20 mph Zones

[dvenman]

Without wishing to detract from the general flow of the thread, no - enforcement at known black spots or by (the now rapidly disappearing) police patrols are what I'd put in place, along with free fish and chips and ice cream for everyone on Fridays.

[waremark]

you are yet to put forward one example of how a speed limit stops an accident where driver training would not / where a 20mph limit v. a 30mph limit both driven correctly is any safer / where a 20mph limit is dealing with the root cause not just the symptoms...

if you can start to put forward a case for any of those, or all, then it would be interesting to listen...

Alasdair

Do you really not believe that the reduction of speed limits and the change of culture towards speeds over the limit in the wider population over the last 25 years has played a part in casualty reduction? There are irresponsible drivers, there are normally responsible drivers being careless or in an irresponsible mood, there are poorly trained drivers. Using limits, enforcement and culture to slow such people down must have played a part.

And most of us fall into some of those categories some of the time. The IAM have consistently failed to prove that their training reduces accidents. What evidence do you have that a different training regime could offer a universal panacea?

What I want to see is a bit of balance - a little less lowering of limits in inappropriate places, a little bit more public information safety related advertising, a bit more promotion of safe driving practices other than slower speeds, and a suitable road safety course as part of the national curriculum for early teenagers.

[akirk]

you are yet to put forward one example of how a speed limit stops an accident where driver training would not / where a 20mph limit v. a 30mph limit both driven correctly is any safer / where a 20mph limit is dealing with the root cause not just the symptoms...

if you can start to put forward a case for any of those, or all, then it would be interesting to listen...

Alasdair

Do you really not believe that the reduction of speed limits and the change of culture towards speeds over the limit in the wider population over the last 25 years has played a part in casualty reduction? There are irresponsible drivers, there are normally responsible drivers being careless or in an irresponsible mood, there are poorly trained drivers. Using limits, enforcement and culture to slow such people down must have played a part.

And most of us fall into some of those categories some of the time. The IAM have consistently failed to prove that their training reduces accidents. What evidence do you have that a different training regime could offer a universal panacea?

What I want to see is a bit of balance - a little less lowering of limits in inappropriate places, a little bit more public information safety related advertising, a bit more promotion of safe driving practices other than slower speeds, and a suitable road safety course as part of the national curriculum for early teenagers.

possibly in some places - but not that I have seen, so maybe anecdotal - hence the reason for an interest if there is any concrete evidence...

It is a rarity around here to see anyone taking note of speed limits.
A speed limit doesn't of itself change how a driver drives - that is the driver's choice
Push the limits down too far and you lose respect for the limits
Similarly, place inappropriate limits and there is a loss of respect (if you kept NSL and had the rare occasional 40 or 50 where there is a dangerous section of road, then it would be respected - the continual reduction without reason means that people tend to ignore the speed limit and not respect it - thus the places where it is needed lose the reduction's value).

but key to this debate is - how does a 20mph limit v. a 30mph limit, on its own change things?
There is little evidence that it persuades the majority of drivers to drive slower
Those drivers who are educated / drive well / etc. will drive appropriately in either, meaning that they might do less than 20 in a 30 anyway... those who are not probably ignore the 20 anyway...
There is no evidence presented so far as to how a 20 v a 30 actually demonstrably changes speed / saves lives / etc.
now - when you look at a local village with an intelligent system of chicanes and road 'furniture' it works far better than playing with the speed limits - with no other traffic, you can drive at 30mph if safe, but mix in more traffic and you have to slow down - some intelligent thinking went into its design - there is no intelligence in the lets all go 20 theory

Alasdair

[jont]

I wondered what response that would get. Which is why I plucked it directly from the 01/2013 DfT guidance on setting local speed limits. ie :-

As well as being the legal limit, speed limits are a key source of information to road users, particularly as an indicator of the nature and risks posed by that road both to themselves and to all other road users.

That has been in the guidance since 2006. Note that I never said it was the "ONLY source of information...". Anyone who wishes to take issue with this statement would be better contacting DfT and HM Government rather than making personal attacks on myself.

I've been on holiday for a few days and missed all the fun, but didn't feel I could leave this point unaddressed.

The problem with your quote above is that it assumes speed limits are set appropriately, following the DfT guidance, and not set by local interfering busybodies spouting rubbish that (and I quote from a previous interaction with a local councillor) "any speed limit reduction is a good thing" and are interested only in presenting themselves to the majority of their electorate - not having a reasoned debate on road safety, or even following the guidelines presented to them by the DfT. Campaigns such spouting trite rubbish such as "20s plenty" really don't help the situation. Ever more widespread 20 limits in unsuitable roads just increase the level of general disrespect for where they might potentially be appropriate.

