[Closed] Why is the urban speed limit not 20MPH by default?

For what it's worth,

Made-up statistics aside, I think the country needs a national revision of speed limits across the board. I think some are too low, and some are too high.

"Speed kills" is short-sighted, Daily Mail-pleasing, revenue-earning claptrap. What kills is *inappropriate* speed. What kills is not paying attention, yakking on the phone whilst trying to light a fag and tell little Hermione to be quiet and blimey look at the legs on that *crunch*

Driving past a school at 20mph at 9am is probably too fast. Driving past a school at 40mph at 4:30 in the morning, probably perfectly safe. Driving on a motorway in freezing fog is a different situation to a balmy spring afternoon, which is different again to midnight. A single carriageway might have stretches where it's safe to do 90, but with a nasty corner that you can only do 40 round when it's wet because of the fallen leaves, and you need to slow down coming past the farm because you can't see the entrance properly.

People aren't taught to make this kind of decision. They're taught "this makes you go, this makes you stop, try not to hit anything, off you go then." So we stick these little one-size-fits-none round signs everywhere to tell the mouth-breathers what a sensible speed should be, erring on the side of caution in case it rains one day or someone's driving a Morris Marina.

ZOMG YOUR ALL MAINICAS 4 DRIVIN @30!! campaigns make me despair, because it's a knee-jerk reaction to a bigger problem that doesn't have a simple solution. Yes, wholeheartedly, some roads should have a 20mph limit. But suggesting blindly reducing the limit of every urban road to 20mph without any analysis whatsoever beyond a handful of made-up stats scraped from a website with an axe to grind, well, it's the ramblings of someone who fundamentally misunderstands the problem. Sorry.

a handful of made-up stats scraped from a website

Copied from one place. Not scraped.

I started driving through my local town (Dorking) at 20 about three years ago. It is massively better all round - instead of accelerating to the next lights you can easily just roll along and anticipate the flow - people can filter in and out, pedestrians can cross the road and so-on.

It only feels slow because you haven't tried it properly. Do it for a year and then comment.

I think it is perfectly sensible and practical - not all 30 limits down to 20, but High Streets and residential two lanes.

Copied from one place. Not scraped.

Yes, that was the salient point in that last post, well done.

And +1 - it is how we are taught that is wrong.

We should start out by thinking of the roads as a massive cooperative system, with the ideal outcome being mutually beneficial flow.

Edit: that includes people being able to cross the road, cycles making safe progress etc etc. For example, scanning the pavement looking for people that want to cross - when you slow down you have ample time for stuff like that.

i mean have you tried driving around at 20mph? sod that! i like to get to where i'm going in a reasonable amount of time

It won't make much difference. It'll look like it will, but it won't.

Cougar and mmb - GIVEN that people are going to walk out in front of cars and yak on phones or otherwise not concentrate whilst driving, it's better to be doing 20 than 30 when it happens, isn't it?

You won't stop people not concentrating on stuff, driving or walking. It's impossible.

I think it is perfectly sensible and practical - not all 30 limits down to 20, but High Streets and residential two lanes

Of course. It's not 30 everywhere in the first place.

Yes, that was the salient point in that last post, well done.

I thought you made some good points, but speed limits that vary by time and weather and location are rather difficult to implement. In the mean time, perhaps lowering the maximum might go some way toward making urban areas nicer places to live, work and travel?

Or, at least, having another look at the urban (and other) speed limits. Maybe it should be 20 or 40 or 50 or 100? Why is it 30?

no matter if the accidents are speed related or not speed [b]does[/b] affect the outcome for those involved, particularly pedestrians, which you tend to get a lot of in [i]residential[/i] areas.

Retro they may have made them up, I dunno, but the fact still stands dropping the speed limit by 33% (assuming 30 to 20) will not produce 33% longer journey times. plus there will still be the 30mph+ arterial roads (tho I'm buggered if I know where they will be round my way)

Perhaps our pedestrians are just more stupider than those elsewhere?

