20mph in Wales…..

Apparently they are changing the guidance so something is changing from the original roll out. Was down in South Wales at Easter, 20 did seem a bit slow on some rural roads through villages. In Cardiff it generally felt OK although I think average speeds were closer to 25 on open stretches of road in town. Many places though 20 was fine and you’d struggle to get above it with all the parked cars, traffic lights, junctions and intermittent bus lanes.

This might actually work quite well, it needed the blanket approach initially, hopefully now the minority of roads that need increasing will occur but the majority will be left at 20.

It’s not “blanket”. That makes it sound like it’s more than it is, which is why the Tories are so fond of the term.

Hmmm, government introduces policy that is widely successful, identifies ways to improve it in certain places, gets roundly criticised and lampooned by headbangers for doing the right thing.

We’re **** as a nation, aren’t we…..

20 did seem a bit slow on some rural roads through villages

It’s all about perspective. We were down in Devon at Easter and 30mph felt reckless in a lot of places! And yes, I did slow down.

We were down in Devon at Easter and 30mph felt reckless in a lot of places!

Yeah, well, in Devon, especially South Hams, the quickest way to get anywhere, like from Dartmouth to Kingsbridge, is to get behind a bus and follow it, ‘cos everyone coming the other way has to give way to it. Same thing going from Stokenham down to Beesands – get behind another vehicle like a bus or delivery van and follow it, trying to reverse back up a 1:4 hill with blind corners isn’t a lot of fun.
I speak from experience.

Just to add, in Wiltshire, once you get south of Warminster, 40 is about the maximum top speed, especially if you get stuck behind a farm vehicle with a trailer; I got behind one once, I think I spent nearly nine miles before there was a stretch of road long and empty enough to overtake, and it was about six miles before I had anything else in front of me, everyone else was still stuck behind the tractor! South of the A30/303, Wiltshire, Dorset, Somerset, Devon and Cornwall are all the same – I spent enough hours driving around down there to find out the hard way.

Hmmm, government introduces policy that is widely successful, identifies ways to improve it in certain places, gets roundly criticised and lampooned by headbangers for doing the right thing.

when I watched it on the news, I thought they were going to real off a load of stats that showed that reducing speed limits hasn’t saved any more lives, reduced road accidents, or reduced pollution. But no it appears the reason is because it’s an election year and people don’t like it

Very sad really

We’ve had it for years and I think it’s great. Next town down the road is in a different region and has 30 in towns, which now feels ridiculously fast.
I’d say I’ve seen 4or5 kids saved from injury (caused by phone zombie mode) because the car was easily able to stop short of contact.

@FunkyDunc It feels very much like the usual ‘progressive party bowing to a small noisy minority of people who won’t vote for them anyway’. As with LTNs/ULEZ etc I suspect that, if they hold their nerve, it will prove popular (or at worst most people won’t care) and it will do no electoral harm.

“Yeah, well, in Devon, especially South Hams, the quickest way to get anywhere, like from Dartmouth to Kingsbridge, is to get behind a bus and follow it, ‘cos everyone coming the other way has to give way to it. Same thing going from Stokenham down to Beesands – get behind another vehicle like a bus or delivery van and follow it, trying to reverse back up a 1:4 hill with blind corners isn’t a lot of fun.
I speak from experience.”

I came off Dartmoor yesterday on a route I had never been down before and the roads got pretty narrow in places. I tucked myself in behind a tractor and trailer and took advantage of the free run he created 😁
He pulled over to let me through and I just gestured to him to carry on 😂

Was down in South Wales at Easter, 20 did seem a bit slow on some rural roads through villages. In Cardiff it generally felt OK

Always seems the other way round to me – lots of wide roads in Cardiff. and the surrounding areas with little chance of an unseen person emerging from behind a parked car or kids playing on the street – 20 just seems like a speed trap – whereas up in the valleys with narrow roads going through towns and villages and lots of cars parked on the road side, the 20mph limit seems much more appropriate. And there are some places still at 40mph through narrow street villages that should be 20mph but aren’t because they weren’t 30mph in the first place so escaped the change.

