20 mph Zones

Discussion on Advanced and Defensive Driving.

Postby MGF » Fri Aug 14, 2015 12:03 pm


rodk wrote:Alastair

On the home page of our website our third paragraph states :-

But any limit above 20mph should be a considered decision based on local circumstances.




What specific criteria should the local authority be using to establish whether or not a limit above 20mph would be appropriate?
MGF
 
Posts: 2547
Joined: Thu Jun 29, 2006 11:33 pm
Location: Warwickshire

Postby rodk » Fri Aug 14, 2015 12:19 pm


MGF

The guidance says :-

30. The following will be important factors when considering what is an appropriate speed limit:
 history of collisions, including frequency, severity, types and causes;
 road geometry and engineering (width, sightlines, bends, junctions, accesses and safety barriers etc.);
 road function (strategic, through traffic, local access etc.);
 Composition of road users (including existing and potential levels of vulnerable road users);
 existing traffic speeds; and
 road environment, including level of road-side development and possible impacts on residents (e.g. severance, noise, or air quality).

While these factors need to be considered for all road types, they may be weighted differently in urban or rural areas. The impact on community and environmental outcomes should also be considered.


Rod
rodk
 
Posts: 21
Joined: Mon Aug 10, 2015 8:17 am

Postby jcochrane » Fri Aug 14, 2015 12:31 pm


Postby akirk » Fri Aug 14, 2015 10:03 am

An excellent post that accurately sums up the views of most of us here. It highlights the weakness in the 20 is Plenty approach and the difference of a proper considered approach to the subject.

C'mon rodk we all can see the thrust of the campaign and can to interpret the desires behind a "default" limit and what and how it would be implemented in practice. Have we not already seen inappropriate examples of this? Do we really want to promote further inappropriate 20 limits? As it stands your campaign appears to support this and wishes this to become the norm. If your campaign is truly aimed to stop inappropriate application by local authorities and encourage them in sensible application of 20 limits then it needs to state that clearly and not talk of "default" 20 limits which leads to the presumption that 20 is the default/standard/blanket limit only to be reverted back to 30 as an exception.

Like others I would oppose "20 is Plenty" in its current approach/use of words, but if they were to change, along the lines suggested in akirk's and others posts here, then I am sure there would be support from those actively involved in promoting better and safer roads for all users.
jcochrane
 
Posts: 1877
Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 2:52 pm
Location: East Surrey and wherever good driving roads can be found.

Postby martine » Fri Aug 14, 2015 12:39 pm


So I think we are talking about the implementation not the principle of 20 being an appropriate speed on some roads?

Here is an example that has been changed to 20 in the last 6 months. It is the A38 Bristol to Gloucester Road - a main artery.

When it's busy, no one can do 30, when it's quiet 20 feels wrong to me. That's the main problem with 20 limits for me: a limit is in force 24/7 and contributes to frustration and impatience (and does nothing for road safety) when it's clearly not appropriate. It can't be right when loads of otherwise law-abiding road users, become law-breakers - something's wrong.
Martin - Bristol IAM: IMI National Observer and Group Secretary, DSA: ADI, Fleet, RoSPA (Dip)
martine
 
Posts: 4430
Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2005 3:49 pm
Location: Bristol, UK




Postby jcochrane » Fri Aug 14, 2015 12:47 pm


martine wrote:So I think we are talking about the implementation not the principle of 20 being an appropriate speed on some roads?

Here is an example that has been changed to 20 in the last 6 months. It is the A38 Bristol to Gloucester Road - a main artery.

When it's busy, no one can do 30, when it's quiet 20 feels wrong to me. That's the main problem with 20 limits for me: a limit is in force 24/7 and contributes to frustration and impatience (and does nothing for road safety) when it's clearly not appropriate. It can't be right when loads of otherwise law-abiding road users, become law-breakers - something's wrong.


It's interesting, as I mentioned before in London, as well as in your area how traffic speed reduces as hazards and traffic density increases. To a degree self regulating/variable and representing what most consider, at that time and place, to be the appropriate speed.
jcochrane
 
Posts: 1877
Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 2:52 pm
Location: East Surrey and wherever good driving roads can be found.

Postby Mr Cholmondeley-Warner » Fri Aug 14, 2015 1:14 pm


One of the things that most concerns me is the statement made by RodK that local people are overwhelmingly in favour of the changes to speed limits. What I find personally, is that limits change around me with no prior notification, almost by stealth. Never once have I seen signs of any consultation. I expect if you monitor closely Council meeting minutes, using FOI requests to get them, it is probably possible to get some forewarning of changes to limits. Otherwise, my impression is that these decisions are made behind closed doors by councillors with no consultation or intervention by interested members of the public, and that efforts are made to keep those decisions as covert as possible in the interest of pushing them through with little opposition, rather than involving those who live in or drive through the areas concerned.

