annoys me are the 50mph pollution limits along with the carrot/stick attitude of plenty of stick but no carrots, when it comes to getting people out of their cars and onto public transport infra.
They have been put 50mph limits in place with no consideration for changes/upgrades in public transport infrastructure in the corridors along such routes, in fact they seem to be pushing people to use more cars visiting N.Wales creating even more congestion/pollution on those roads with pollution reduction targets.
Examples, allowing Avanti trains to get away with running less services on the North Wales main line during the summer, when even the small local trains are totally rammed. Bidston/Wrexham line anytime a TfW Wales train breaks down on any other route they rob the trains of the B/W line, investing in new (well refurbished) trains for the B/W line that manage to break down due to pollen ingestion!
We then get onto S.Wales where whenever there's a massive sporting event in Cardiff, they decide to run reduced trains for the weekend.
Then there's the huge South/North bias shown yet again earlier this year where they cancelled 14 out of 15 road improvement projects in N.Wales, but only 6 out of 12 in S.Wales, and they have basically washed their hands of any investment in speeding transport North to South, citing the green agenda.
I think they know they are in a bit of a mess cash wise with the costs of the Valleys transport upgrades, and they are now doing the usual politicians trick of passing the mess onto some future Gov.
Well, you don't really need a stick for 50mph limits. It feels slow, but when you look at it rationally it's really not any kind of disadvantage at all. And of course, better air quality is a significant carrot for everyone, particularly the people who live near the road.
People who moan about lower speed limits seem to struggle with the idea that they need to accept a trivial limit on their behaviour for a significant benefit for other people. Once we can fix that attitude, we will start to progress as a country. Mainly because it's the right way to behave in a civilised society, but also because one day you will be the 'other person' that someone else's behaviour affects.
they have basically washed their hands of any investment in speeding transport North to South, citing the green agenda.
There are already motorway links between N and S Wales. Are you seriously suggesting they plough a motorway right through the heart of some of the most beautiful and wild parts of Wales? That's horrific to even think about.
Over and over, the thing that puts people off the latter is speeding traffic.
Maybe, but the 20mph is generally unenforceable over the entire road network, many people will just ignore it apart from around cameras ect. The problem speeders will still be speeding. Sorry I'm cynical about asking people about what would make them cycle more. 20mph speed limit, in reality for most people instead of definitely not cycling it'll become probably not.
@oldenough If I’ve understood correctly the evidence shows that even without enforcement, peak speeds drop as instead of driving at 35, people drive at 25.
And ‘probably not’ is progress - even 5-10% reduction in short car journeys would make a spectacular difference to traffic levels.