What it needs is someone sensible from the institute of andvanced motorists or similar, to drive round the Welsh roads noting which sections have inapproproate limits, and then getting exceptions raised for them.

Just to add, in Wiltshire, once you get south of Warminster, 40 is about the maximum top speed

Yesterday we went on a day trip and I drove along loads of brilliant winding country roads, most of which was 60mph. Where was I? Wales of course.

lots of wide roads in Cardiff. and the surrounding areas with little chance of an unseen person emerging from behind a parked car or kids playing on the street – 20 just seems like a speed trap

It’s not only about safety. If you can get your head round it, lower speed limits means traffic flows better. I’m guessing you’re thinking of Caerphilly road – this is very busy with some crap junctions that require lane changing, so I think 20 is going to help there.

people massively over complicate this issue. 20mph is safer, helps traffic flow, doesn’t materially impact on journey times and encourages active travel. All this time and effort debating and implementing exclusions is stupid.

@franksinatra I would love to see the polling about how people opposing 20mph zones/LTNs/CAZ/whatever then go on to vote. As above I bet they’re all Tory/Reform.

There is very little evidence that opposing this stuff is enough of a wedge issue to get elected; suggestion from Paris is that if they hold their nerve, there is little electoral fallout.

If you can get your head round it, lower speed limits means traffic flows better.

which wasn’t the reason for implementing the speed change, safety was. All the studies justifying it were based on safety, not traffic flow, for which it is debateable, as are the suppossed savings from the increase in safety (according to my GP friend).

My late 70’s dad called by today as I was car tinkering, once again he was frothing at the mouth about it despite not having been to Wales since the 20mph limits came in (they haven’t avoided it but Covid then an operation).

The reason he gets so het up about it is the daily **** mail arse wipe rag that my folks belove.

They are going to Porthmadog next week so I’m awaiting the fall out about it.

which wasn’t the reason for implementing the speed change, safety was

I don’t think there was just one reason.

All the studies justifying it were based on safety, not traffic flow, for which it is debateable, as are the suppossed savings from the increase in safety (according to my GP friend).

How can it be debatable that slower cars mean less severe injuries?  As for traffic flow – this is well proven and also very obvious.  If you’re from Cardiff you’ll be familiar with the Gabalfa roundabout. When it was a traditional setup, it was almost impossible to get out of Whitchurch road because of the number of people swinging round it at higher speeds. You’d get a nice big gap but due to the speed of the oncoming driver it wasn’t safe. Their impatience pinned you down and you’d be waiting for 5 minutes sometimes. They they made it a 20 limit on the roundabout (which was of course ignored) but they also made it one lane which slowed people down, and guess what – more people could pull out, leading to better traffic flow. It’s not just this roundabout – more people can pull out if everyone’s going slower.

thought they were going to real off a load of stats that showed that reducing speed limits hasn’t saved any more lives, reduced road accidents, or reduced pollution

There are no stats yet to prove it works or doesn’t yet. It will need years to achieve that to remove the impact of other factors and random natural variation

There are no stats yet to prove it works or doesn’t yet

I think there are in other areas.

The thing that gets me is that the MS all live in Wales themselves. They also have to stick to 20mph limits.  And yet, having done the research most of them agree it’s worth it.

I assume there are some stats from Scotland where there have been 20mph limits in urban areas for a while, IIRC, and from lots of European countries where they’ve dropped the urban speed limit from 50kph to 30?

And physics, of course.

(Before anyone says ‘but no-one sticks to it’, no-one sticks to 30 either and if that means people slow from doing 35 to doing 25 there’s still a beneficial effect).

TBH gettign hit at 30 is definitely worse than getting hit at 20. But people don’t actually get hit by cars that much and when you do it tends to be in slower areas anyway. And car vs car at 30 is pretty safe, these days.

I genuinely don’t care about the safety side, I mean I hope it helps but I’m pretty confident that the actual numbers will be really low. I don’t really care much about the emission side either. But I live in a 20, and it makes it a better place to live. It’s quieter, nicer to walk or cycle, way better for kids, it’s also nicer to drive yourself, less stressful. That alone’s worth it.

