Car tax price Welsh v English

[Brigadier]

Sorry, Eric, but just how morally bankrupt do people have to be to argue that we can't have laws which lawbreakers ignore?

Appeal to Extremes fallacy.


There are some "laws" that are not appropriate, unfair, unjust.
Look at the recent furore regarding peoples' (reduced) rights to protest, as and when the Government doesn't want criticism.

Plus, we do supposedly have "policing by consent" in this country.................a "law" that is unfair, unjust, unnecessary will likely be unworkable, and therefore be unenforced.

 

[Avocet]

I never once advocated this position, just to be absolutely clear.
I was abundantly clear that, regardless of the posted limit, I will often "trundle" at well below that posted limit, based on my own assessment of the risk profile present.
I was abundantly clear - on more than one occasion - that I am all in favour of speed limits that are appropriate for the situation.
I was abundantly clear that the application of a default, fell-swoop reduction did - inevitably - capture roads where 20 mph is not appropriate.


You are throwing this in as a strawman.

It's all part of the "demonising the opposing view" strategy. It doesn't look half so dramatic to take someone to task over their feeling that in many cases, a 30 MPH limit might be more appropriate than a 20, that sounds far too reasonable! So what you have to do, is paint everyone who opposes that view, as being some extreme kind of "Mr. Toad" character, whose only while in life is to roar through urban areas as fast as possible, terrorising vulnerable (don't forget to stress the "vulnerable" bit, it sounds much better) road users into submission, leaving them cowering in the gutter - which, after all, is their proper place if they can't afford a motor car). (...Assuming you deign to allow them to live in the first place, of course...)

It's generally the mark of a weak argument, backed up by desperation and hysteria, that won't stand up to rational debate on its own merits.

I shall respond to it later...

 

[morqthana]

I never once advocated this position, just to be absolutely clear.
I was abundantly clear that, regardless of the posted limit, I will often "trundle" at well below that posted limit, based on my own assessment of the risk profile present.

You also made it abundantly clear that you think you have the right to drive at speeds above the posted limit if your own assessment of the risk profile present leads you to conclude that the posted limit is inappropriately low.

I was abundantly clear - on more than one occasion - that I am all in favour of speed limits that are appropriate for the situation.

But you are rejecting determinations of appropriateness made by others. You were abundantly clear that if you disagree with their determination you have the right to ignore them.


Why do I say both of those things?

Whilst it is perfectly possible to say you have the right to do things which are wrong, it is not possible for you to say it is right for you to do things which you do not believe you have the right to do. In other words you can't say "I don't think that I have the right to do X but it is right for me to do X". Obviously in the context of this discussion we're not talking about the legal right to do something.

Smoking, for example. Someone may think that smoking is wrong, but assert that they nevertheless have the right to smoke.

But it is not possible to claim that it is right to ignore speed limits with which you disagree and not, inevitably, claim that you have the right to ignore them.

I'm all for speed limits, but they have to be appropriate : otherwise, they'll be - rightly - ignored.

I was abundantly clear that the application of a default, fell-swoop reduction did - inevitably - capture roads where 20 mph is not appropriate.

It may have initially captured some, but councils and highways agencies have, just as they have always had, the power to set a different speed limit from the default by issuing TROs.

Worst case is a few roads which remain at 20mph for a few months while they work through the TROs. Hardly a jack-booted assault on civil rights, is it.

And doing it that way, by changing the default rather than going through all the roads and issuing TROs for every case where a 20mph limit is wanted, and having to install a lot more signage, is quicker, cheaper, and less confusing for motorists, because it maintains the status quo of how it all works.

It means going from this:

to this

Something which no driver should be unable to cope with.


And if, when it all shakes out, the legal authorities have decided that a given road should be 20mph, and you disagree, well, tough. Your opinion does not trump that of the duly constituted authorities.

 

[morqthana]

There are some "laws" that are not appropriate, unfair, unjust.
Look at the recent furore regarding peoples' (reduced) rights to protest, as and when the Government doesn't want criticism.

Oh please.

You really want to claim that a law which means that for a few seconds or minutes per day you have to stop accelerating once you reach 20mph instead of 30mph is up there with curtailing the right to peaceful protest, up there with locking people up for possessing a banner for longer than they'd get for a violent assault, up there with judges forcing defendants to break their oath in court?

Really?

