Blanket 20mph speed limit for Brighton

News on BikeRadar

Sounds good, until you get to this bit;

As with the majority of 20mph zones in other areas, Sussex police are expected to follow the advice of the Association of Chief Police Officers and rely on self-enforcement by motorists

So, in reality, it’s carry on as normal.

We have it in wirral and liverpool as well as some roads in chester, no enforcent and lots of signs , but only on non a and b roads.

Brilliant idea, should be all over Towns And Cities right now.

Won’t be though will it.

Newcastle is supposed to be a 20 zone city.

IME it is either completely ignored or only applies on roads where you’d be lucky to get above 15mph.

Police seized the millionth uninsured vehicle last year.

Expecting any sort of “self enforcement” from motorists is a bit naive.

Here is the reality of 20 zones in Newcastle City Centre (blue=20mph, red=30mph)

http://newcycling.org/news/20121110/plenty-twenty-newcastle

On my ride to work I use a “Pedestrian Zone” road that is closed to all traffic except taxis and buses and is supposed to be a 20 limit.

Pretty much every time I use it I see at least one private car fly through at 30mph+

Self enforcement doesn’t work. They need to physically alter the road layout to passively enforce the limit (chicanes, bumps, narrowed junctions etc)

I’ll struggle to keep to that coming down Bear Road in the morning, I should be ok going back up though.

Personally thinks it’s really dangerous, cyclists will be overtaking cars no?!

They are fairly strict with their speed limits in Brighton anyway, possibly this is over the top.

doesn’t make drivers any more competent

Constantly dropping speed limits without enforcement is very dangerous, all that happens is that drivers that would normally obey speed limits get hassled by those that don’t which in turn makes them speed and get used to ignoring some limits. This then becomes self perpetuating. Either have speed limits and enforce them rigorously (theres plenty of evidence to support appropriate lower speed as a safety tool). If its important enough to implement they should have the balls to enforce it and deal with the consequences, ie hysterical pieces in the mail about taxing motorists. If it’s going to be expensive make sure the fines pay for the enforcement. If you’re not going to enforce don’t implement the changes as all that does is reinforce a culture of non compliance.

Self enforcement doesn’t work. They need to physically alter the road layout to passively enforce the limit (chicanes, bumps, narrowed junctions etc)

But that is incredibly dangerous for cyclists.
Junctions and width restriced areas are where most accidents happen and if you narrow them, all that happens is that vehicles will try and squeeze through when there isn’t space to do so. Or the cyclist wil swerve to avoid a pothole but find there isn’t sufficient room to do so without encountering a bollard or a vehicle.

It’s effectively using cyclists to slow down the traffic – one impatient/inconsiderate driver, one ill-judged move and the two meet.

I’ll struggle to keep to that coming down Bear Road in the morning, I should be ok going back up though.

I think that is outside the zone anyway. It runs from Sackville Road in the west to Freshfield Road inb the east and up to (but excluding) Old Shoreham Road. IMO it will not make any difference to how people drive round Brighton if there is no enforcement.

Another terrible idea imo. As a driver you automatically drive to a level of “risk”, you don’t probably know you do, but you do. now that level varies between people / skills. For an F1 driver it’s going to be the upper end of the speed range, for Mrs miggins, 93 from solihull, probably the lower end.

A “blanket” speed limit that is inappropriately low in a modern car, just results in the average person ignoring it. Afterall the sign might say “20” but if they cannot see and stimuli that look like the requirement for 20mph then they will naturally ignore it.

Blanket limits therefore just undermine speed limits where they are really needed, and this means that the signs are now ineffective where once they might have been effective. For the vast majority of motorists they will drive their car, down the road they have driven down thousands of times before, at a speed that seems appropriate based on there experience of that road. If they can perceive a hazard, then a 20mph speed limiting sign is appropriate, otherwise not.

For example here are two streets, on which one is 20mph appropriate?

OR:

I’d suggest that 20mph was too fast in the first case, and too slow in the second case.

I suggest we teach drivers to understand, observe, and be responsible for their own speed as appropriate.

But that is incredibly dangerous for cyclists.

It can be, but doesn’t have to be. They manage traffic speeds quite well in Netherlands etc by simple measures, such as raising the road up as it meets a T junction. Allowing pedestrian (and cycle path users) to cross without any kerb and forcing cars to slow down to avoid grounding themselves as they turn.