Perhaps our [s]pedestrians[/s] [i]drivers[/i] are just more [s]stupider[/s] [i]selfish[/i] than those elsewhere?

Some 'objective' facts: https://sites.google.com/site/driversprotestunion/the-dangerous-20

Very objective! I like their poll:

"If you knew that speed limits are totally arbitrary and unscientific, speed cameras cannot see one single accident cause and that the simple act of going above a number on a pole, (speeding) cannot cause an accident, would you support speed cameras?"

Where did the pole come from?

Why is it so hard for some people to understand that slowing down reduces the consequences of [s]accidents[/s] collisions, even if speeding doesn't [i]cause[/i] the collisions??

GIVEN that people are going to walk out in front of cars and yak on phones or otherwise not concentrate whilst driving, it's better to be doing 20 than 30 when it happens, isn't it?

In the industry I work in, that's what we'd refer to as a "workaround." How about increasing penalties for driving with a phone pressed to your ear, for starters. Or, hey, back when I were a lad, Bristol's Darth Vader used to tell us how to cross roads without dying, whatever happened to that?

speed limits that vary by time and weather and location are rather difficult to implement

's pretty much where I was going. I'm not talking about enforcing variable speed limits, I'm talking about teaching people to be better drivers so that we don't need to worry so much about limits. Though it's not a bad idea; have signs that are zoned (like you get with bus lanes currently) perhaps?

we should be looking out for them and expecting it, not just blaming them.

I won't be there when you cross the road, so always remember the Green Cross Code.

Objective!? Just a load of crap - the concentration needed to go 20 is so high that you can't watch the road properly! Absolute rubbish. Just put the car in 3rd and leave the pedals alone. Maximise the gap to the car ahead (three seconds is nice) and relax.

The DPU (actually one bloke called Keith) are awesomely insane.

no matter if the accidents are speed related or not speed does affect the outcome for those involved,

You might be right, but call me old fashioned but I'd rather not hit anything in the first place.

Why is it so hard for some people to understand that slowing down reduces the consequences of collisions, even if speeding doesn't cause the collisions??

Because of reducto ad absurdum. Get rid of all the cars and walk everywhere, that'd reduce RTAs by 100%. What's the problem?

Because of reducto ad absurdum. Get rid of all the cars and walk everywhere, that'd reduce RTAs by 100%. What's the problem?

You'd still get accidents on the roads, as pedestrians might accidentally walk into each other. Some of these may be fatal, if one pedestrian is particuylarly frail, or falls awkwardly.

Zero fatalities will never happen, but...

A quick Google (I've seen several similar graphs) found this graph, which shows the chance of death when a pedestrian is hit by a motor vehicle. The energy involved is related to the square of the velocity, so reducing the velocity makes a huge difference.

[img] [/img]

I'll take 1 in 20 over 50:50 any day.

Because of reducto ad absurdum. Get rid of all the cars and walk everywhere, that'd reduce RTAs by 100%. What's the problem?

Increaso ad absurdum, lets set them at 70mph then.

It's an urban area - people mill about and sometimes get on the road - like the Highway Code says, we should be looking out for them and expecting it, not just blaming them.

Good point, but I'd counter that you'll also miss seeing pedestrians that certainly do warrant attention. Especially since spring is on the way.

Good point glenp - rest assured I am always on the look-out for such sights.

Perhaps our pedestrians [s]drivers[/s] are just more stupider [s]selfish[/s] than those elsewhere?
It's an urban area - people mill about and sometimes get on the road - like the Highway Code says, we should be looking out for them and expecting it, not just blaming them.