And in doing so you don't think it might make you look just a tad like you've lost your grip on reality, lost all sense of proportionality?

Plus, we do supposedly have "policing by consent" in this country.................a "law" that is unfair, unjust, unnecessary will likely be unworkable, and therefore be unenforced.

It is none of those things. It is popular, it has proven benefits, and it actually has virtually no inconveniencing effects on drivers.

You just want to portray a 20mph limit in built-up areas (and that's what it is, as TROs can be used to return roads in non-built-up areas to 30mph) as "unfair, unjust, unnecessary" because you don't want to be denied the ability to drive at 30mph wherever you think you should be able to.

 

[Brigadier]

@morqthana

My original reply was to your hanging your diatribe on roads in built-up areas".

My position was on appropriate limits on appropriate roads.

In the event that I am not being abundantly clear, I am of the opinion - with personal experience, this week - that some rural / semi-rural / non-built-up-area roads have been captured within the blanket reduction, inappropriately so.

Metaphorically inching down an empty, wide road with nought but fields on either side is evidently not appropriate.

 

[Brigadier]

You just want to portray a 20mph limit in built-up areas

No, I don't.

I have very clearly said that a safe speed is a safe speed, and may even be as low as "trundling".

That you are having to invent a position for you to knock down illustrates that you have no argument.

 

[morqthana]

In the event that I am not being abundantly clear, I am of the opinion - with personal experience, this week - that some rural / semi-rural / non-built-up-area roads have been captured within the blanket reduction, inappropriately so.

Metaphorically inching down an empty, wide road with nought but fields on either side is evidently not appropriate.

If that remains the case AFTER all the TROs are made to re-set the limit to 30mph then what we are left with is you disagreeing with the official determination of the speed limit, and you therefore thinking it is right to ignore it.

 

[Brigadier]

If that remains the case AFTER all the TROs are made to re-set the limit to 30mph then what we are left with is you disagreeing with the official determination of the speed limit, and you therefore thinking it is right to ignore it.

If

 

[Avocet]

I made that point to counter the claims from the entitled and selfish people that having a lower default speed limit on restricted roads is a monstrous idea.

Oh... OK... By the way, who has said it's a "monstrous" idea? (and in what way, are they "entitled and selfish"?

I made it to show that it is the accepted norm for enormous numbers of drivers.

I think you probably mean "the accepted norm for about half a dozen administrations that you named". You have not the faintest idea what the drivers think...

I made it to show that it is the shouty, how-dare-you-tell-me-I-must-not-do-30mph-don't-you-realise-how-essential-it-is-that-I-get-my-way snowflakes are the outliers.

In that case, you failed miserably.

Trying to compare accident statistics between different countries is pointless because of the number of factors which vary.

But it you want to remove all those other factors by looking at one particular country, I suggest you do not try to deny the correlation between speed and accidents, nor the data from UK 20mph zones showing lower accident rates and reduced casualties.

Like this research, you mean?

20mph Research Study – Summary and PACTS comment - PACTS

The Department for Transport has today (22 November 2018) published the 20mph Research Study by Atkins, AECOM and Professor Mike Maher...

www.pacts.org.uk

"The changes resulting from 20mph limits are disappointing but not surprising. The study finds that signed-only 20mph limits have very small effects on speed and, surprisingly, no statistically significant effect on casualties in the majority of locations. Local people do not perceive changes and behaviour changes are small.”

Or this one, maybe?

Investigating the impact of a 20 miles per hour speed limit intervention on road traffic collisions, casualties, speed and volume in Belfast, UK: 3 year follow-up outcomes of a natural experiment | Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health

"Conclusion A 20 mph speed limit intervention implemented at city centre scale had little impact on long-term outcomes including road traffic collisions, casualties and speed, except for a reduction in traffic volume. Policymakers considering implementing 20 mph speed limit interventions should consider the fidelity, context and scale of implementation."

Some studies seem to show an improvement, others don't.

I suggest that because I know you really, really don't want it to be true, and the truth might upset you. And as you are a driver who cares about nothing other than the speed you may drive at, we can't have you upset, can we.

Nice bit of completely baseless demonisation, there... Possibly even slanderous, come to think of it...

Genuine complaint?

Reasoned, fact-based complaint which takes into account majority support, the benefits to the environment, the proven reduction in casualties, etc?

Or just confected, ignorant rage stoked by deplorable libertarian and partisan newspapers, and by idiots shouting lies on social media?

