20 mph Zones

[revian]

RodK

Thank you for the stats as well as the wider explanation. I share the feelings of some (and I think nearly all) that improving the quality of life in a community is 'a good thing'. For me this includes 20mph limits. I believe the argument is being lost in some quarters because of a number of clearly inappropriate impositions of the limiting poor explanations. Councils are not known for their finessing of solutions to issues.

The tag public line gives a simple gathering point (20 is plenty) but hides the aim of quality in living and (I suspect) gathers to it the anti-car lobby which undoubtedly exists. How can you do a better job of public explanation and give a more positive image to driving? Or isn't that possible in your (your group not you personally) view?

We are not a group in the sense of 'having a view' or 'a policy'. It's a forum of those with an interest in driving and is in opinions (and we have a few!) as varied as its members.

Kind regards

Ian (edited to remove some of my confusions.... I've been at sea on the Mersey)

[RobC]

...As a professional driver trainer I don't have a problem with 20mph limits...

As a professional driver trainer, I do.

...if a single life is saved then the limits are worthwhile.

Really? So we'd best ban all vehicles then - that would probably save hundreds...sorry to be flippant but you get my point. Any road safety intervention is likely to be a balance and your statement above is too simplistic.

There is also the problem of distraction...at 20 there will be a bigger temptation for pedestrians to walk out without paying proper attention to their safety and ditto car drivers tempted to send that text whilst on the move. 2 wrongs don't make a right but I'm just trying to illustrate possible unintended consequences of imposing a low limit.

Hi Martin

I don't have a problem with the 20 mph limits but that's my opinion. If you do have a problem with the 20 mph limit I respect your opinion.
I'm not saying all speed limits are appropriate, but only a minority aren't in my experience and I drive around 40,000 miles a year, much of it around Lancashire.

The reduction in KSI figures in 20mpm limits doesn't support drivers and pedestrians being distracted and having more accidents. If it did I wouldn't be generally in favour of 20mph speed limits. Indeed Rod's campaign for a reduction of speed limit has been very successful to the extent that he has been awarded an MBE for services to road safety.

Of course if there are figures to suggest that 20mph speed limits don't contribute to road safety. I'm always happy to reconsider my opinion.

Regards Rob

[akirk]

Hi Alasdair

As I said earlier politicians can produce figures which support any argument. No survey or vote is representative of 100% of the population you either accept Rospa's figures or you don't.

What is IAMs stance on 20mph limits? I understand that the IAM commissioned a survey, but only the views of 1001 people of our total population of 60 million were represented.

http://www.iam.org.uk/images/stories/policy-research/iam%2020mph%20survey.pdf

Rob

Rob,

I can accept figures - while realising that they can be meaningless
I can accept figures - while discarding assumptions and conclusions

we live in a world of soundbites where the impression given is more important than the reality - I know that I am old-fashioned, but I prefer honesty...

as others are saying - I have no issue with a 20mph limit - in the right place - indeed I argued early on in this discussion that one of the issues with 20mph limits is that they cover areas which should probably be lower (15mph or even 10mph) - I understand that as an AD I will hopefully note and choose a lower speed anyway so the limits are less relevant other than as another piece of information / a clue to help me make decisions... but acknowledge that the same doesn't apply to the whole population...

Alasdair

[RobC]

You cannot be serious With comments like that the forum is fast loosing credibility

Thank you for the stats as well as the wider explanation. I share the feelings of some (and I think nearly all) that improving the quality of life in a community is 'a good thing'. For me this includes 20mph limits. I believe the argument is being lost in some quarters because of a number of clearly inappropriate impositions of the limiting poor explanations. Councils are not known for their finessing of solutions to issues.

The tag public line gives a simple gathering point (20 is plenty) but hides the aim of quality in living and (I suspect) gathers to it the anti-car lobby which undoubtedly exists. How can you do a better job of public explanation and give a more positive image to driving? Or isn't that possible in your (your group not you personally) view?

Oh... Your quote at the top... That's unfair to the forum in my view. We are not a group in the sense of 'having a view' or 'a policy'. It's a forum of those with an interest in driving and is in opinions (and we have a few!) as varied as its members.

Kind regards

Ian

Hi Ian

As responsible drivers and citizens we comply with the laws imposed by our society. The advanced groups are here not only to set an example but also represent their membership.
If the 20mph limits are being imposed inappropriately on a large scale and a large number of members of the advanced driving organisations think this is the case, It is up to their advanced driving organisations and other concerned driving organisations to lobby to get those speed limits reviewed.
The success of any representations would largely depend on the effect the 20 mph limits are having on road safety.

From my own point of view, my main concern is driver training and not legislation, although if the figures showed that the 20mph limits were having an adverse effect on KSI figures then I too would be very concerned.

Kind Regards

Rob

[martine]

Of course if there are figures to suggest that 20mph speed limits don't contribute to road safety. I'm always happy to reconsider my opinion.

OK...the IAM policy link I quoted above says: "...their overall impact on road safety is at best unclear."

Or rather more factually, I can also confirm the two 20mph pilot areas in Bristol set-up in 2010 had very mixed results...one had a decrease in KSIs and the other an increase. I haven't for a link to hand but I can assure you it is correct, confirmed by Helen Wigginton (Bristol City Council) at a meeting I was at, on Monday.

Also, just to counteract Rod's assertion of 20mph limits popularity, only yesterday the Bristol Evening Post ran a story highlighting an official petition...

http://epetitions.bristol.gov.uk/epetition_core/view/Scrap_20mph_Bristol_limit

Over 5000 signatures against so far which means the council will be debating it sometime soon.

