Yeah – blooming “PC do gooders” wanting safe streets that kids can play in, like they had growing up.

[video]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h-VuB131sFo[/video]

In 2012 there were 25,218 reported pedestrian casualties and 19,091 cyclist casualties.

The only reason those figures aren’t higher is because most people are too scared of the roads to cycle and won’t let their kids play in the streets for fear of the traffic.

That you’re being a bit silly?

Perhaps instead we should allow cars to go as fast as they possibly can and have blades fitted to them to cut through any unwary pedestrians stupid enough to get in the way?

Is that really what you want? Is it? Is it?

Whilst driving round Bristol for my business I regularly drive in three different speed zones.
20
30
40

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

molgrips has two logins?

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

Honestly, it’s embarrassing seeing the tantrums grown ups get themselves into when driving…

Do you think that’s a bad thing?!

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

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

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

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

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

hurrah 😀

It does seem to be you Vs the rest of the thread though, so I take some comfort in the fact I have the backing of the other PC do-gooders on here 😉

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

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

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

you are a shit driver then

20 zones are not there to protect car occupants.

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

We used to. It used to be commonplace. 🙁

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

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

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

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

(Source: RAS53001, DfT RRCGB 2012)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Risk = Likelihood X Consequence.

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

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

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

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

To me that suggests it wasn’t “simply a money making exercise” or they’d have gone where people were regularly breaking the law surely? Confused.

I’ve stopped laughing enough to post now.

This feels very relevant –

And also this –
Half of parents driving their children to UK primary schools live under a mile away, walk-to-school campaigners say…..while 80% had walked to school when they were young

And this –
Couple threatened by social services for letting their children cycle to school Daily mail link so will be blocked but this also relevant (BBC)

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

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

Easy to implement, as as we have seen both ineffective and likely to result in drivers ignoring other, much more important limits at critical times!

If we continue to pander to the lowest common denominator, we will soon all only be staying in bed all day just in case someone gets hurt somehow…….

By “lowest common denominator” do you mean “children”?

Sure. I like picnics as much as the next person, but wouldn’t have one in the middle lane of the M6. Roads are for facilitating movement of traffic (cars, horses, bicycles etc), not for the local kids to spend their afternoons ‘accidentally’ bouncing cricket balls off cars.

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

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

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

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

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