Who the f'ck are you to say otherwise? You haven't a clue what each of the half-million folk who signed that, had as a motive. I suggest that because I know you really, really don't want it to be true, and the truth might upset you.

Inappropriate 20mph limits can be revised in just the same way that inappropriate 30mph ones have been in the past. But you don't want to know that.

On the contrary, I very much do want to know it, and I very much appreciate you acknowledging that some 20 limits might, with hindsight, have been inappropriate!

And as for society - year after year after year, surveys show a supportpposed ratio of 6 or 7 to one. I get that you don't want to know that, ut how credible do you think your denials are going to be?

Like I said... half a million signed that petition. Despite your attempts to dismiss it and denigrate them, it makes rather a mockery of your claims of such overwhelming support...

Obviously it is better for society if people obey laws willingly.

Words you would do well to dwell on...

But for the outliers who refuse to accept the legitimacy of laws which they personally dislike, I see no reason why enforcement cannot be used more widely, and more forcefully.

Put it this way - if all the drivers in the 500,000 who signed that petition in Wales systematically defied the law then I would regard the scenario where each and every one lost their licence as ideal.

What were you saying about "entitled"? Democracy eh? what a bitch.... I'm afraid that your opinion is worth no more than the next guy's and you're not in charge. You're just going to have to suck that up, I'm afraid, but by all means carry on throwing your toys out of the pram.

You seem to like polls - here's one that suggests *only* 7 out of every 10 people are "outliers"...

Wales 20mph: Calls made for 1,500 roads to revert to 30mph

Despite widespread opposition to the plan, police point to a drop in casualties and crashes.

www.bbc.co.uk

Or maybe it's *only* 85% who are "outliers"?

Vehicle speed compliance statistics for Great Britain: 2022

www.gov.uk

I'm sure they do.

I'm equally sure that for most people, as they start racking up penalties for ignoring a 20mph speed limit because it used to be 30mph and they cannot tolerate it changing, the penny will drop that no, it really isn't up to them, and ignoring it really is not an OK thing to do.

Why stop there? We should deport them to the colonies! Maybe even hang them? History is absolutely chock-full of disproportionately severe penalties...

...that did absolutely nothing to reduce the crimes. Like you so wisely said: "Obviously it is better for society if people obey laws willingly." (Or as Brigadier subsequently put it, "policing by consent". Not many people want to live under your dictatorship...

Proof, please.

Let's start at home, shall we?

Anything else I can help you with today, sir...?

The "whataboutism" was designed to show how fatuous the argument is that we shouldn't have laws because some people disrespect them.

Tell that to the suffragettes....

Maybe you're the guy who would have resolutely gone down to the village green to put in his required number of hours of archery practice long after everyone else had given up, just because it was still on the statute books?

There is no better one. However much you wish it were not so there is a positive correlation between speed and the incidence and severity of accidents.

Yes, if you stop cars from moving, there will be fewer car accidents. You really don't have to convince me of that.

The one place where we can see what happens when drivers are left to their own devices to determine what is an appropriate speed vs not, with all other possible contributory factors cancelled out, are German autobahns.
According to the German Federal Statistical Office, fast driving is the main cause of collisions on autobahns. An evaluation by the German Road Safety Council showed that in 2016 statistically 26% fewer people died on autobahns with a speed limit per kilometer than on autobahns without. A similar trend could be observed in the number of serious injuries.

 

[Avocet]

Am I right in thinking that the speed-limited autobahns had speed limits in excess of 20 MPH though? Do you really think that the difference between autobahns were some vehicles could be doing 200 MPH and some doing 60 is particularly relevant to the topic under discussion (the difference between 20 and 30 MPH limits)? Really?

And as you know (but may well be utterly desperate to deny) there is a reduction in both the number and severity of accidents when 20mph zones are introduced in the UK.

In some studies, yes. Not all.

The trend is downwards when you consider the increase in traffic volumes

Traffic volumes (lockdown years aside) have been rising pretty much since the war! If we look at the bigger picture (rather than just the last 10 years or so, you can see that the rate of reduction has dropped off massively - effectively flatlining between 2010 and the lockdown years. Genuine question: why do you suppose that is? Cars are continuously getting safer. Traffic volumes haven't increased anything like as much between 2013 and 2023 as they have in previous decades, so it can't be that. We had about 3000 speed cameras in the UK in 2004 and 7000 in 2022. We've had widespread speed limit reductions since then, and even more enforcement, yet the figures remain stubbornly similar. So why do YOU think that is?

View attachment 359463

At what point are you going to stop thinking that your "right" to drive at 30mph on busy urban roads trumps the interest of every single other person using the roads to walk, or cycle, or take their children to school, or allow them to go there unaccompanied?

I have said nothing about anyone's "right" to drive at any particular speed (including mine). All I have said, is that you have to balance the admirable desire to improve road safety, against the benefits that the motor car brings to society. I'm every bit as interested in road safety as you are (perhaps more so, as I'm not dogmatically wedded to the notion that speed is the biggest problem...

 

[Brigadier]

Morqthana is just putting up strawmen - "your right to do 30 mph on busy, urban, built-up roads" being one - just to have an "in" on which to argue.
Something I certainly have never said, nor implied. I've gone out of my way to clearly state that I willingly "trundle", where I assess it as desirable for safety's sake.

Back to the origin of my posts on this: while at one of my offices ( in North Wales, in a semi-rural location), I asked the staff there how they were coping with the 20 mph.
All of the roads that I had used, from the A55 to my office front door, were 20 limits. Despite them being wide, empty, with fields on either side, and with good visibility. No shops, schools, houses, offices, nothing.

"We just do 30, unless we see a copper" was their response.


"Appropriate" is the key word.

 

[morqthana]

Oh... OK... By the way, who has said it's a "monstrous" idea? (and in what way, are they "entitled and selfish"?

I think that's a fair description for drivers who think that ignoring speed limits which are beneficial and popular just because they don't like them is the right thing to do.

In that case, you failed miserably.

Only in the minds of those who are so desperate to not have their driving speeds curtailed when it is of such wide benefit that they become deranged at the prospect.

Like this research, you mean?

20mph Research Study – Summary and PACTS comment - PACTS

The Department for Transport has today (22 November 2018) published the 20mph Research Study by Atkins, AECOM and Professor Mike Maher...

www.pacts.org.uk

Would you like a quote from that?

"There is an established positive relationship between vehicle speed and collisions – the higher the speed, the more collisions and where
collisions do occur, the higher the risk of a fatal injury at higher speeds."

That report looked at data from schemes where traffic was already slow, so, surprise surprise, reducing the speed limit doesn't make traffic already travelling at the slower speeds go any slower, nor do much for accident figures.

"The changes resulting from 20mph limits are disappointing but not surprising. The study finds that signed-only 20mph limits have very small effects on speed and, surprisingly, no statistically significant effect on casualties in the majority of locations. Local people do not perceive changes and behaviour changes are small.”

You didn't quote this:

"The study shows that 20mph limits are generally supported and there is little call for the
limit to be changed back to 30mph; even though most residents and users do not perceive vehicle speeds to
have changed. Local residents and other road users generally perceive the 20mph limits as beneficial for
local residents, pedestrians and cyclists. From a driver perspective, they make driving at a slower speed
more acceptable."

Or this one, maybe?

Investigating the impact of a 20 miles per hour speed limit intervention on road traffic collisions, casualties, speed and volume in Belfast, UK: 3 year follow-up outcomes of a natural experiment | Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health

"Conclusion A 20 mph speed limit intervention implemented at city centre scale had little impact on long-term outcomes including road traffic collisions, casualties and speed, except for a reduction in traffic volume. Policymakers considering implementing 20 mph speed limit interventions should consider the fidelity, context and scale of implementation."

Some studies seem to show an improvement, others don't.

As the quote you have chosen confirms - limits in small scale areas, where traffic speeds are already low, don't have much of an effect, and the report urges consideration of the scale of implementation.

Interesting, is it not, that you didn't quote the part where the report compared the small-scale Belfast implementation "to the recent city-wide intervention in Edinburgh which showed significant reductions in road traffic speed, collisions and casualties. Large scale implementation of 20 mph speed limit interventions may be an important factor for effectiveness."

In Edinburgh they observed a city-wide reduction in collisions which resulted in injury of 38%, a 41% reduction in slight collisions, a 23% reduction in killed or seriously injured, a 39% reduction in injuries to children, 21% to the elderly, 31% to cyclists, 53% to motorcyclists, and 37% to pedestrians.

It would seem the real way to make 20mph limits a success is to implement them over large areas. One might term that a "blanket implementation".

So thank you for pointing everyone at this report - it really strengthens the case for widespread 20mph limits.

Nice bit of completely baseless demonisation, there... Possibly even slanderous, come to think of it...

Not really.

If you cared about the interests of road users other than motorists like you, you wouldn't be opposed to a measure which has proven benefits to those road users, which is popular with them, and which becomes even more popular with them after implementation.

Who the f'ck are you to say otherwise? You haven't a clue what each of the half-million folk who signed that, had as a motive. I suggest that because I know you really, really don't want it to be true, and the truth might upset you.

You can read an analysis of that petition here: https://www.20splenty.org/w_faq08

I hope you do, because one of the things it covers is motive. It's interesting to note that it was signed by about 16% of the adult population of Wales.

And we saw from a chart I posted earlier we know that about 14% of people are opposed to 20mph speed limits.

On the contrary, I very much do want to know it, and I very much appreciate you acknowledging that some 20 limits might, with hindsight, have been inappropriate!

They may have been. We already have roads which would be 30mph were it not for the fact that they were made exceptions from the 30mph default for restricted roads.

I'd not be surprised to learn that when the 30mph default was introduced some roads were later made exceptions because it was decided that the 30 limit was inappropriate.

Would you?

And if you did, would you claim that the whole idea of a default 30mph limit for restricted roads was therefore so deeply flawed that it should never have been done?

Like I said... half a million signed that petition. Despite your attempts to dismiss it and denigrate them, it makes rather a mockery of your claims of such overwhelming support...

And 2.2 million did not sign it. I think that 2.2 million vs 430 thousand is overwhelming support, just like the year after year after year UK-wide surveys on transport attitudes shows 71% support vs 14% opposition.

Words you would do well to dwell on...

What is there to dwell on? Of course it's better.

What were you saying about "entitled"? Democracy eh? what a bitch.... I'm afraid that your opinion is worth no more than the next guy's and you're not in charge. You're just going to have to suck that up, I'm afraid, but by all means carry on throwing your toys out of the pram.

How does believing in the rule of law make me entitled?

As for democracy, 60% of people in Wales voted in the 2021 Senedd election for parties that had a national 20mph default limit in their election manifestos, and the measure followed all due democratic processes through Senedd.

 

[morqthana]

You seem to like polls - here's one that suggests *only* 7 out of every 10 people are "outliers"...

Wales 20mph: Calls made for 1,500 roads to revert to 30mph

Despite widespread opposition to the plan, police point to a drop in casualties and crashes.

www.bbc.co.uk

I said "outliers who refuse to accept the legitimacy of laws which they personally dislike" - not those who don't like a law or want it changed - those who refuse to accept the legitimacy of them. Those who think that because they don't like a law they have the right to ignore it. There are laws with which I disagree, but I don't think that gives me the right to disregard them.

And what was I saying about "entitled" and "selfish"? That poll shows that almost half the people think the lower speed limit is beneficial to pedestrians, and yet they still think that their wants as drivers are more important than pedestrian's lives.

Interesting to note though that that report says that the heddlu are seeing a significant drop in accidents and casualties. Another vote for 20mph limits being widespread.

Or maybe it's *only* 85% who are "outliers"?

Vehicle speed compliance statistics for Great Britain: 2022

www.gov.uk

Bear in mind that those are figures for "free-flowing" roads, and not representative of residential streets.

But...

So we are faced with a situation where we have a law which has proven benefits to society, and is popular (despite that YouGov poll you mentioned, national surveys AND the other reports you've quoted in your post show that), and people are disregarding it.

My response to that is that you get them to comply, by any means, up to and including penalty enforcement sticks if they won't comply through education etc.

The morally bankrupt response is to say "we can't have that law, then".

I wonder how those graphs, and the others in the report for other speeds and types of road would look if we had better enforcement?

One of the problems identified in the Atkins report was:

"The most common area of concern across all groups was around compliance, with most focus group and
survey participants of the opinion that stronger enforcement measures are needed if 20mph limits are to be
effective. There is a widespread view amongst the public that 20mph limits are not enforced, and the
likelihood of being caught exceeding the limit is very small; and this is one reason why bigger reductions in
speed have not been observed in scheme areas."

So it isn't just I who thinks we should ramp up enforcement. It was a finding in a report you were keen to reference to support your position.

Why stop there? We should deport them to the colonies! Maybe even hang them? History is absolutely chock-full of disproportionately severe penalties...

...that did absolutely nothing to reduce the crimes.

It's been clear that you are opposed to the idea that the default speed limit on restricted roads should change from 30mph to 20mph.

Now it seems you also regard the existing penalties for speeding, which is what I was referring to, are "disproportionately severe."

Like you so wisely said: "Obviously it is better for society if people obey laws willingly." (Or as Brigadier subsequently put it, "policing by consent". Not many people want to live under your dictatorship...

I don't think you'll find many takers for the idea that enforcing laws counts as a "dictatorship".

As for "policing by consent", you and Brigadier would do well to learn what that actually means, i.e. it's a general consensus of support for the police that follows from transparency about their powers, their integrity in exercising those powers and their accountability for doing so.

As the Home Office explained, policing by consent means "the power of the police coming from the common consent of the public, as opposed to the power of the state. It does not mean the consent of an individual. No individual can choose to withdraw his or her consent from the police, or from a law."

Tell that to the suffragettes....

So campaigning against speed limits because some people ignore them is on the same level as campaigning for universal suffrage.

Dear God....

Yes, if you stop cars from moving, there will be fewer car accidents. You really don't have to convince me of that.

So large-scale 20mph reductions are shown to result in fewer accidents, fewer injuries, fewer deaths.

You don't need convincing of that.

And yet you still don't want them.

I can't think of anything to say about you that won't get me banned.

 

[morqthana]

Am I right in thinking that the speed-limited autobahns had speed limits in excess of 20 MPH though? Do you really think that the difference between autobahns were some vehicles could be doing 200 MPH and some doing 60 is particularly relevant to the topic under discussion (the difference between 20 and 30 MPH limits)? Really?

I wrote what I did in reply to this

Speed limits are (and have always been) a very blunt instrument.

to point out that there is no better one by citing the example of what happens when there are no speed limits.

In some studies, yes. Not all.

And the ones which do are the large-scale schemes.

Like the one in Wales.

Traffic volumes (lockdown years aside) have been rising pretty much since the war! If we look at the bigger picture (rather than just the last 10 years or so, you can see that the rate of reduction has dropped off massively - effectively flatlining between 2010 and the lockdown years. Genuine question: why do you suppose that is? Cars are continuously getting safer. Traffic volumes haven't increased anything like as much between 2013 and 2023 as they have in previous decades, so it can't be that. We had about 3000 speed cameras in the UK in 2004 and 7000 in 2022. We've had widespread speed limit reductions since then, and even more enforcement, yet the figures remain stubbornly similar. So why do YOU think that is?

Maybe the enforcement isn't enough.

Or maybe some of our speed limits are too high.

I have said nothing about anyone's "right" to drive at any particular speed (including mine).

So why are you so exercised at the thought of your legal right to drive at speeds of up to 30mph on some roads being replaced by a legal right to drive at up to 20mph?

All I have said, is that you have to balance the admirable desire to improve road safety, against the benefits that the motor car brings to society.

Those benefits are far from unalloyed.

And none of them are lost by reducing the default speed limit on restricted roads to 20mph.

I'm every bit as interested in road safety as you are (perhaps more so, as I'm not dogmatically wedded to the notion that speed is the biggest problem...

It is A problem which is easy to address.

 

[morqthana]

Morqthana is just putting up strawmen - "your right to do 30 mph on busy, urban, built-up roads" being one - just to have an "in" on which to argue.
Something I certainly have never said, nor implied. I've gone out of my way to clearly state that I willingly "trundle", where I assess it as desirable for safety's sake.

Shall I quote you again, where you said that if you thought that a speed limit was inappropriate it would be right for you to ignore it?

Back to the origin of my posts on this: while at one of my offices ( in North Wales, in a semi-rural location), I asked the staff there how they were coping with the 20 mph.
All of the roads that I had used, from the A55 to my office front door, were 20 limits. Despite them being wide, empty, with fields on either side, and with good visibility. No shops, schools, houses, offices, nothing.

Why were they 20mph?

Was it because of the law changing the speed limit on restricted roads to 20mph?

Before the change, were the speed limits 30mph?

Why weren't they 40? Or 50? Or even unrestricted 60, if they were wide, and empty, and with no buildings of any sort?