[RobC]

There is no evidence presented so far as to how a 20 v a 30 actually demonstrably changes speed / saves lives / etc.
Alasdair

Rospa actually have a lot of evidence and to say on the matter.

20 mph Zones

20 mph zones are areas where the speed limit has been set at 20 mph and traffic calming measures have been put in place to encourage drivers to stay within the 20 mph limit.

A review 15 of accident data in seventy-two 20 mph zones found that average mean speeds were reduced by 9 mph, from 25 mph to 16 mph in the zones. On average, for every 1 mph speed reduction, there was a 6.2% accident reduction.

All road accidents in the zones fell by 61%, and there was no evidence of accident migration onto surrounding roads. Traffic flows in the zones reduced by 27%. The effects were particularly significant for the most vulnerable road users:
• All pedestrian accidents down by 63%
• All cyclist accidents down by 29%
• Motorcyclist accidents down by 73%
• Child accidents down by 67%
• Child pedestrian accidents down by 70%
• Child cyclist accidents down by 48%

A Transport for London review 16 of over one hundred 20 mph zones in London also found that they were very effective in reducing road injuries to children. In the zones, speeds were reduced by 9 mph and traffic flows by about 15%. Road casualties in the zones were reduced by 45% and fatal or seriously injured casualties by 57%. Again, significant protection was provided to the most vulnerable road users:
• Pedestrian casualties down by 40%, and pedestrians killed or seriously injured (KSI) down by 50%
• Child pedestrian casualties down by 48% and child pedestrians KSI down by 61%
• Cyclist casualties down by 33% and cyclist KSI down by 50%
• Child cyclist casualties down by 59% and child cyclists KSI down by 60%
• Car occupant casualties down by 57% car occupant KSI down by 77%
• Child car occupant casualties down by 51% child KSI down by 47%

20 mph Limits

A more recent approach is the use of 20 mph limits over an area, but without the traffic calming measures. Road signs and markings, and education and publicity are used to encourage drivers to stay within the limit.

Portsmouth City Council is the first local authority in England to implement an extensive area-wide 20 mph Speed Limit scheme (without traffic calming) covering most (94%) of its residential roads which previously had a 30 mph speed limit. The scheme used 20 mph speed limit signs, including repeater signs, and 20 mph speed limit markings on the road. On most of the roads, the average speeds before the scheme 24 mph or were less, mostly because of narrow carriageways and on-street parking, but 20 mph signs were also put on roads with average speeds greater than 24 mph. The scheme was designed to be self-enforcing (avoiding the need for extra Police enforcement).

Overall, the number of roads with speeds of 20 mph or less increased. On roads with average speeds of 24 mph or more before the scheme was introduced, the average speed reduced by 6.3 mph. The average reduction in mean speeds on all roads was 1.3 mph.

Comparing the 3 years before the scheme and the 2 years afterwards, the number of recorded road casualties fell by 22% from 183 per year to 142 per year. During the same period casualty numbers fell nationally by about 14%. However, the number of deaths and serious injuries rose from 19 to 20 per year, although the low numbers mean this was not statistically significant.

The scheme was generally supported by residents, although most wanted to see more enforcement of the 20 mph speed limits. Levels of car travel stayed similar, whilst the level of pedestrian travel, pedal cyclist travel and public transport use increased slightly.

[akirk]

RobC - thank you for that - interesting reading...

what we don't know is the more detailed analysis of this:
- how many roads the accidents were focused on
- actual accident speeds
- etc.

we all know that if you put a blanket speed limit of 0mph on the country accidents would stop, equally, putting a speed limit of 10mph would no doubt reduce accidents further...

however that doesn't make it appropriate in all places - I have no issue with 10mph / 20mph in the right places, but blanket coverage is simply lazy and likely to be un-necessary... selective targetting of specific roads could be logical - but without knowing if accidents are 100% equally spread across all roads, we still can't say that 20mph is safer than 30mph - we can only say that in certain situations it is safer / makes more sense - but this doesn't prove it for all situations...

Alasdair

[chrisl]

I'm not a statistician, but I feel that one of the difficulties with the empirical evidence is that it is by nature aggregated. In contrast our experiences on the road are individual, which means that in our perceptions it is easy to see exceptions that seem to disprove the evidence.

I may be wrong about this and am very happy to be corrected, but it seems to me that the drivers we observe breaking the speed limit do not necessarily change the aggregate results, because they will already be accounted as part of the aggregation.