Towns are supposed to be places to live not places for people who live somewhere else to drive through as fast as possible, for so long we’ve had that completely backwards. People can have different opinions about 20 limits in general but when you get specific and speak to someone who lives in a street that’s gone from 30 to 20, how many people ever say they’d turn it back?

But people don’t actually get hit by cars that much and when you do it tends to be in slower areas anyway.

You what? Govt stats:

“In 2022, 385 pedestrians were killed in Great Britain, whilst 5,901 were reported to be seriously injured (adjusted) and 13,041 slightly injured”

So, one person a day is worth sacrificing for a few minutes saved? If you care so little maybe it should be someone you love tomorrow?

There’s 67 million of us, 385 is not very many. And of course cutting 30 to 20 won’t save all of them so it’s far from “one person a day”. The welsh government’s estimate is 6-10 lives saved a year. Of course you don’t want that to be someone you love but that’s just an appeal to emotion, the reality is the speed limit change will have a trivial real world benefit when you make it just about that, 6 is too few to be impactful. So that’s a bad idea, if you actually want it to stick.

When you look at the full basket of benefits, the arguments for speed limit reduction are far better, and benefit far more people. The anti brigade are all about saving minutes, and wailing about the “nanny state”, nobody who’s bothered by that will ever be swayed by an argument about saving 6 lives. And god forbid the stats come in and it’s only 5! Because of course, most people aren’t great at statistics so it’s very easy to make bad arguments out of them- 385 was the 3rd lowest in the last decade, it’s totally possible that the next couple of years will be higher not lower and just wait for the noise people make if that happens.

But 85% of people live in urban areas and can experience the real world, day to day benefits of it. It’s just it’s less persuasive because we don’t talk about it enough, in fact it’s barely mentioned. What I’m saying is, let’s not make it all about weak numerical arguments that people will easily dismiss because nobody believes they’ll be one of the 385. Even if it saves 0 lives and 0 injuries and 0g of co2 it’s still totally worthwhile

I’m with Northwind – on our trip to Wales last year towns and villages were so much nicer with traffic at 20-25 rather than 30-40.

Looking forward to going back in July

Key stat to note, the Thinking Distance for someone driving at 30 is further than the Thinking AND Stopping Distance for someone driving at 20.

At risk of sounding like a broken record, most people are in favour of this stuff, but the antis tend to be better organised. If you feel strongly the other way, please, please get involved with your local active travel group (even if that’s just to do a bit of SoMe reposting/contacting councillors etc). This is a link to the Greater Manchester one, there will be equivalents in most places.

Regular driver in Wales and it really doesn’t bother me. It was great cycling through Rhudlan on Friday near rush hour as no cars passed me at all (road bike). Same in Rhyl.

I do have to remember when driving as you soon hit 20 when pulling away, but it’s way more relaxed driving.

385 is not very many.

Where do you draw the line? What’s your personal limit for acceptable casualties on the road? 386? Or would you change your mind at 400? What about if one of those 385 included one of your children? Could you genuinely say at that point that you think that 385 is “not too many” and an acceptable toll in order to drive at 30mph in a village instead of 20mph?

There’s no evidence that a 20mph limit has caused problems beyond the made-up claims that driving slightly slower increases emissions. It doesn’t affect traffic flow, and if anything improves it as it makes it easier for people to pull out of junctions.

We’ve had the new 20mph zones in the Highlands for the last 6 months.

Are they generally observed – no

Are people going a bit slower than previously – yes

The issue as ever is consistency in implementation. A few houses on the side of the road (not enough to call a settlement or have a road sign or street lights) on a rural national speed limits B road is a 20mph zone in one instance and continues at 60mph in another with no discernible difference the nature of the ‘community’.  My local town (Nairn) has a 20mph zone than goes on for about half a mile of fields after the last dwelling on one road but the national speed limit sign is before the last dwellings on another. One small hamlet with a B road through it has maintained its 30mph on the B road with 20mph on the side roads. An even smaller hamlet 2 miles further down the same road is 20mph through it on the same B road. With inconsistency comes confusion and lack of respect.

