20 mph Zones

[RobC]

20mph speed awareness courses have quickly followed. I guess someone has to pay for all the 20 mph signs

[rodk]

Although this post is a reply to RobC, I will also use it to address some of the other points raised.

Thanks for naming some of the places implementing authority-wide 20mph limits. But don't forget Bath, Portsmouth, Cambridge, Leicester, Nottingham, Birmingham, Warrington, Manchester, Wigan, St Helen's, Sefton, Brighton, Middlesbrough, Calderdale, Edinburgh, Coventry, Chichester, Darlington, York, City of London, and London Boroughs of Hackney, Islington, Camden, Greenwich, Tower Hamlets, Waltham Forest, Croydon, Lewisham, Hammersmith & Fulham, Haringey.

Funding for 20mph limits primarily comes from central government, although Section 106, LSTF, Development Funds and Public Health can all contribute. Whereas receipts from speed awareness courses do not fund any signage.

Horse asks about crash history of locations where 20mph speed limits are set. Well the guidance says that a wide number of factors should be used when setting speed limits. In particular :-

The underlying aim should be to achieve a 'safe' distribution of speeds. The key factors that should be taken into account in any decisions on local speed limits are:
 history of collisions;
 road geometry and engineering;
 road function;
 Composition of road users (including existing and potential levels of
vulnerable road users);  existing traffic speeds; and  road environment.
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.

Of course in residential urban areas crashes can often be unclustered which is why a wide-area approach is beneficial.

Hir asks me what I would do if my speedo fails and I decide to continue my journey with an unroadworthy vehicle which would be against the law. That's rather a hypothetical question but I suspect that my previous experience of actually keeping to a limit would help me in such a hypothetical situation.

Gannet, although being Membership Secretary of the East Surrey Group of Advanced Motorist, is perhaps showing an inability to face up to the fact that society does limit the speed at which motor vehicles are allowed to drive throughout all civilised countries. No-one is saying that the speed limit is always the safest speed. But in the conditions where one should drive less than the limit then I do not see how having a higher limit helps.

He/she is also ignorant of the fact that whilst only some motorways in Germany are de-restricted, some have achieved much lower casaulty rates when they became restricted. Also see http://etsc.eu/motorway-deaths-in-germa ... -increase/

And if he/she is a driver and a cyclist then maybe should understand that speed limits apply to "motor" vehicles. And whilst a cycle is indeed a "vehicle" as far as the road traffic act is concerned it is not motorised. Cyclist have to conform to other more subjective rules regarding speed.

Alasdair talks about "being safe to do 30", but these are both retrospective judgements and also focus speed limits on safety, or rather non-crashes, rather than the wider societal benefits of lower speeds such as less noise, liveability, modal shift, lower pollution. Higher speeds also depress active travel and independent mobility by the young and elderly which have huge implications and societal costs.

And its because Traffic Authorities are looking at these wider benefits rather than the narrow "through the dashboard" view of their cities that they are saying that 20 is plenty where people live, walk, shop, work and learn.

Alasdair talks about training everyone to "drive properly" which he knows is not possible. To do so in an environment which disposes of speed limits is impractical. Its just a get-out which harks back to the "if only everyone was as good a driver as I am" approach. And does he really think that this is worth it just so that he can exceed 20mph on a street where people live?

And the red flag argument? Yep I have heard that before.

Apologies for the length of the post, but probably easier than lots of separate replies.

[trashbat]

Rod - without intending to convey any implicit meaning here, can I ask: do you appreciate who the audience is here? Can you describe what you think this forum is about and who its members might be?

[MGF]

I can't see how the 85th percentile is appropriate for setting maximum speed limits where there are high levels of pedestrians and cyclists. Unless of course their speeds are included.

...Note that another less well known fact is that there is already "case law" which has established that if a driver is exceeding 25mph in a 20mph limit or zone then they could be liable for the consequences of a crash even if the injured party was negligent. See Rehman v Brady....

It is well established that an inappropriate speed can lead to a finding of fault and consequently the driver being liable.

Proportion of fault doesn't necessarily determine proportion of liability. It is quite common for the driver of a motor vehicle to be liable for a greater proportion the claim than the proportion of their fault if the claimant is a cyclist or pedestrian.

Now, Rehman v Brady...

[rodk]

Rod - without intending to convey any implicit meaning here, can I ask: do you appreciate who the audience is here? Can you describe what you think this forum is about and who its members might be?