I find it quite stupid that the speed limit is 70mph on the motorway, it was 70mph when MK1 escorts and other similar cars on the road that used drum brakes front and back to stop and big metal pointy steering wheels.
Cars are probably 1000 times more safer now and stop in 1/4 of the distance and corner better and better mirrors ect ect so really the speed limit should be raised to 90mph, or atleast between the hrs of 10pm and 5am, iyts like traffic lights, at 10pm they should just all flash orange and its free for all untill 5am, nothing worse than sat at a set of traffic lights for 2 mins whilst nothing is in sight.
What should really happen in built up areas is if you are caught speeding eg 35mph in a 30 you get a £1000 find.
Also what i find rediciouls is speed cameras right outside a school, drivers are more intrested in looking at there speedos to make sure there doing 30 than watching for kids stepping / running into the road.
Its ok blaming the drivers, but id say half of fatel incidents with pedestrians is down to the pedestrians, that step out probably drunk or drugged up on a Fri or Sat night.

molgrips - Member

Speed limits on Britain’s urban roads are 60% higher than Europe. (30 mph compared to 18.6 mph)

Seems to be 50km/h here in Germany most of the time, or 30mph.

OK I know this was back near the start, but in Germany the standard speed limits in residential areas is 30kmh.
And it is much more policed in Germany as well. Through roads in villages tend to be 50kmh IF they a judged to be wide enough (which is actually most of the time) but as soon as you turn off the through roads its 30.

It does feel a lot safer being a pedestrian or cyclist in residential areas as well.

Are you trying to say, Count Zero, that you drive along towards a pedestrian crossing and get surprised when a pedestrian pops out wanting to cross?

Why not just keep a look out and expect people to want to cross? Going down a line of parked cars - there's potential for kids, cats, dozy folk to emerge - you're awareness of them is as diminished as their's of you, because of the parked cars. Drive further out - you should be a door opening away anyway, so if anyone emerges there's going to be a little room anyway. Same for cycling - never cycle withing a car door opening space of parked cars.

As for your how often question - never. If I see someone not looking I'm covering my brakes, moving further out and [i]then[/i] alerting them if I need to. Just ploughing on straight without either slowing or moving out is just daft, whether you ring your bell or not.

Sounds to me like you ride in the gutter of the road, in which case you're just asking for trouble.

Also what i find rediciouls is speed cameras right outside a school, drivers are more intrested in looking at there speedos to make sure there doing 30 than watching for kids stepping / running into the road.
Its ok blaming the drivers, but id say half of fatel incidents with pedestrians is down to the pedestrians, that step out probably drunk or drugged up on a Fri or Sat night.

Maybe the question should be why would anyone want to travel at a speed that is highly likely to cause a pedestrian/cyclist death if an impact happens?

(Regardless of whether the pedestrian did something stupid or not )

I am sure people don't think 'I want to drive at a speed likely to cause death'. They drive to the speed limits (more or less) and with the flow of traffic.

I would be a bit narked if some muppet decided it was a good idea to drive at 20 mph in a 30mph zone because 's/he didn't want to drive at a speed likely to cause death' and I had to sit behind them.

EDIT: I should add that I would only feel that way if it was clearly safe to be driving at 30mph (ie, not going past a school at 9am etc...)

OK I know this was back near the start, but in Germany the standard speed limits in residential areas is 30kmh.
And it is much more policed in Germany as well. Through roads in villages tend to be 50kmh IF they a judged to be wide enough (which is actually most of the time) but as soon as you turn off the through roads its 30.

It does feel a lot safer being a pedestrian or cyclist in residential areas as well.

That's sensible, unlike the suggested blanket 20mph for all roads regardless of context.

I couldnt agree more, i hate people driving at 20 in a 30 all it does is make me mad and i have to do more than 30 to overtake them so its the person doing 20 that makes people speed!
I was an undertaker for many years and at the end of the day thats life. people are born and people die, 1 in 1 out makes the world go round.
People will always drive faster than the speed limit so i have no idea why speed limits exist in the 1st place, its a case of using your common sence most of the time, and some people just dont have any, so why would a silly round sign make a diffrence

OK I know this was back near the start, but in Germany the standard speed limits in residential areas is 30kmh.
And it is much more policed in Germany as well. Through roads in villages tend to be 50kmh IF they a judged to be wide enough (which is actually most of the time) but as soon as you turn off the through roads its 30.