Having said that obviously places me in a category that is not in principle against limits, whether they are 20, 30 or whatever. Apart from anything else in a residential area I am very persuaded by the projected outcomes of collisions between vehicles and people - see under the heading Pedestrians on this page: http://www.rospa.com/road-safety/advice ... propriate/

If aggregate speeds fall in a more heavily speed restricted area, that at least gives a better chance to a person who is struck by a car even if the driver is mindlessly driving to the speed limit which might still be faster than the objectively safe speed. Obviously it is even better if that driver is trained to take a more informed view of the appropriate speed and then drives to it.

None of that detracts from the parallel need for education and training, which I whole-heartedly support, whether by more stringent initial tests, retests and training following conviction or negligence liability, or even regular retesting. However, given that further training at the moment is largely voluntary and a niche interest, I am not persuaded that we can do without enforceable limits.

I certainly don't see education/training and speed limits as mutually exclusive methods of enhancing safety.

[RobC]

Hi Alasdair

We are always going to get some inappropriate speed limits whatever the actual limit. In these (and other!) limits drivers commonly exceed the limit and are unlikely to be prosecuted unless they exceed the limit by 10% plus 2 mph or 35mph in a 30 limit. The same would apply to a 20mph zone where drivers could drive at 24 mph ....possibly an indicated 25 or 26mph and be unlikely to be prosecuted. We do therefore have a little leeway.

Because of my profession, I must notify the DVSA if I were to get any convictions on my licence. who would then tell me that I am not a fit and proper person to be carrying out my profession. As you probably know Lancashire has brought in widespread 20mph limits however personally I don't have a problem with them. Indeed over the 5 years I taught learners I travelled in excess of 150,000 miles around Lancashire strictly adhering to the speed limits which trained me to stay at the stated limits.
Other than the odd inappropriate speed limit I don't see speed limits as the problem. The problem is drivers who are unaware of speed limits/signs and routinely travel at speeds in excess of most not just 20/30 mph limits.

If the government were to legislate for training for all drivers such as IAM/Rospa we may not need any more speed limits but this isn't going to happen and it is far easier to use regulatory measures rather than training.

Rob

[RobC]

None of that detracts from the parallel need for education and training, which I whole-heartedly support, whether by more stringent initial tests, retests and training following conviction or negligence liability, or even regular retesting. However, given that further training at the moment is largely voluntary and a niche interest, I am not persuaded that we can do without enforceable limits.

Agree fully with this Chris

[akirk]

Other than the odd inappropriate speed limit I don't see speed limits as the problem. The problem is drivers who are unaware of speed limits/signs and routinely travel at speeds in excess of most not just 20/30 mph limits.

agree - those drivers are an issue...

but there is another issue which is under discussion here - and that is un-necessary restriction / control...

yes, we can argue that no-one is really harmed by a blanket 20mph limit, except:
- it de-skills the driver
- it controls un-necessarily
- it insults those capable of a more intelligent approach
- it removes freedom
- etc.

and that is not the UK I want to live in - these last 15-20 years have been an insidious creep of over-control in this country because those putting the regulations in place don't have the intelligence to do it in more subtle / finer ways... - as I have said before, it is a political obsession with dealing with symptoms rather than the underlying issue

Alasdair

[Silk]

Chaps, I am disappointed by how churlishly some of you have greeted a well informed and interesting new contributor.

What thread was that? I'll have to take a look.

[RobC]

Other than the odd inappropriate speed limit I don't see speed limits as the problem. The problem is drivers who are unaware of speed limits/signs and routinely travel at speeds in excess of most not just 20/30 mph limits.

agree - those drivers are an issue...

but there is another issue which is under discussion here - and that is un-necessary restriction / control...

yes, we can argue that no-one is really harmed by a blanket 20mph limit, except:
- it de-skills the driver
- it controls un-necessarily
- it insults those capable of a more intelligent approach
- it removes freedom
- etc.

and that is not the UK I want to live in - these last 15-20 years have been an insidious creep of over-control in this country because those putting the regulations in place don't have the intelligence to do it in more subtle / finer ways... - as I have said before, it is a political obsession with dealing with symptoms rather than the underlying issue

Alasdair

Hi Alasdair

But where would you go if you left the UK? You could go to Italy where no one takes any notice of road signs and road deaths at 3700 are twice ours in the UK, or India where there are no restrictions at all and no driving test to speak of and 240,000 are killed each year. China is even worse about 280,000 killed each year.

Personally Id rather stay in the UK where road safety is amongst the best in the world.

Rob

[rodk]

Hi advance drivers

I am beginning to wonder if we really are talking at cross purposes.

