20 mph Zones

[martine]

I thought Rod had made it clear that he prefers a default speed limit of 20 mph instead of the current 30mph. He believes the interests of other road users such as pedestrians and cyclists and communities as a whole would be better served by the same. There is some force to that argument, I think.

Currently i'm scoring Rod 1 ADUK O,

Unfortunately people like Rod will always win because they have the time and resources, not to mention the contacts, to commission surveys to "prove" anything they want.

The reality is, this will only have an impact on otherwise safe drivers, while the drunk, the uninsured, the unlicensed and the reckless (who take no notice of 30 let alone 20) will carry on killing people with impunity.

IMO, what is required is to identify those who should not be on the road in the first place and remove them permanently. A 20mph limit will not achieve this.

Well put.

[revian]

IMO, what is required is to identify those who should not be on the road in the first place and remove them permanently. A 20mph limit will not achieve this.

Well put.

But how? It seems that there's plenty who are disqualified and get caught in a car and offending again in some way. Maybe a minority but nothing so far seems to stop them.

As a semi PS....There's some evidence of interventions which work once in the prison system - but the biggest weakness maybe that once out they are forced (?) by lack of opportunity given (perhaps understandably) back to old friends and old ways.

Ian

[chrisl]

Thanks Alasdair, I rather had in mind something the driver could set manually.

Yes, nearly all modern cars have a speed limiting feature as well as cruise control.

I look forward to my next car then, whatever and whenever that might be!

[Mr Cholmondeley-Warner]

Thanks Alasdair, I rather had in mind something the driver could set manually.

Yes, nearly all modern cars have a speed limiting feature as well as cruise control.

I look forward to my next car then, whatever and whenever that might be!

Really? I've never used mine

[chrisl]

IMO, what is required is to identify those who should not be on the road in the first place and remove them permanently. A 20mph limit will not achieve this.

Well put.

I don't think I've seen any alternatives suggested in this thread that are mutually exclusive. It seems probable to me that a combination of stricter licensing, better training, road engineering and design, yes and limits, would all contribute to a safer and more pleasant road environment but in different ways.

[akirk]

IMO, what is required is to identify those who should not be on the road in the first place and remove them permanently. A 20mph limit will not achieve this.

Well put.

But how? It seems that there's plenty who are disqualified and get caught in a car and offending again in some way. Maybe a minority but nothing so far seems to stop them.
Ian

mobile car crusher?!
ah sorry sir - step this way you drove at 21mph down there...
right, Fred, pop the car in...
here you are sir, you can take it home with you on the bus...



Alasdair

[RobC]

Unfortunately people like Rod will always win because they have the time and resources, not to mention the contacts, to commission surveys to "prove" anything they want.

The reality is, this will only have an impact on otherwise safe drivers, while the drunk, the uninsured, the unlicensed and the reckless (who take no notice of 30 let alone 20) will carry on killing people with impunity.

IMO, what is required is to identify those who should not be on the road in the first place and remove them permanently. A 20mph limit will not achieve this.

Hi Silk

I agree that speed limits only work for those who wish to comply. But most driver do comply or at least try to and reduce their speed. What percentage of drivers would you think are the drunk, the uninsured, the unlicensed and the reckless? I'm not saying those drivers are'nt a problem, but the information that we are given is that there is a 60% reduction of collisions in 20 mph limit areas.

There are some inappropriate speed limits, however a lot of research and planning goes into speed limit changes and in view of the road safety benefits, I for one am not going to argue against the sensible introduction of 20mph speed limits.

Another link here. 20mph limits at 6.1 for those interested! https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/2733/setting-local-speed-limits.pdf

[martine]

...I for one am not going to argue against the sensible introduction of 20mph speed limits.

And there you go again...no one here would argue against sensible introduction of 20mph limits.

[jont]

Another link here. 20mph limits at 6.1 for those interested! https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/2733/setting-local-speed-limits.pdf

Some interesting stuff in there, particularly 71 (which shows a lack of knowledge of advanced driving - what's an "unnecessarily low gear"? Hint - manufacturers in-car indicators are often too high for flexibility (designed to game emissions targets)

73. talking about zones should be where the nature of the road suits 20mph, rather than requiring additional measures to slow people down.

78. "though they should not include roads where vehicle movement is the primary function". I thought that was the purpose of most roads?