It does feel a lot safer being a pedestrian or cyclist in residential areas as well.

+1 - trouble is motorists in the UK generally coudn't give a toss about the existing 30mph limit so without massive enforcement you won't get this kind of sensible balance, i find it genuinely sad that people can't treat the speed limit as a safe limit rather than a target to be exceeded whenever they feel safe they won't get caught, then again i live round the corner from a rat run that to$$ers use to avoid a fixed speed camera so I may be jaundiced.

In France pedestrians now have priority when crossing the road regardless of whether they are using a crossing.
“If a pedestrian or cyclist “shows a clear intention to cross” (described as “an ostensible step forward or a hand gesture”) drivers will be required to stop for them. The only exception is where there is a designated pedestrian crossing less than 50m away.”

other road users are indeed responsible for you speeding when you [s]choose[/s] are forced to overtake them. good spot it works in court iirc

its a case of using your common sence most of the time, and some people just dont have any

ps the speed limit is exavtly that the maximum speed you can do it is not a target speed that must be obeyed by all road users.

I dont think you would neccesarily fail your driving test if you never achieved the speed limit at any point during your test. You may be ok doing 35 in a 30 45 in 50 but not 35 in a 50 for example.

Increaso ad absurdum, lets set them at 70mph then.

Works for me, then people (drivers and pedestrians) might have to take some responsibility for their actions. I'm quite the fan of natural selection.

It's the bloody pedestrians who need educating.

It's everyone, drivers and pedestrians alike. Drivers need to pay more attention, pedestrians need to stop wandering around in the middle of the road with their eyes closed. Presumably most of these pedestrian fatalities weren't killed by drivers mounting the pavement. Everyone needs to be more aware of the world around them, we've got lazy. Easier to blame everyone else.

Driving out of town just now, I'd to dodge two separate groups of kids who were playing football in the middle of the street. When I were their age if I'd have stepped off the kerb unsupervised I'd have been punced to the other side of the road. Consequently, I've made it into my late 30s without being run over and whilst I've had a couple of close calls over the years they've invariably been my own stupid fault for having my mind on something else.

I dont think you would neccesarily fail your driving test if you never achieved the speed limit at any point during your test. You may be ok doing 35 in a 30 45 in 50 but not 35 in a 50 for example.

Specifically it's called "failure to make progress." The example you give could indicate a lack of confidence in your control of the vehicle.

yes it [b]could[/b] so it is not neccessarily a fail then I think we agree 😆
I am now in danger of just arguing for the sake of it. Of course you and m_f have a point here but the object of every journey is to reach the other side alive having not killed anyone. Eveything else is a bonus doing it unimpeeded by other road users is just unrelasitic whatever the speed limit

I always think when they trot out the statistics about 5 times more likely to die if hit at 30 mph instead of 20 mph it would be nice to know what the likelihood is of still having severe life limiting injuries.

Is that being hit by a car or wagon at 30mph, surely its what happens to you when you get hit determins wether you die, if you get hit then get your head run over by a 30tonne wagon wheels you will die, if you get hit at 30 by a Vauxhall calibre say for instance and go up the bonnet and fall off the side you will probably survive.

That's sensible, unlike the suggested blanket 20mph for all roads regardless of context.

I was suggesting 20 was the default, not a blanket limit.

At the moment, the default is 30 unless a 20 zone is put in place. I was suggesting switching that.

That original quotation from the 20's plenty site is impressive for just how little truth is actually in it. I've driven in most European countries and while, like us, they have occasional 20mph(ish) speed-limits, most have similar urban limits to our own. Most also have higher accident rates overall, so the percentage quoted is useless without further information.

I'd like to see 20mph limits more widely used in appropriate locations (or at appropriate times) but a blanket 20mph urban limit isn't by itself all that useful.

"Failure to make progress" doesn't mean "not hitting the speed limit".

ragley rider I dont want to worry you but half the population are below average at statistics are you one of them ?

surely its what happens to you when you get hit determins wether you die