I don’t think there was just one reason.

From the gov.wales site :

We made this change to:

– reduce the number of collisions and severe injuries from them (also reducing the impact on the NHS from treating the people who are injured)
– encourage more people to walk and cycle in our communities
– help to improve our health and well-being
– make our streets safer
– safeguard the environment for future generations.

No mention of traffic flow but lots for safety or safety related (encourage people to walk and cycle more)

There’s also money being spent on ‘active travel’ routes to encourage people to cycle to work more, for example. One of the routes goes through PontyPridd park (think that might be part of the Taff Trail), which is locked up at some stupid early hour, so not really an encouragement to use it for commuting – although in reality it probablky OK as people seem to work as few hours as possoble here and ‘rush hour’ seems to start about 4pm.

I assume there are some stats from Scotland where there have been 20mph limits in urban areas for a while

So where are they and what do they show? Im going to guess they are inconclusive given neither side in the debate is using them to their advantage.

Key stat to note, the Thinking Distance for someone driving at 30 is further than the Thinking AND Stopping Distance for someone driving at 20.

Back in the 1960s when these were last measured, they have never been updated to show the current picture. One of the car TV programmes did it and found most modern cars actually stop in between half and 2/3rds of the official distance.

If your using that as a argument then we wont have any lorries on the roads as they will never stop from 20mph as fast as a car from 30mph and its reasonable to assume the same thinking time. I would also rather be hit by a car at 30 than an lorry at 20

“Key stat to note, the Thinking Distance for someone driving at 30 is further than the Thinking AND Stopping Distance for someone driving at 20.”
Back in the 1960s when these were last measured, they have never been updated to show the current picture. One of the car TV programmes did it and found most modern cars actually stop in between half and 2/3rds of the official distance.

While I agree with the idea that modern tyres and ABS will be hugely better than the outdated HC numbers. In this instance that has shot your arguement in the foot. The 20mph car would have stopped easily. The thinking distance for the 30mph car is unchanged.

I would also rather be hit by a car at 30 than an lorry at 20

But if the limit is 30, the lorries will be doing 30ish. And if there’s a lower limit for LGVs, everyone else will be doing that too, because they’ll be stuck behind a lorry.

While I agree with the idea that modern tyres and ABS will be hugely better than the outdated HC numbers. In this instance that has shot your arguement in the foot. The 20mph car would have stopped easily. The thinking distance for the 30mph car is unchanged.

Good to see someone is awake.

I’ve used the statement a few times, and normally those who are against the 20mph limits miss the nuance & understanding of the statement – mentally I put them into the 52% cohort 🙂

Even if it saves 0 lives and 0 injuries and 0g of co2 it’s still totally worthwhile

Tip: if you’re in favour, perhaps don’t lead with the ‘saving six lives a year doesn’t matter’ line, because that’s really playing into your opponents hands.

molgrips
Free Member

Tip: if you’re in favour, perhaps don’t lead with the ‘saving six lives a year doesn’t matter’ line, because that’s really playing into your opponents hands.

Never said anything of the sort but, uh, thanks for the “tip” I guess?

Meanwhile there’s been some sort of U-turn announced – not clear on whether this is distraction (announce something that doesn’t amount to a real change) or political cowardice,

Meanwhile there’s been some sort of U-turn announced

No, there’s an adjustment of some roads, which was highlighted as likely from the start of the process.

I’ll file ‘U-turn’ with ‘blanket’ in the poor description of reality corner.

No, there’s an adjustment of some roads, which was highlighted as likely from the start of the process.

Except  the new Transport Minister has said the guidelines will be changed. Either you take this at face value, in which case, if not a U-turn it’s certainly a step backwards, or it’s an attempt to spin the process in a way that appeases the opponents. I suspect the devil will be in the detail.

I suspect that the haterz are clutching at straws. If the current guidance says X but experience has shown that Y is OK, changing the guidelines is sensible progress, not a U turn.

Perspective is everything.