The 20's Plenty campaign is for "residential roads" to have a 20mph limit. British social Attitudes Surveys have shown 73% agreeing that this is the right limit for residential streets. Only 11% disagreed. 70% of those who drove agreed. This is enacted by the traffic authority deciding which roads should be excluded. This therefore usually excludes any arterial roads.

This is entirely in line with DfT guidance. Wherever pilots have been conducted the subsequent analysis of results have resulted in wider implementation with community satisfaction increasing and speeds reducing.

Whether "advanced" drivers can maintain higher speeds with the same danger levels as normal drivers at lower speeds is not really relevant. When looking out at the speed of traffic parents do not check the passing driver's IAM or ADI qualifications and say "that's OK I don't have to worry about him/her". They recognise that prevailing traffic speed does have an influence on whether they allow their child to walk to school. The 75 year old wanting to continue their twice weekly walk to the shops (that invlolves crossing the road) does not see the foot of the IAM driver hovering over the brake because he realises that an elderly person does not have the same visual looming acuity. And from the 4ft height of an 8 year old that 30mph van may seem terrifying from the side of the pavement.

I don't doubt that those on this website are "good" or "advanced drivers" but to centre the debate around setting speed limits around their own experiences and expertise is surely not consistent with the responsibilities of traffic authorities when setting limits. You can argue as much as you like that you can travel safely at higher speeds than the normal Joe or Jane but the world is made up of Joes and Janes and not Alastairs. They need guidance that sets a 20 max rather than the current endorsement of 30.

The whole 20's Plenty movement is about redefining the reference point for the way we drive. No longer a 30 blanket everywhere , but a recognition that where people live then 20 is plenty and we will go faster only where appropriate and in the community interest. Its about redefining speeds around the presence of people and the use of the road rather than the width of the tarmac.

I trust that advanced drivers can see the benefit of making residential streets better places for people to live even if this makes them poorer places to drive. And I am hopeful that they will also see that driving below 20 in such places is about using their skills to give something to communities and, as many have already said, on most residential streets they already do this anyway.

And may I thank you for all your interest and contributions including those who may not have agreed.

[akirk]

Hi advance drivers

I am beginning to wonder if we really are talking at cross purposes.

do you mean that we have different views - if so yes?!
if you mean instead that actually you support intelligent decision making matching appropriate speed limits to the roads in question rather than simplistic decisions based on political expediency - then yes, you have been talking at cross-purposes

Whether "advanced" drivers can maintain higher speeds with the same danger levels as normal drivers at lower speeds is not really relevant. When looking out at the speed of traffic parents do not check the passing driver's IAM or ADI qualifications and say "that's OK I don't have to worry about him/her". They recognise that prevailing traffic speed does have an influence on whether they allow their child to walk to school. The 75 year old wanting to continue their twice weekly walk to the shops (that invlolves crossing the road) does not see the foot of the IAM driver hovering over the brake because he realises that an elderly person does not have the same visual looming acuity. And from the 4ft height of an 8 year old that 30mph van may seem terrifying from the side of the pavement.

what tosh

who ever thinks that in a situation with a parent / 8 year old / 75 year old it is the pedestrians responsibility to manage the situation?!

in any of those situations a decent driver wouldn't be driving at 30mph, so the 8 year old will not be cowering terrifed at the side of the road, but can blithely continue to wander along as normal... surprisingly most children walking to our primary school in the village manage not to be terrified even when vehicles do drive at higher speeds...

the IAM driver's foot won't be hovering over the brake while he goes at 30 - any sensible driver will be going slower - probably even below 20mph - all within a 30mph limit - fortunately most drivers understand that 30mph means don't go faster, but you can go slower - it is also why the hazard test exists... so that drivers learn to judge when a child is a risk, and when they are not - are they bouncing a ball / on a bike or scooter - are they holding a parent's hands, are they looking to cross the road, are there parked cars causing a hazard, etc. etc. - all basic awareness that the vast majority of drivers manage every day...

and if they don't understand that - remove their licence!

this is emotional blackmail and nothing else - it is nonsense

Alasdair

[akirk]

Doing some digging...

perhaps a more pertinent question might be:
has anyone actually analysed accidents against road type?

http://www.20splentyforus.org.uk/uk_casualty_maps.htm

look at the causalty maps on your own website and zoom into Bristol - one recent convert to the 20mph...

now, I am no expert on Bristol, though have been there quite a bit - but it seems pretty obvious that there is a huge correlation between accidents and road type...

and it is the direct opposite of what you promote
residential roads have many many less accidents - the accidents clearly delineate the major routes through Bristol

so why exactly based on that do you believe that residential roads need a lower limit?

aren't you running the wrong campaign?!

Alasdair