I'd also highlight the very first paragraph in that document:
"Speed limits should be evidence-led and self-explaining and seek to reinforce people's assessment of what is a safe speed to travel. They should encourage self-compliance. Speed limits should be seen by drivers as the maximum rather than a target speed. "

Quite how setting limits to mean traffic speed can be seen as setting a maximum rather than a target I have no idea

So I come back to my biggest gripe - most of the implementations of low limits are not following DfT guidelines, but there appears to be no way to make LAs follow it, or councillors prove they understand it before giving them the power to change limits.

[rodk]

Hi

Robc

That link you gave was just a draft. The final published guidance may be found here :-

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/s ... 1-2013.pdf

Silk

I am not sure of your reference to "people like Rod will always win because they have the time and resources, not to mention the contacts, to commission surveys to "prove" anything they want."

This Rod is a volunteer who happens to have a day job and does all his 20's Plenty campaigning in his spare time. 20's Plenty for Us has minimal monetary resources but has the active support of 275 local community campaigns and thousands of people in councils, public health and road safety. When this Rod started campaigning in 2004 he had zero contacts. 20's Plenty for US have never "commissioned" any survey but relies on referencing surveys completed by established and creditable sources.

With regard to 20mph not "fixing" drunk or uninsured drivers then its rather like saying that penicillin doesn't prevent malaria or purifies drinking water.

We have never called for "every urban road to be 20mph" or that 20mph limits are a panacea. There will always be local differences of opinion regarding roads to be included or excluded. It is entirely appropriate that this should be decided by the local Traffic Authority taking due note of its statutory duties, government guidance and local conditions, including any objections or support from members of the public.

Recent and current pre and post implementation 20mph engagement is about presenting the case that we all become better and more considerate drivers that make communities better places to be when we reduce our pace and speed on streets. It doesn't make anyone an "expert" or advanced" driver but I would suggest that any engagement programme which encourages drivers to be more aware of their surroundings and their interaction with it is a positive one. I would trust that this is totally in line with the objectives of this group.

And once again, thanks for your interest. I certainly see this group as a very important contributor to the whole debate on how we use and share the roads.

[akirk]

We have never called for "every urban road to be 20mph" or that 20mph limits are a panacea. There will always be local differences of opinion regarding roads to be included or excluded. It is entirely appropriate that this should be decided by the local Traffic Authority taking due note of its statutory duties, government guidance and local conditions, including any objections or support from members of the public.

Rod, we will have to disagree with this - that is not what comes across from a 3rd party perspective.
20 is enough is quite a clear brand message
you talk about wanting to change the reference point so that 20 is the default for residential / urban - not 30
exactly which bit of that fits with what you say above...

If you were doing what you put in the paragraph above I would support what you do - with the evidence of what you have posted so far on here, and the content of your website - your current campaign should not be supported - it is too blunt an instrument without enough finesse...

Recent and current pre and post implementation 20mph engagement is about presenting the case that we all become better and more considerate drivers that make communities better places to be when we reduce our pace and speed on streets. It doesn't make anyone an "expert" or advanced" driver but I would suggest that any engagement programme which encourages drivers to be more aware of their surroundings and their interaction with it is a positive one. I would trust that this is totally in line with the objectives of this group.

That is a sensible way of putting it... and I am sure you would find 100% support for that desire...
It is simply that blanket 20mph coverage is not the right tool - just read the comment from stressedDave above (a very experienced driver - with a lot of experience of road accident issues) to see the clear misuse of 20mph limits in some places...

If I look at my village - c. 3-400 houses and c. 1,000+ people / a church, pub and primary school (to which many children walk / scoot / cycle) and where we are also a cut through for traffic / gravel lorries / etc. in one part of the village - there is a clear need for discussion about speed - however I would absolutely fight any blanket 20mph approach - it is totally un-necessary in big parts of the village... there is a housing area with no through-access where it could be very logical, and possibly a stretch of road by the school (during school time - would be irrelevant now in the holidays...) so variable limits there, a section of permanent 20 the other end of the village, and probably chicanes on two entry roads to slow down the gravel lorries coming from a NSL, would be a very intelligent answer to speed in this locality - and I suspect that for every locale the same finesse / thinking is needed - and it is hardly difficult...

when you change your campaign to recognise that, to argue for keeping 30mph in some places - for increasing elsewhere where relevant, and reducing to 20mph, or lower where it is best suited - then I would join you in what you campaign for - but while it is a simplistic and inaccurate message of 20 is enough and therefore 20 everywhere, then I will oppose it as being illogical, and not fit for purpose

Alasdair

[RobC]

Another link here. 20mph limits at 6.1 for those interested! https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/2733/setting-local-speed-limits.pdf

Some interesting stuff in there, particularly 71 (which shows a lack of knowledge of advanced driving - what's an "unnecessarily low gear"? Hint - manufacturers in-car indicators are often too high for flexibility (designed to game emissions targets)

73. talking about zones should be where the nature of the road suits 20mph, rather than requiring additional measures to slow people down.