As for noise and pollution, once you've managed to bring traffic to a complete standstill, that must be the ultimately polluting condition - queues of traffic pumping out exhaust fumes but not going anywhere. What a laudable aim - not!

Oh, and comparing dictionary definitions of "default" and "blanket" is hair-splitting pedantry. We all know what RodK means is for the 30 limit to be abolished and replaced by 20. It doesn't take much foresight to see it changing to 10, then nothing - no freedom to drive at all. That may be a possibility in 100 years time. Right now, there isn't any viable alternative to the car / truck / bus as a means of personal or commercial transport.
User avatar
Mr Cholmondeley-Warner
 
Posts: 2928
Joined: Tue Jan 23, 2007 12:03 am
Location: Swindon, Wilts




Postby jont » Fri Aug 14, 2015 1:24 pm


Mr Cholmondeley-Warner wrote:What I find personally, is that limits change around me with no prior notification, almost by stealth. Never once have I seen signs of any consultation. I expect if you monitor closely Council meeting minutes, using FOI requests to get them, it is probably possible to get some forewarning of changes to limits. Otherwise, my impression is that these decisions are made behind closed doors by councillors with no consultation or intervention by interested members of the public, and that efforts are made to keep those decisions as covert as possible in the interest of pushing them through with little opposition, rather than involving those who live in or drive through the areas concerned.

It's been a couple of years now, but ISTR you could subscribe to the South Glos website to receive notification of items such as speed limit reductions. However meetings were held day time (so I ended up taking time off to attend if I felt strongly enough). They are open to the public, and you can indeed request to speak at them, or IIRC present written material in advance. I was able to speak at the start of the meeting (IIRC limited to only a couple of minutes), but there was no opportunity to debate, or challenge any statements then made by the councillors. They could talk among themselves of course :roll:
User avatar
jont
 
Posts: 2990
Joined: Fri Jul 07, 2006 9:56 pm
Location: Cambridgeshire

Postby akirk » Fri Aug 14, 2015 1:29 pm


rodk wrote:Alasdair

No contradiction at all. The key word in there is "default". Its use is as an adjective.

Its definition is as something which is "Something that is usual or standard:".
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/defin ... sh/default

This compares with your use of the word "blanket" which is defined as

"Covering all cases or instances; total and inclusive:"
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/defin ... sh/blanket


I am not quite sure why you persist in making yourself look more and more foolish! ;)

one thing you will find on here is that folks are reasonably bright / literate and understand the English language - they are also not fools when it comes to political claptrap and pretence... if you really believe that there is no contradiction in what you say, then it is either a delusion, or a falsehood...

I am sure that you are bright enough to understand that whatever the dictionary says, there is a common understanding of a word, plus nuances when placed in specific contexts... and you are perhaps trying to be clever to use a word where you can argue one meaning, but where it will commonly be taken as another - that is called deception.

Yes, I accept that default means usual / standard, and therefore allows for exception, but lets try a little honesty here -you are not at any point promoting exception - other than accepting in throwaway comments the possibility in the belief that it makes you look reasonable and in the hope / intent that it will never happen...

If you were really promoting that perspective you would be arguing to start on a default of 20mph and evaluate every road and decide which should be 30mph - of course that is a sillyargument because we already have a default and it is 30mph - so the only option when there is already a legal default is to look at 20mph as an exception... as that is already embedded in law - the ability to consider roads for 20mph - there is presumably no longer a need for your campaign - unless the real message of your campaign, which you deny is that you want all roads in residential / urban areas to be 20mph...

you have really exposed the truth of what you stand for...

Alasdair
Last edited by akirk on Fri Aug 14, 2015 2:14 pm, edited 1 time in total.
akirk
 
Posts: 668
Joined: Thu Oct 30, 2014 11:07 am
Location: Cotswolds

Postby rodk » Fri Aug 14, 2015 1:46 pm


martine

Thanks for that location. Yes, its an excellent example.

From your perspective as an "advanced" driver then 30mph may seem acceptable. And yes, I accept that an "advanced" driver would look at the road and may well appreciate the hazards and drive slower than 30. But lets look around a little.