Rob

I can see from the many references to IAM, ADI, etc that many of the group have numerous advance driving qualifications.

As my first post relates, I was trying to correct some technical issues regarding whether 20mph zones were enforceable and the legal requirements for signage.

These implied that some of those posting were not aware of the changes in guidance over the last 10 years or the widespread adoption of 20mph limits and the reasons for doing so.

I assumed from the very existence of the thread that this issue was of interest to "advanced drivers"

My intention was to share some of my knowledge of the issue for the benefit of those in the group. I was hoping that a group of "advanced drivers" or even "wannabee advanced drivers" would feel that this was beneficial.

I did feel that a different perspective would be useful and that my comments would be welcomed.

[martine]

...My intention was to share some of my knowledge of the issue for the benefit of those in the group. I was hoping that a group of "advanced drivers" or even "wannabee advanced drivers" would feel that this was beneficial.

I did feel that a different perspective would be useful and that my comments would be welcomed.

Thank you Rod for taking the time to post here - I was going to write: "You're a brave man" but I hope that's not needed. Whilst I fundamentally disagree with widespread 20s and any campaign that focuses on speed reduction as a way to improve road safety, I do hope everyone here can continue to keep this discussion civilised and non-personal.

Here's hoping...

[hir]

I did feel that a different perspective would be useful and that my comments would be welcomed.

Not necessarily.

This is an advanced driving forum not a sounding board for people who wish to dumb down driving to the lowest common denominator, however necessary you might believe that to be.

[hir]

Hir asks me what I would do if my speedo fails and I decide to continue my journey with an unroadworthy vehicle which would be against the law.

No, that's not the question I asked, and you know full well it isn't. If you're not prepared to answer the direct question, why are you on here?

This is an advanced driving forum. Please, either answer the questions posed, or don't bother contributing.

[fungus]

Actually it would be interesting to note how drivers would drive if they had no speedometer.

[akirk]

Alasdair talks about "being safe to do 30", but these are both retrospective judgements and also focus speed limits on safety, or rather non-crashes, rather than the wider societal benefits of lower speeds such as less noise, liveability, modal shift, lower pollution. Higher speeds also depress active travel and independent mobility by the young and elderly which have huge implications and societal costs.

And its because Traffic Authorities are looking at these wider benefits rather than the narrow "through the dashboard" view of their cities that they are saying that 20 is plenty where people live, walk, shop, work and learn.

Alasdair talks about training everyone to "drive properly" which he knows is not possible. To do so in an environment which disposes of speed limits is impractical. Its just a get-out which harks back to the "if only everyone was as good a driver as I am" approach. And does he really think that this is worth it just so that he can exceed 20mph on a street where people live?

And the red flag argument? Yep I have heard that before.

How is being safe to do 30 a retrospective judgement - that is a ridiculous statement - on that basis no speed is known to be safe until afterwards and all motor vehicles should be banned. Sometime you need to take your thought processes to their logical end to see how silly they are. Any decent driver can tell when it is safe to do 30 on a road - hardly difficult, if you are not able to, then I can recommend further driver training!

your wider societal benefits are all absolute nonsense - you have to come back to the point I made previously that you are avoiding - dealing with symptoms not root causes

- 2 roads, 1 with a 30 mph limit and 1 with a 20 mph limit - I can choose to drive both at 15mph and the effects are the same - or if appropriate I can use more intelligence and in the 30mph limit I can choose to drive at 25 / 28 / etc.
My car actually can make more noise at some slower speeds due to gear selection, overrun and exhaust popping, pollution again is variable and far more affected by the car I take from the drive than the speed at which I drive.

active travel and independent mobility can be far more affected by public transport than by the small difference between 20 and 30 - and it again ignores the fact that in a 30 I still can choose and would choose to drive often well below 20... thus having no difference from a 20 limit - the effect on the young cycling / elderly walking has nothing to do with the speed limit, and everything to do with good driving (closeness to cyclists / anticipating pedestrians / etc. etc.)

As for training - yes it is possible if the intent is there, it is a very basic part of training and can be brought more strongly into the learner test, as has already happened with the hazard test etc. If people can't drive properly - then it is simple, don't give them a licence - that would focus attention! Do I think it is worth it - yes, it has far more wide-reaching benefits than a limit being reduced to 20mph, it has nothing to do with my ability to 'exceed 20mph on a street where people live - that is to presume that to be evil or wrong - there may be times when it is wrong, and may be times when it is fine - I am able to tell the difference and choose - that is what driver training gives you...