78. "though they should not include roads where vehicle movement is the primary function". I thought that was the purpose of most roads?

I'd also highlight the very first paragraph in that document:
"Speed limits should be evidence-led and self-explaining and seek to reinforce people's assessment of what is a safe speed to travel. They should encourage self-compliance. Speed limits should be seen by drivers as the maximum rather than a target speed. "

Quite how setting limits to mean traffic speed can be seen as setting a maximum rather than a target I have no idea

So I come back to my biggest gripe - most of the implementations of low limits are not following DfT guidelines, but there appears to be no way to make LAs follow it, or councillors prove they understand it before giving them the power to change limits.

Hi Jont

I stand corrected by Rod as to the updated link, but the point I was making is that there is lots of information available for those who have particularly strong feeling about inappropriate speed limits and I particularly agree with your comment that those who have the powers to change the limits should understand the guidelines and also appreciate that you have taken the time to read the link and made constructive criticism.

So I come back to my biggest gripe - most of the implementations of low limits are not following DfT guidelines, but there appears to be no way to make LAs follow it, or councillors prove they understand it before giving them the power to change limits.

If there is particularly strong feeling by advanced drivers that some limits are set at inappropriate levels, then the local advanced groups could have an important part to play in lobbying for change at local level.

Its easy for us all to complain about inappropriate limits an driving forums, but It actually takes a lot to get out there and make positive changes as Rod has done.

Kind Regards Robert

[rodk]

Alastair

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

We quite simply campaign for 20mph to become the default speed limit on residential and urban streets. This can be done on most streets without the need for any physical calming and we accept that on some streets it may be appropriate to have a higher limit based on the road, vulnerable road users provision, etc. But any limit above 20mph should be a considered decision based on local circumstances.

I am sorry, but everyone that I speak to can understand what we mean. In any of our presentations our introductory slide says boldly:-

No speed bumps
Exceptions determined by local authority

I do accept that some people will argue against the idea of lower speed limits but those doing so on the basis that we are suggesting every urban road should be 20mph are really going to be dismissed as "blanket cases" by anyone who has listened to the arguments made by 20's Plenty campaigners and who wants to consider them in a balanced and objective manner.

Rod

[akirk]

Alastair

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

We quite simply campaign for 20mph to become the default speed limit on residential and urban streets. This can be done on most streets without the need for any physical calming and we accept that on some streets it may be appropriate to have a higher limit based on the road, vulnerable road users provision, etc. But any limit above 20mph should be a considered decision based on local circumstances.

I am sorry, but everyone that I speak to can understand what we mean. In any of our presentations our introductory slide says boldly:-

No speed bumps
Exceptions determined by local authority

I do accept that some people will argue against the idea of lower speed limits but those doing so on the basis that we are suggesting every urban road should be 20mph are really going to be dismissed as "blanket cases" by anyone who has listened to the arguments made by 20's Plenty campaigners and who wants to consider them in a balanced and objective manner.

Rod

Rod, are you serious?

We quite simply campaign for 20mph to become the default speed limit on residential and urban streets.

... but those doing so on the basis that we are suggesting every urban road should be 20mph are really going to be dismissed as "blanket cases"...

really?!
really?!

do you not see your own contradiction?!

come on - I know you say that any limit above 20mph should be a considered decision based on local circumstances - but that is a cop-out...
if you are campaigning for a default 20mph then you are campaigning for every urban road to be 20mph - stop pretending, and saying one thing in one place and something else elsewhere...

you really need to think this through a bit better...

do you not understand that people on here have no issue with 20mph speed limits - where it is logical and enhances safety - the issue is with the way in which you dress it up / campaign / use it as a blunt instrument / remove the intelligence / put no thought into balancing the needs of all people and road users... your contradiction just reinforces that disquiet...

Alasdair

[rodk]

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