How would it be for the cyclist trying to negotiate the cars parked in the cycle lane?
How would it be for the 75 year old or child wanting to cross the road to get to their shop?
How would it be for the group that has just come out of The Queen Vic?
How would it be for the driver coming out of the petrol station and finding their view obscured by those planters?
How would it be for the people sat in the pavement cafe that we can see?
How would it be for the person just getting off the bus and crossing in front of it?
How would it be for the bus driver having to pull out and filter into the stream of traffic?
How would it be for the people living above the shops?
How would it be considering its casualty record?

Whilst some of these may well be negligent road users there is still a duty of care to avoid them. And lets face it the A38 sounds grand but it has long ago been bypassed by the M32. And with regard to its primary function, in that particular place and time it would appear that there are as many people moving outside of cars as are moving in cars. All those shops also give a sense of "place" for people.

I am sure that you will agree that whilst "advanced" drivers would see all the above as potential hazards, many drivers would not see them as such at all. And there are many who would see those large 30mph signs as you come out of the side roads as invitations to go 10mph faster.

I am not saying this road should or should not be 20 or 30 but it is not you or I that decides but the local traffic authority.

What is clear is that Bristol City Council as that Traffic Authority have decided that it should be a 20mph limit. They have done that without any lobbying from 20's Plenty for Us. They have done it with the ability for that particular road and limit to be objected to and would have had to consider any such objections rationally and reasonably. Either they had no objections from the 400,000 residents, or they did and decided that they were not reasonable.

Best regards

Rod
rodk
 
Posts: 21
Joined: Mon Aug 10, 2015 8:17 am

Postby Kimosabe » Fri Aug 14, 2015 1:48 pm


Is this really happening?!

Rodk, what i'm curious to know, is why you thought it would be acceptable to join an Advanced Driving forum, in order to lecture already conscientious drivers about speed reduction. It's a bit like telling people who already do something ie drive safely, that they now have to keep doing it because a sign says so and not because they chose to anyway. That's the position you have adopted in your spare time.

"Thanks for diving safely through our village". Was that you too? :lol:

Here ya go: Signs do not make drivers safer.

Again? Signs do not make drivers safer. 20 signs will not cause people who drove upto 20 to now do anything other than they were anyway and it won't cause those who didn't to now do it.

Not that i'd expect you to get that. :roll:

What next? Local elderly residents from 'the local committee', who couldn't drive at a limit even if it was safe to do so, being given speed guns and high viz jackets, standing on long straights, catching and reporting drivers...... oh wait, that already happens :roll: It is everybody's duty to report crimes and offenses and it is an offense to not do so..... not Orwellian or Godwinian at all then....

I'm writing to the letters page of the Daily Heil and Torygraph immediately, to demand that this stupidly fast new limit be reduced to 8mph. We'll call it 'Eight's Great!', because committee member Glenda used to be a receptionist for an ad agency and knows about catchy titles.

Appalled, from Hove.....
A wise man once told me that "it depends". I sometimes agree.
Kimosabe
 
Posts: 586
Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2013 2:30 pm

Postby jcochrane » Fri Aug 14, 2015 2:01 pm


"7 is heaven" gets my vote :lol:

Unfortunately Rod the mantra for advanced drivers is "educate not legislate" which is why your approach is not met with much enthusiasm here. It conflicts with what we are promoting.

Many of us dropped the legislate thinking a long time ago as we gained understanding realising that the real problem lay with all road users needing to play their part through educating.
Last edited by jcochrane on Fri Aug 14, 2015 2:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.
jcochrane
 
Posts: 1877
Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 2:52 pm
Location: East Surrey and wherever good driving roads can be found.

Postby Mr Cholmondeley-Warner » Fri Aug 14, 2015 2:16 pm


RodK asked:

Q: How would it be for the cyclist trying to negotiate the cars parked in the cycle lane?
A: the cycle lane is a nonsense anyway. Look a little further down the street and you'll find a bus stop blocking it, go a little further down and it disappears entirely.
Q: How would it be for the 75 year old or child wanting to cross the road to get to their shop?
A: They should use a pedestrian crossing, or cross at the lights. If there's no crossing, they should campaign for one - I'm sure there's a pressure group to help them, somewhere. And making the speed limit 20 mph doesn't suddenly make it OK to mix pedestrians and cars in the road without any control.
Q: How would it be for the group that has just come out of The Queen Vic?
A: Advanced drivers are trained to look at pubs as a potential hazard, but what are we actually talking about here? Drunk people lacking enough control to walk on the (quite wide) pavement? See previous point.
Q: How would it be for the driver coming out of the petrol station and finding their view obscured by those planters?
A: What's that got to do with the speed limit? Are you saying it's safe for them to drive out without looking if the speed limit's 20 instead of 30?
Q: How would it be for the people sat in the pavement cafe that we can see?
A: How would what be? Are you saying traffic at 20 mph is silent, or doesn't emit fumes?
Q: How would it be for the person just getting off the bus and crossing in front of it?
A: see previous point about pedestrians in the road. They have a responsibility, too.
Q: How would it be for the bus driver having to pull out and filter into the stream of traffic?
A: I imagine they managed on the day before the 20mph limit was introduced, and for many years before that.
Q: How would it be for the people living above the shops?
A: they chose to live there, presumably, knowing it was a main road.
Q: How would it be considering its casualty record?
A: Ah, at last a sensible point. I wonder if that was actually taken into account, and whether strategically sited pedestrian crossings might have been just as effective?

Q: Whilst some of these may well be negligent road users there is still a duty of care to avoid them.
A: Yep, and every driver understands that, not just advanced ones. Some may be better at exercising the care than others, that's all. Did you see the pedestrian by the bus stop crossing the road while firmly looking at his phone?
Q: And lets face it the A38 sounds grand but it has long ago been bypassed by the M32. And with regard to its primary function, in that particular place and time it would appear that there are as many people moving outside of cars as are moving in cars. All those shops also give a sense of "place" for people.
A: There patently aren't. Over half a mile or so the number of people on foot, and a single cyclist, barely add up to double figures. I'm not going to attempt a count, because the traffic is not representative given that it's moving along with the Google car, but at a guess there are well over 50 cars visible along the same stretch.

Q: I am sure that you will agree that whilst "advanced" drivers would see all the above as potential hazards, many drivers would not see them as such at all. And there are many who would see those large 30mph signs as you come out of the side roads as invitations to go 10mph faster.
A: Yep, that's what speed limits are for. Slower speeds where appropriate.

Q: I am not saying this road should or should not be 20 or 30 but it is not you or I that decides but the local traffic authority.
A: a minute ago (it seems only a minute) you were extolling your qualifications as a traffic engineer. Now you want to step back...

Q: What is clear is that Bristol City Council as that Traffic Authority have decided that it should be a 20mph limit. They have done that without any lobbying from 20's Plenty for Us.
A: So the entry for "Bristol" on this page is a misprint then?
Q: They have done it with the ability for that particular road and limit to be objected to and would have had to consider any such objections rationally and reasonably. Either they had no objections from the 400,000 residents, or they did and decided that they were not reasonable.
A: No doubt there were some objections, but how many of the local residents (not the entire population of Bristol that you chose to use) actually knew the measure was imminent?
User avatar
Mr Cholmondeley-Warner
 
Posts: 2928
Joined: Tue Jan 23, 2007 12:03 am
Location: Swindon, Wilts




Postby akirk » Fri Aug 14, 2015 2:53 pm


rodk wrote:martine

Thanks for that location. Yes, its an excellent example.

From your perspective as an "advanced" driver then 30mph may seem acceptable. And yes, I accept that an "advanced" driver would look at the road and may well appreciate the hazards and drive slower than 30. But lets look around a little.

How would it be for the cyclist trying to negotiate the cars parked in the cycle lane?
How would it be for the 75 year old or child wanting to cross the road to get to their shop?
How would it be for the group that has just come out of The Queen Vic?
How would it be for the driver coming out of the petrol station and finding their view obscured by those planters?
How would it be for the people sat in the pavement cafe that we can see?
How would it be for the person just getting off the bus and crossing in front of it?
How would it be for the bus driver having to pull out and filter into the stream of traffic?
How would it be for the people living above the shops?
How would it be considering its casualty record?


so we should drive at 20mph all the time in case at some point in the day there is a 75 year old or childr crossing the road / someone coming out of the Queen Vic / a driver exiting from the petrol station / a bus stopping / etc.

you do realise don't you that we already have one of the best driving tests and standards of driving in the world?
you do realise that built into it is hazard awareness?
you do realise that a 30mph limit means that it is a LIMIT, and that a driver can and will usually drive slower...
you do realise that drivers don't need to be infantilised and forced to drive at 20mph just in case next week a 75 year old hops across the road - drivers have brains, and can use them - the vast majority of drivers are not an issue
you do realise that our legislation already includes signs to warn of the elderly / children
you do realise that in fact, while I would normally choose to drive slower, I can drive down a residential or urban street at 30mph in the right circumstances and people don't fall dead around me!

you are campaigning against a non-issue / against something hypothetical... why not find some actual clear cut evidence to show that wide-spread 20mph limits are reducing pollution / helping the elderly / etc. so far it is all hypothetical - the one case you quoted showed that even had there been a 20 limit it would have been too fast / and the mother beckoned the child across the road - who was actually liable? mother / car driver / those choosing the limits? (clue, not the latter!)

