20 MPH speed limits, legal or not?

[Avocet]

It is something I notice more as a pedestrian, so nothing to do with cycling. 30 to 35mph just seems ludicrous when you get used to cars going past at 20 to 25

In other words, we're just talking about your perception and opinion of traffic speed, rather than anything tangible? To a caterpillar, I'm sure 5 MPH would seem obscenely fast....

 

[JP_]

I know of at least 2 people who have been killed on roads around here. If dropping the speed limit means fewer people are killed while crossing the road, then it is only a good thing. Generally 20mph speed limits are such a short part of your journey they can only "delay" you by seconds, minutes tops. Speeding motorists kill - don't assume you are immune to such things.

 

[motorbiking]

Ahh but they don't. Not half as much as the "speed kills" fans would like you to believe. They'd love every driver to think that at 40mph they have an 80% chance of killing someone. fact is <2% of people hit die. What we actually need is more ability to read conditions and drive at an appropriate speed. Cars are also getting very good at spotting potential accidents.

There are now many places where 20mph limits are the default and you will find them very frustrating at 10pm or 6am. Mile after mile of 20mph roads and not a person in sight.

 

[Avocet]

I know of at least 2 people who have been killed on roads around here. If dropping the speed limit means fewer people are killed while crossing the road, then it is only a good thing. Generally 20mph speed limits are such a short part of your journey they can only "delay" you by seconds, minutes tops. Speeding motorists kill - don't assume you are immune to such things.

Were the people killed by vehicles doing more than 20 but less than 30? That's the only situation in which a 20 MPH limit would help. As it is, there have been plenty of studies that have shown accidents to INCREASE in 20 MPH zones, although of course, the outcomes are generally less severe. It's all very well jumping on the "well it's obviously safer because it's slower" bandwagon, but clearly there's more to it than that, or the deaths and serious injuries across the country would have been falling with every successive speed limit reduction. We really need to stop and look dispassionately at the problem, before just shouting for "more of the same" that hasn't delivered the benefits it claimed.
As for the "it'll only delay you a few seconds" position, that might be true if it was a couple of miles, but we're seeing entire towns and cities (e.g. Portsmouth) with blanket 20 MPH limits. Wales has just announced a country-wide set of 20 MPH limits in all towns. When you're crossing a town, it will certainly delay you be an awful lot of "seconds"! Emotive statements like "speeding motorists kill" are great attention grabbers, but actually, the vast majority of fatalities occur WITHIN the speed limit. In fact "Exceeding the speed limit" is only a factor in less than 10% of accidents:

"Exceeding the speed limit was reported as a contributory factor for 6.9% (3,927) of accidents in 2020, a decrease from 5.6% (4,143) in 2019."

Vehicle speed compliance statistics for Great Britain: 2021

www.gov.uk

"In 2020, for all accidents, 4% (4,454) of vehicles had an exceeding the speed limit contributory factor allocated to them. "
So there are FAR richer pickings to be had, if saving deaths and serious injuries are your aim. "Failed to look properly" is still the largest single factor.

Of course, speed is easy to measure and lucrative to enforce...

 

[JP_]

the outcomes are generally less severe

It's the child crossing the road outside a school was hit at 20 they might well still be alive.

20mph is a price worth paying.

As for crossing busy towns, most won't be affected by this, but when they are, ie one road through town, they usually get congested anyway, and average speed pretty low anyway.

 

[Harry Bloomfield]

As for crossing busy towns, most won't be affected by this, but when they are, ie one road through town, they usually get congested anyway, and average speed pretty low anyway.

In town, you oft see driver racing from one section of congestion to the next, which is entirely pointless - they gain nothing. Nice and steady gets you there just as quick.

 

[Avocet]

It's the child crossing the road outside a school was hit at 20 they might well still be alive.

20mph is a price worth paying.

As for crossing busy towns, most won't be affected by this, but when they are, ie one road through town, they usually get congested anyway, and average speed pretty low anyway.

You didn't answer my question though. Were the people killed, killed by vehicles doing between 20 and 30?
Yes, we can all take it as read that injuries are likely to be less severe at lower speeds, but you could say that about 20 too. There's no magic to it. You could say that if the limit was 10 MPH, there would be even less people killed, and if it were 5, there would be fewer still. The problem is that if, as a society, we want to realise the benefits of the motor car, we need to compromise and look for alternative solutions.
It's a bit like when the Titanic hit the iceberg. I wonder if there were people who advocated a 5 knot speed limit across the Atlantic from November to April, in case of icebergs? Fortunately, we didn't listen to them and invented radar instead.

 

[Avocet]

In town, you oft see driver racing from one section of congestion to the next, which is entirely pointless - they gain nothing. Nice and steady gets you there just as quick.

So we need to reduce congestion, surely?

 

[JP_]

You didn't answer my question though. Were the people killed, killed by vehicles doing between 20 and 30?
Yes, we can all take it as read that injuries are likely to be less severe at lower speeds, but you could say that about 20 too. There's no magic to it. You could say that if the limit was 10 MPH, there would be even less people killed, and if it were 5, there would be fewer still. The problem is that if, as a society, we want to realise the benefits of the motor car, we need to compromise and look for alternative solutions.
It's a bit like when the Titanic hit the iceberg. I wonder if there were people who advocated a 5 knot speed limit across the Atlantic from November to April, in case of icebergs? Fortunately, we didn't listen to them and invented radar instead.

I didn't answer your question because they're are no figures on this. You probably know that already. What we do know it's that 20mph is safer, with fewer deaths.

Nobody is reading we should stop cars, or drive at 5mph.

 

[JP_]

Speeds greater than 20mph pose crossing risk for children

roadsafetygb.org.uk

This is important too. Not read all, but i did read years ago that kids can't really judge speed of cars until they're about 13 years old. So crossing a road can be very dangerous as they often steel in front of cars doing 30mpg, thinking they have loads of time.

You only need to Google child deaths in roads by schools to see how many have been killed in collisions. It's unacceptable that we still put impatient drivers before the lives of children.

Slow down!

 

[motorbiking]

The problem is, we can all think of examples when it makes sense to drive slowly - schools, zebras etc. Unfortunately, something that works in one instance doesn't necessarily work everywhere. The massive increase of 20 zones and speed limit reductions simply hasn't reduce accidents or injuries. Look at fatalities over the last 10 years (ignoring the lock down years). Flat. Despite the reduction in speed limit of 100s and 100s of roads. Many NSL roads now have 50 or even 30mph limits. Reducing and enforcing the speed limit on a road really doesn't seem to work

 

[JP_]

The problem is, we can all think of examples when it makes sense to drive slowly - schools, zebras etc. Unfortunately, something that works in one instance doesn't necessarily work everywhere. The massive increase of 20 zones and speed limit reductions simply hasn't reduce accidents or injuries. Look at fatalities over the last 10 years (ignoring the lock down years). Flat. Despite the reduction in speed limit of 100s and 100s of roads. Many NSL roads now have 50 or even 30mph limits. Reducing and enforcing the speed limit on a road really doesn't seem to work

All of those graphs are showing a downward trend. How can you say new safety measures have not worked?

 

[norseman]

A bit late to the party I know. Not withstanding all the forgoing statistics my only concern is that anywhere other than a busy thoroughfare crawling along at 20 will inevitably lead to some light-flashing/gesticulating moron right up your ar.. trying to force you to increase speed. Under these circumstances there won't be a copper in sight, but if you exceed the limit (especially a newly applied restriction) the plod will come out of the woodwork eager to book you for speeding

 

[Avocet]

I didn't answer your question because they're are no figures on this. You probably know that already. What we do know it's that 20mph is safer, with fewer deaths.

Nobody is reading we should stop cars, or drive at 5mph.

The problem is that when you base policy on assumption, you don't always get it right. As evidence, I offer the fact that despite an increase in enforcement AND widespread reduction of limits, the country has not seen a significant reduction in road deaths and serious injuries. Not for a long time. Yet all you seem to be offering, when the medicine isn't working, is "more of the same".
So what are you going to campaign for when all the limits are 20 and someone gets run over?

 

[Avocet]

Speeds greater than 20mph pose crossing risk for children

roadsafetygb.org.uk

This is important too. Not read all, but i did read years ago that kids can't really judge speed of cars until they're about 13 years old. So crossing a road can be very dangerous as they often steel in front of cars doing 30mpg, thinking they have loads of time.

You only need to Google child deaths in roads by schools to see how many have been killed in collisions. It's unacceptable that we still put impatient drivers before the lives of children.

Slow down!

It has been well known for many years that kids are poor judges of speed. Also, despite what you seem to have assumed about me, I would have no problems with 10 MPH limits around schools at times when kids are likely to be around - never mind 20. But that's not what you're talking about, is it? Or are you saying you only want 20 MPH limits around schools?

You also appear to have made the assumption that I'm somehow in favour of killing children, or perhaps indulge in a spot of child killing myself. I can assure you that I haven't killed (or seriously injured, or slightly injured, or even touched any children with any vehicle I have ever driven).

We both want safer roads. We both want to see no children killed or seriously injured. We differ in how we want to go about achieving it. You appear to want to double-down on a strategy that has largely failed...