Other techniques include using cobbles, ridges, rumble strips, etc

A road near me has those build-outs that force traffic in one direction to give way to oncoming traffic. That seems to work quite well too and doesn’t pose a hazard to cyclists.

Blanket limits therefore just undermine speed limits where they are really needed, and this means that the signs are now ineffective

I disagree. We already have blanket limits of 30mph in residential areas. Lowering those to 20 would be pretty easy.

Really bad idea. Responsible drivers will be doing less than 20mph in areas where they need to. For example, my self selected speed in my local estate is just over 20mph indicated. ie: 20mph.

Irresponsible drivers will carry on as normal.

The reductionists will believe that they’ve made a difference.

I would suggest that this is also about traffic management and keeping cars actually moving through the city. It works on congested motorways with lots of junctions, so it probably works in a busy city.

Expecting any sort of “self enforcement” from motorists people is a bit naive.

cyclists are motorists and pedestrians

Really bad idea. Responsible drivers will be doing less than 20mph in areas where they need to. For example, my self selected speed in my local estate is just over 20mph indicated. ie: 20mph.

Irresponsible drivers will carry on as normal.

The reductionists will believe that they’ve made a difference.

This.

When I was last in the UK a lot of roads near my parents had been reduced to 20mph. I can’t recall a single accident involving a pedestrian on them.

I ignored the limit and drove at a speed appropriate to the conditions, sometimes more than 20mph and other times less.

Brighton is a law unto itself … esp now the Green Extrenist Party are in in charge. They don’t seem to be able to tackle any difficult political issues – but buy, they know how to punish the car driver.
Taking a car into BTN now is just daft, parking charges are just ludicrous. Thankfully I can walk/ use a bus.
The worst offenders of driving like Fernando Alsono – the taxi drivers, the council workers and off course the for ever “it doesn’t apply t use – the “on the mobiles chatting, indicator exempt, zig zag line parking, redundant rear few mirror” mothers dropping kids of at school.

As a side issue – the cyclist in BTH are a true pain in the arse. They’re handing out fines to people for jumping red lights / going down one way streets the wrong way. Excellent news – there are arseholes on all forms of transport

It’s not all of Brighton and just some areas also some areas have been that way for years. The new bits are just of the main roads. Some 40 bits are now 30. Not sure yet what diff it makes but I’m sure it will be better in certain parts of town.

As a driver you automatically drive to a level of “risk”, you don’t probably know you do, but you do.

No, there is very good evidence that most people overestimate their driving ability massively. This study of 100 drivers, which put motion-activated video cameras in cars, recorded over 9,000 near-misses over a period of around a year. The biggest cause was inattentive driving.

http://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/facts-research/research-technology/tech/100-car-naturalistic.htm

The reductionists will believe that they’ve made a difference.

Tom, do you actually know what “reductionist” means? 😉

Road safety and policing budgets are being cut across the board, so expecting enforcement to happen without some sort of pressure is unrealistic.

http://www.iam.org.uk/media-and-research/media-centre/news-archive/1039-the-end-of-the-road-for-road-safety

That doesn’t mean that 20mph limits can’t be enforced. Get along to your local PACT meeting and kick up a fuss. Write to ACPO.

Mr Agreeable – Member

“As a driver you automatically drive to a level of “risk”, you don’t probably know you do, but you do.”

No, there is very good evidence that most people overestimate their driving ability massively. This study of 100 drivers, which put motion-activated video cameras in cars, recorded over 9,000 near-misses over a period of around a year. The biggest cause was inattentive driving.

i think you’ve misunderstood him.

i’m sure he’s referring to the idea that whoever you are, however confident/stupid/nervous you are, you drive at a ‘level’ where you get scared the same number of times per hour/mile/journey/whatever.

a confident/stupid driver may drive like a bat out of hell, but only gets scared 5 times in an hour*, a nervous old giffer pootling along at 7mph is still driving fast enough to get scared 5 times an hour*.

(*whatever the value is, it’s different for all of us, but we all drive to our limit, or at least that’s the idea)

cyclists are motorists and pedestrians

Er, there’s no motor on my bicycle.
And, when it comes down to it, I’m all in favour of a 20mph speed limit for pedestrians in residential areas as well.