[akirk]

As responsible drivers and citizens we comply with the laws imposed by our society. The advanced groups are here not only to set an example but also represent their membership.
If the 20mph limits are being imposed inappropriately on a large scale and a large number of members of the advanced driving organisations think this is the case, It is up to their advanced driving organisations and other concerned driving organisations to lobby to get those speed limits reviewed.
The success of any representations would largely depend on the effect the 20 mph limits are having on road safety.

From my own point of view, my main concern is driver training and not legislation, although if the figures showed that the 20mph limits were having an adverse effect on KSI figures then I too would be very concerned.

Kind Regards

Rob

This is very sad to see...
Yes, one might be law abiding - but just because a law is put in place doesn't mean that we should accept it at face value. Equally, we shouldn't accept the process that leads to those laws at face value either...

The success of any representations would largely depend on the effect the 20 mph limits are having on road safety.

So, Rob, do you believe that this is the right way to inact legislation:
- take the views of minority pressure groups
- impose as law
- wait for objections - and only then deal with it if there is enough outcry, or by 'proving figures in one direction' when they are seldom proved in the other at the point of instigation...

sadly a lot of our political system contains people who do not take an open view / balancing decisions etc. - yes, there are some great people working in politics - but a lot of people there have a personal agenda and believe therefore that the whole world should change to that perspective - arrogant and wrong...

Alasdair

[jont]

Over 5000 signatures against so far which means the council will be debating it sometime soon.

If they "debate" it in as informed a manner as South Glos "debate" speed limit reductions, you're stuck with it

If it is scrapped, it's a shame there's no way of claiming the costs of it back directly from those that brought it in originally.

[martine]

Over 5000 signatures against so far which means the council will be debating it sometime soon.

If they "debate" it in as informed a manner as South Glos "debate" speed limit reductions, you're stuck with it

Oh I don't suppose it will be rescinded for one minute but with council and mayor elections up in the next 18 months it could be interesting.

Corrected: elections are 10 months away.

[RobC]

This is very sad to see...
Yes, one might be law abiding - but just because a law is put in place doesn't mean that we should accept it at face value. Equally, we shouldn't accept the process that leads to those laws at face value either...

The success of any representations would largely depend on the effect the 20 mph limits are having on road safety.

So, Rob, do you believe that this is the right way to inact legislation:
- take the views of minority pressure groups
- impose as law
- wait for objections - and only then deal with it if there is enough outcry, or by 'proving figures in one direction' when they are seldom proved in the other at the point of instigation...

sadly a lot of our political system contains people who do not take an open view / balancing decisions etc. - yes, there are some great people working in politics - but a lot of people there have a personal agenda and believe therefore that the whole world should change to that perspective - arrogant and wrong...

Alasdair

Hi Alasdair

I was talking about individual inappropriate applications the 20mph speed limit when the law has already been passed.

Any change in law would normally involve a consultative process and as an active advanced motorist you are probably more aware them me of what part the advanced organisations had in that process.

I think most of us including myself would agree that politicians and those who make the laws and interpret them are no more perfect than anyone else and may be less so than they should be. In general though they aren't going to please everyone but at least are probably less corrupt than in some parts of the world.

Indeed the fact that we are debating this subject at all is because we do actually have strong opinions and a democracy and care about our roads and laws and that cant be a bad thing.

Regards Rob

[chrisl]

I wonder how many 20mph zone supporters would continue to support them if they were required to have 20 mph speed limiters fitted to their vehicles which activate in these zones? I can't help but think the majority of supporters only want everyone /else/ to do 20mph, while they carry on much as before.

I'd happily use something of a variation on that theme - a variable speed limiter that can be defeated in the same way as cruise-control. I could see myself using that much more than I would a real cruise-control. It would also address one of the criticisms of speed limit enforcement, that it forces drivers to pay undue attention to their speedometer than to the road ahead. My vehicles are always several years old - perhaps this is an option in new cars?

[akirk]

I wonder how many 20mph zone supporters would continue to support them if they were required to have 20 mph speed limiters fitted to their vehicles which activate in these zones? I can't help but think the majority of supporters only want everyone /else/ to do 20mph, while they carry on much as before.

I'd happily use something of a variation on that theme - a variable speed limiter that can be defeated in the same way as cruise-control. I could see myself using that much more than I would a real cruise-control. It would also address one of the criticisms of speed limit enforcement, that it forces drivers to pay undue attention to their speedometer than to the road ahead. My vehicles are always several years old - perhaps this is an option in new cars?

not sure I know of a car where it is all linked - but no technological reason not to...
my new Skoda Octavia has Traffic Sign Recognition through the Lane Assist Camera - so in theory it knows the speed limit, through picking up signs, and you could tie that to cruise control...

how it works with temporary signs such as roadworks ont he motorway I don't know...

Alasdair

[chrisl]

Thanks Alasdair, I rather had in mind something the driver could set manually. I expect in future an automatic system would be tied into GPS, bearing in mind the potential unreliability of technology reading dirty, bent and otherwise obscured signs!

[akirk]

Thanks Alasdair, I rather had in mind something the driver could set manually. I expect in future an automatic system would be tied into GPS, bearing in mind the potential unreliability of technology reading dirty, bent and otherwise obscured signs!

The problem with GPS though is that it can't handle temporary signs...
and the speed at which NSLs are being reduced doesn't get updated fast enough...

we also need to move to over the air GPS system updates rather than the current more cumbersome methods to allow for mroe instant changes and more accuracy - it will come

Alasdair

[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.

[Silk]

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.