20mph in Wales…..

What they did in Stuttgart near where I lived in order to stop rat runs was to remove all signage and street markings within residential areas. Thus nobody had priority at any junction. No stops or give ways anywhere. Meant you had to virtually come to a stop at every single intersection. It certainly worked well.

southampton is currently rolling out 20mph across the city too.  majorly in favour but without enforcement its pointless.  we had a speed bump installed on the road near us, now the fast and furious brigade use it as a game to see who can get the highest speed on the sign that shows your speed a little further down outside the school drop off area.  I mean ffs.

@Edukator Thanks to Eric Pickles, councils in the UK aren’t allowed to use camera cars for parking enforcement.

I am pretty sure that can be bypassed if councils make the appropriate request. Happy to be schooled.

It sounds like I am not the only one who gets a frisson of excitement when I pass a 20mph sign and check my mirror for the usual SUV driving gammon.

If you hit a pedestrian:

at 40 mph there is a 90 percent chance they will be killed.
at 35 mph there is a 50 percent chance they will be killed.
at 30 mph there is a 20 percent chance they will be killed.
at 20 mph there is a 2.5 percent chance they will be killed.

End of argument, Shirley?

+1. It’s about saving lives but hey some are just too dumb & too selfish to realise that.

Not sure if Mervyn58’s tweet here is TFIC or mind-bendingly stupid

reducing speed from 30mph to 20mph means your "15 minute neighbourhood" just shrunk by a third ?

— Mervyn58 (@58ALL) August 17, 2023

Any passing mods – I think X embedding is broken unless you change the URL to twitter

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.

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

Looks as though the signage will be quite cheap:

They are changing the DEFAULT speed limit, that applies when there are no signs, to 20mph.

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.

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.

Not sure if Mervyn58’s tweet here is TFIC or mind-bendingly stupid

Funny, I was wondering the same about Wellings’ theories.

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 – https://www.gov.wales/sites/default/files/statistics-and-research/2023-06/reported-road-casualties-2022-681.pdf

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.

How our kids travel, is the result of choices made by past generations. In turn, those choices profoundly shape our next ones.

⬆️ Unionville Elementary school, North Carolina??
⬇️ Ds. Pierson college Secondary school, Den Bosch ?? (@BicycleDutch) pic.twitter.com/xkgauKIW7A

— Cycling Professor ?  (@fietsprofessor) August 18, 2023