Interesting article

The gist being, although the new speed limit was largely ignored accidents did actually come down. Which is good news, right?

ahwiles – Member

(*whatever the value is, it’s different for all of us, but we all drive to our limit, or at least that’s the idea)

i’m going to disagree with myself now, online, i’m an idiot.

i meant to say – whatever the value is, it’s the same for all of us, but the level/conditions/incidents that trigger it are different.

basically, we’re all just driving along fast enough to get scared ‘X’ times per hour (or whatever).

carry on.

They don’t seem to be able to tackle any difficult political issues – but buy, they know how to punish the car driver.
Taking a car into BTN now is just daft, parking charges are just ludicrous. Thankfully I can walk/ use a bus.

Sounds like it works then. If we can break the complete reliance on cars in built up areas and get more people using far higher density public transport, cycling or walking, then the cities can keep functioning and people can keep moving and pollution gets driven down. The pollution levels on / beside main arterial routes in cities are universally awful.

So how can any of that be a bad thing? Couple more cyclists on the road with a slower traffic, it all gets safer and reinforces cycling as better.

Or did you just want to grumble about something?

As a driver you automatically drive to a level of “risk”, you don’t probably know you do, but you do.

Which is why to self-enforce these limits you need to increase the perceived risk (of damaging the car) with rumble strips, cobbles, build-outs, tighter turns etc

When I was last in the UK a lot of roads near my parents had been reduced to 20mph. I can’t recall a single accident involving a pedestrian on them.

Could that be because pedestrians and cyclists stayed away, because of all the fast cars?

All the evidence shows that 20mph limits do work.

I live in a 20mph area, in south Bristol. There’s no enforcement, and the result is average traffic speeds have reduced by just 1mph. So, a complete waste of time.

There’s a lot of 20mph limits in residential areas in Burnley. Again, stats support the claim that they do reduce accidents. But then it’s been done properly with speed bumps every 30 or 40 metres with “bike channels” to the left of them.

I live in a 20mph area, in south Bristol. There’s no enforcement, and the result is average traffic speeds have reduced by just 1mph. So, a complete waste of time.

They had a similar drop in average traffic speeds in Portsmouth. Accidents reduced by a huge amount; 40%, IIRC.

crazy-legs – Member

But that is incredibly dangerous for cyclists.

It doesn’t have to be. For example, build-outs can have a cycle bypass. Or the speed bumps example above.

i’m sure he’s referring to the idea that whoever you are, however confident/stupid/nervous you are, you drive at a ‘level’ where you get scared the same number of times per hour/mile/journey/whatever.

a confident/stupid driver may drive like a bat out of hell, but only gets scared 5 times in an hour*, a nervous old giffer pootling along at 7mph is still driving fast enough to get scared 5 times an hour*.

(*whatever the value is, it’s different for all of us, but we all drive to our limit, or at least that’s the idea)

Interesting idea, but the point I’m making is that drivers tend to overestimate their ability by a fair whack. That’s why I’m sceptical of the people who claim that things like speed limits are unnecessary.

There is also an argument that a new generation of drivers will help.

Current drivers were told “streetlights mean 30mph unless signed otherwise”

The generation learning now should be taught that “streetlights on a road without 20 signs mean 30mph, or faster if signed”

Hopefully at some point we’ll get to a stage where “streetlights mean 20mph unless signed otherwise”

I live in a 20mph area, in south Bristol. There’s no enforcement, and the result is average traffic speeds have reduced by just 1mph. So, a complete waste of time.

Cultural change? Introduction of the idea that narrow residential streets like the ones around Bedminster aren’t just for cars?

As an aside, the case for 20 mph limits hasn’t been helped by the DfT’s misrepresentation of accident statistics.

http://fullfact.org/articles/road_safety_20mph_zones_limits_casualties-27766

I’m sceptical of the people who claim that things like speed limits are unnecessary.

I frequently hear people (including people on here) say things like “I ignore the speed limits and drive to the conditions. I only speed when it is safe to do so”

But then I drive on the A1 and I watch folk doing 80+ through the 50 limit in lashing rain, fog, ice or snow. Which makes me wonder what conditions they think are unsafe to speed in?

When I was last in the UK a lot of roads near my parents had been reduced to 20mph. I can’t recall a single accident involving a pedestrian on them.
Could that be because pedestrians and cyclists stayed away, because of all the fast cars?
All the evidence shows that 20mph limits do work.

Or maybe all the pedestrians are too lazy to walk anywhere and take the car now.