I assumed from the very existence of the thread that this issue was of interest to "advanced drivers"

My intention was to share some of my knowledge of the issue for the benefit of those in the group. I was hoping that a group of "advanced drivers" or even "wannabee advanced drivers" would feel that this was beneficial.

I did feel that a different perspective would be useful and that my comments would be welcomed.

Not sure that you are taking a wise move here - you might wish to back off / read the forum and start to realise the level and ability of some of the drivers on here... different perspectives are always interesting, and yes, it is interesting to know what makes someone tick who takes so polarised a view

The sad thing about our society is the extent of influence politically seen from such small groups of people in many niches - if you were to put it to a referendum there is no way that this country wants 20mph zones or speed limits - yes, we all want less deaths, but this is not the correct route

and you still haven't answered my pertinent point about dealing with symptoms not root causes - we all know that this is all about political expediency / all about pressure groups such as yours presenting a skewed perspective / all about dealing with the symptoms so that people can claim they are making progress / doing something, when it is fiddling while Rome burns - sorry, but while I respect anyone who has a strong direction and focus, I don't respect this view - it is wrong at a core logical level and all the answers you are giving on here are no surprise - they pick certain bits out to make a point without the full story...

ultimately you have ignored the strong points / used a legal example which defeats your own argument / criticised the members on here without knowing them - sorry, deeply unimpressive - I'm out, not worth discussing.

Alasdair

[akirk]

Actually it would be interesting to note how drivers would drive if they had no speedometer.

Far more interesting

I had an XJS where the speedo failed and it was a while before it could be repaired, I managed to drive safely and legally through lots of methods of understanding the speed needed - no points, despite lots of speed cameras / no one run over...

Alasdair

[MGF]

Had a look at Rehman and what is relevant to this discussion is that the court found that the presence of a 20mph limit and traffic calming measures should have put the driver on notice that he was driving into a particularly hazardous area.

From my own observations drivers generally do not slow sufficiently when passing parked vehicles on narrow streets. I find that I am a mobile traffic calming feature on the last leg of my journey home.

[rodk]

Alasdair

My first comment was merely relating some facts about 20mph limits and zones. They weren't my "views" or "perspective" simply the "facts" which some previous posters seemed not to know and were wanting answers.

It was you who suddenly went off on one about speed limits not being necessary. My responses were to your "views" which seemed to be at odds with just about every NGO or western government I know of.

And regarding that mythical situation where the speedo isn't working, the the limit actually is a key source of information, particularly as an indicator of the nature and risks posed by the road both to themselves and to all other road users.

[fungus]

The answer is to use your eyes to identify the nature of the area you're driving through.

[hir]

Actually it would be interesting to note how drivers would drive if they had no speedometer.

A very interesting question. I think most drivers believe, rightly or wrongly, that the speed at which they drive is not dangerous or life threatening. It's the 85th percentile argument. To a large extent this is borne out by the fact that inappropriate speed is not a significant factor in most road traffic incidents/accidents. I think the vast majority of drivers don't take their speedometer reading into account most of the time. I often witness drivers travelling in excess of 40 mph in 30mph limits and when questioned will respond that they didn't know what speed they were travelling at but whatever it was they judged it to be safe. I speak from personal experience with IAM and RoSPA associates in their early days of training. And I often have to agree with their assessment of the risk and their judgement of speed from the perspective of... is it safe? However, by the time they've finished the course red-ringed limits will be sacrosanct, if for no other reason than IAM/RoSPA are public charities who cannot be seen to be sanctioning breaking the law. We all know that in certain circumstances 40mph in a 30mph limit is perfectly safe. Police and other emergency drivers will often exceed 40mph in a 30mph limit without any resultant risk to themselves or other road users. As we all know... it just depends on the circumstances. In some 30mph limits it might well be that 15mph is the appropriate speed for the circumstances. In other circumstances 40mph will be perfectly safe, albeit illegal. Speed limits are not necessarily synonymous with safety.

So, to answer your question directly... I don't think an absence of speedometers would have a significant affect on actual speeds. 85% of drivers will drive at a speed that 85% consider to be appropriate. plus ça change.