Alasdair
akirk
 
Posts: 668
Joined: Thu Oct 30, 2014 11:07 am
Location: Cotswolds

Postby TheInsanity1234 » Fri Aug 14, 2015 3:34 pm


Being 17, I'm young, hot-headed, opinionated and have a false perception of how brilliant I am at driving (I mean I think I'm worse than I actually am ;))

But my only contribution to this matter would be:
I don't give a toss about speed limits. The only reason why I stick to them is because 2 offences will see me off the road with a need to retake my test after a few months of a ban.

The speedometer in my car holds very little value to me as a measure of a safe speed, just like the number on a stick somewhere at the side of the road.

I fully support the implementation of speed limits as a way of managing traffic flow, and indeed, as an indication of hazard density. Therefore, a 20 limit, say... here would get full approval from me, as it's a very narrow road with houses sitting directly on the road, and lots of driveways which are hidden. Now, of course, I drive at 20ish through there, so the speed limit reduction (which will never happen) would be welcomed by me.

Just further down the road, we find a road which goes along the outskirts of East Garston, which has been blessed with a 30 limit, beginning here, and there is only one short section of residential housing, and a gastropub (which doesn't have drunks staggering out of it at all, and it is well set back from the road), in the entire 1/2 mile section, and I stick to 30 along it as I have to, and when going past the terrace of housing, I slow to less than 20 anyway due to the fact there's a line of parked cars outside the house, and the road curves, thus meaning you can't see anyone approaching when you move out to pass the parked cars, but I frequently see people doing 40+ along it, and I get tailgated excessively for doing 30. The trouble is, because the road is indeed safe enough to do 40 on, people lose respect for the speed limit, and ignore it, so when they get to a point on the road where there is indeed an increased hazard, people won't slow down, and consequently increase the danger that the lower limit is trying to reduce.

Equally as significant is the road here in Brighton on the seafront. The 30 limit starts at the point I linked to, and is 30 all the way along the seafront, which is an issue because that road is so wide, it's wide enough for 4 lanes, and there are massive pavements along both sides which have cycle lanes on.
However, it's a 30 limit because of the fact there's a certain number of people living within a certain distance from the road. As far as I know, It's classed as a residential road, so using your logic, this particular road would benefit from a 20 limit, wouldn't it?
I doubt it would make any difference though, it would just make the drivers who drive along there more illegal, rather than suddenly better behaved.

The Government and various "road safety" charities demand that drivers respect speed limits and things like that, but then the various organisations overuse the things we're supposed to respect by such a ridiculous amount that they've turned into a mockery and command very little respect.

I would be all for abolishing speed limits outside of built up areas, and introducing advisory speed guides for hazard hot-spots (such as a series of very sharp and narrow bends) and in urban/suburban areas, I would try to change the road design and layout so the perceived safe speed is much lower (make high street roads slightly narrower by use of white paint to move cars further away from the kerbs (like here, and change the rules so small narrow residential streets will be subject to 20 limits, wider roads which have houses slightly set back from them will be 30, and so on.

But y'know, feel free to ignore me because I'm just an inexperienced driver who's obsessed with driving as fast as I possibly can in order to break physics or something, so I couldn't possibly have any reasonable opinions.
TheInsanity1234
 
Posts: 822
Joined: Sat Mar 22, 2014 9:22 pm
Location: West Berkshire

Postby Kimosabe » Fri Aug 14, 2015 4:23 pm


jcochrane wrote:"7 is heaven" gets my vote :lol:


Splitter! We were here first!! :wink:

My way of choosing who I learn from, is to watch them first consistently practice what they preach and judge how they preach it. I've never met a driver who didn't exceed speed limits, until Rodk came along. There's always one :roll: He's right, education doesn't improve abilities, signs do! Where do I sign?

Other signs that resolved the problem:
No ball games.
Keep off the grass.
Dogs are not permitted to foul the footpath. Owners may be prosecuted.
Pl**se do. no* s*.*o:ot t:his. *ign.
Nothing to declare.
A wise man once told me that "it depends". I sometimes agree.
Kimosabe
 
Posts: 586
Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2013 2:30 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Advanced Driving Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests