20 mph Speed Limit Rejected - A Rare Win
Discussion
If my MP ignores the overwhelming majority and votes in favour, he will no longer have my vote at the next election.
He is elected to represent the will of the local people and to ignore it means he is no longer fit for purpose.
Should it be voted in, I will ignore the new limit (and I suspect without any repercussions).
He is elected to represent the will of the local people and to ignore it means he is no longer fit for purpose.
Should it be voted in, I will ignore the new limit (and I suspect without any repercussions).
singlecoil said:
There's already a speed limit in force, so people are already being prevented from doing what suits them (to drive at their own preferred speed if that is greater than the speed limit) so it's just a question of what that limit should be.
Well people are already prevented from doing what they aren't allowed to do, so any new law makes no difference by that logic.The point is that those who might want to drive at 25MPH (perhaps to avoid antagonising following traffic) are prevented by a 20 limit but not by a 30. So reducing the limit makes a difference.
Suppose a council wanted to raise a limit? Would the onus of proof be on them or on opponents?
The bottom line is...
What speed limit should apply to a stretch of road?
This will vary according to the conditions/ layout etc..
20 mph outside a school is ok with me....
But during certain hours only....not in the evening and overnight when the school is closed.
Why then are there 24/7 20 mph limits?
This is a result of a mentality of " speed kills under all circumstances and motor vehicles must be restricted"
Speed you drive at at any given time should depend on road conditions - fog/ rain/ ice / other road users/ parking restricting visibility...the list goes on.
Even though there may be, for example, a 50 limit the current conditions may make that unsuitable. The driver then should compensate and slow down.
I am all for variable speed limits in many places such as schools, with restrictions during drop off and pick up times -have you seen how parents park and behave at such times?
I think too many people in authority seem to only go ahead with traffic restrictions as they are afraid to upset the die hard opponents of cars/ roads etc. and that surveys on what is suitable are done far too much " to the letter" of PC and H&S rather than a balanced sensible approach.
It seems that motor vehicles are still considered to be Satan's creation - check the history with red flags in front etc...
What speed limit should apply to a stretch of road?
This will vary according to the conditions/ layout etc..
20 mph outside a school is ok with me....
But during certain hours only....not in the evening and overnight when the school is closed.
Why then are there 24/7 20 mph limits?
This is a result of a mentality of " speed kills under all circumstances and motor vehicles must be restricted"
Speed you drive at at any given time should depend on road conditions - fog/ rain/ ice / other road users/ parking restricting visibility...the list goes on.
Even though there may be, for example, a 50 limit the current conditions may make that unsuitable. The driver then should compensate and slow down.
I am all for variable speed limits in many places such as schools, with restrictions during drop off and pick up times -have you seen how parents park and behave at such times?
I think too many people in authority seem to only go ahead with traffic restrictions as they are afraid to upset the die hard opponents of cars/ roads etc. and that surveys on what is suitable are done far too much " to the letter" of PC and H&S rather than a balanced sensible approach.
It seems that motor vehicles are still considered to be Satan's creation - check the history with red flags in front etc...
Dr Jekyll said:
singlecoil said:
There's already a speed limit in force, so people are already being prevented from doing what suits them (to drive at their own preferred speed if that is greater than the speed limit) so it's just a question of what that limit should be.
Well people are already prevented from doing what they aren't allowed to do, so any new law makes no difference by that logic.The point is that those who might want to drive at 25MPH (perhaps to avoid antagonising following traffic) are prevented by a 20 limit but not by a 30. So reducing the limit makes a difference.
Suppose a council wanted to raise a limit? Would the onus of proof be on them or on opponents?
Whether any change in a limit would be beneficial or not isn't something that can be proved, people just go with their best guesses. Councils, being elected bodies, go with what they believe the majority of their electorate want, as far as they are able.
I get the impression a few people are on the wrong website. This is Pistonheads ( you know, Speed Matters) . I think they are looking for brake.org.uk , or is it www.20splentyforus.org.uk. Off you go now - get someone to hold your hand when you cross the road
Edited by crowfield on Tuesday 18th November 00:31
With the 30mph limit, there are times and places when it's too fast, times and places when it's just right, and times and places when it's too slow.
With the 20mph limit however, I would suggest that the latter case far outweighs the former cases.
And it's quite another thing to drive at 20 for any length of time rather than at 30, in free-flow conditions.
The average speed in built-up areas is determined largely by the amount of time spent standing or crawling along in the traffic, and not so much by the speed limit.
With the 20mph limit however, I would suggest that the latter case far outweighs the former cases.
And it's quite another thing to drive at 20 for any length of time rather than at 30, in free-flow conditions.
The average speed in built-up areas is determined largely by the amount of time spent standing or crawling along in the traffic, and not so much by the speed limit.
Edited by Phatboy317 on Tuesday 18th November 07:26
Phatboy317 said:
With the 30mph limit, there are times and places when it's too fast, times and places when it's just right, and times and places when it's too slow.
With the 20mph limit however, I would suggest that the latter case far outweighs the former cases.
And it's quite another thing to drive at 20 for any length of time rather than at 30, in free-flow conditions.
The average speed in built-up areas is determined largely by the amount of time spent standing or crawling along in the traffic, and not so much by the speed limit.
This. With the 20mph limit however, I would suggest that the latter case far outweighs the former cases.
And it's quite another thing to drive at 20 for any length of time rather than at 30, in free-flow conditions.
The average speed in built-up areas is determined largely by the amount of time spent standing or crawling along in the traffic, and not so much by the speed limit.
Edited by Phatboy317 on Tuesday 18th November 07:26
Someone earlier said average speed in cities is 9mph. Maybe, but thats not because we're all driving at 9mph all the time. A 30-0-30-0-30 pattern is more likely, so saying that 20's fine because the average is lower completely ignores real world conditions.
Is a 30-0-30-0-30 pattern desirable, though? I suspect we've all been on the motorway when it's so busy, and people follow so closely, that the traffic starts to show the concertina affect, and you end up braking to a standstill on a road upon which you should never stop.
If you reduce the terminal speed you may increase the average, smoothing the flow from it's overly choppy current state.
If you reduce the terminal speed you may increase the average, smoothing the flow from it's overly choppy current state.
Dammit said:
Is a 30-0-30-0-30 pattern desirable, though? I suspect we've all been on the motorway when it's so busy, and people follow so closely, that the traffic starts to show the concertina affect, and you end up braking to a standstill on a road upon which you should never stop.
If you reduce the terminal speed you may increase the average, smoothing the flow from it's overly choppy current state.
Good point. It's the kind of thing that any argument against 20mph limits needs to have an answer for.If you reduce the terminal speed you may increase the average, smoothing the flow from it's overly choppy current state.
Dammit said:
From the site you just linked to:
"WASTE OF MONEY – £350,000 will be spent to reduce traffic speeds by an average of 1mph-2mph".
Which suggests that the average speed in Worthing is 21-22mph, so people are getting het up about very little in the way of (potential) change?
Where did you get that figure of 21-22 from?"WASTE OF MONEY – £350,000 will be spent to reduce traffic speeds by an average of 1mph-2mph".
Which suggests that the average speed in Worthing is 21-22mph, so people are getting het up about very little in the way of (potential) change?
Bloody cretins have dropped my commute to 50 from NSL along the A34 yesterday - perfectly good road.
Doesn't make any real world difference as the chances of not finding someone bimbling along at 40 (including the 30 limit through Marton) is pretty rare but it does mean that the safe overtaking spots will guarantee exceeding the limit of you want to pass the 40-everywhere brigade.
Doesn't make any real world difference as the chances of not finding someone bimbling along at 40 (including the 30 limit through Marton) is pretty rare but it does mean that the safe overtaking spots will guarantee exceeding the limit of you want to pass the 40-everywhere brigade.
Mr GrimNasty said:
bad company said:
It seems that the people of Worthing have decided that they can live without reduced speed limits:-
http://www.worthingherald.co.uk/news/local/worthin...
The guys running the '20's pointless' campaign are to be congratulated.
"County councillors will decide whether or not to proceed with the plans at a meeting of Worthing County Local Committee on Wednesday."http://www.worthingherald.co.uk/news/local/worthin...
The guys running the '20's pointless' campaign are to be congratulated.
Are you sure it won't go ahead anyway?
bad company said:
singlecoil said:
Can't believe anyone would start a thread on a forum and not expect a discussion to ensue.
If I lived in a town and a 20mph limit was proposed, and if I disagreed with it as I expect I would, though it would depend on the local circumstances, I like to think I could come up with better arguments against it than "my car won't pull 20 in 3rd gear" and "I don't think I could judge 20mph without keeping my eyes glued to the speedometer".
I think most speed limits in this country are fine as they are and I don't know of any that need to be reduced further. But if we are to prevent further lowering, we need to come up with MUCH better arguments than the ones we see here nearly every day. Example of crap arguments seen on SP&L include "if I have to drive any slower I will go to sleep" and "they only have speed limits so they can fine people for exceeding them, and make loads of money".
There are lots of examples of how to run a successful campaign against reducing speed limits here - http://20spointless.org.uk/If I lived in a town and a 20mph limit was proposed, and if I disagreed with it as I expect I would, though it would depend on the local circumstances, I like to think I could come up with better arguments against it than "my car won't pull 20 in 3rd gear" and "I don't think I could judge 20mph without keeping my eyes glued to the speedometer".
I think most speed limits in this country are fine as they are and I don't know of any that need to be reduced further. But if we are to prevent further lowering, we need to come up with MUCH better arguments than the ones we see here nearly every day. Example of crap arguments seen on SP&L include "if I have to drive any slower I will go to sleep" and "they only have speed limits so they can fine people for exceeding them, and make loads of money".
Those guys ran a great campaign and as you said came up with much better arguments than some on this thread.
irocfan said:
bad company said:
singlecoil said:
Can't believe anyone would start a thread on a forum and not expect a discussion to ensue.
If I lived in a town and a 20mph limit was proposed, and if I disagreed with it as I expect I would, though it would depend on the local circumstances, I like to think I could come up with better arguments against it than "my car won't pull 20 in 3rd gear" and "I don't think I could judge 20mph without keeping my eyes glued to the speedometer".
I think most speed limits in this country are fine as they are and I don't know of any that need to be reduced further. But if we are to prevent further lowering, we need to come up with MUCH better arguments than the ones we see here nearly every day. Example of crap arguments seen on SP&L include "if I have to drive any slower I will go to sleep" and "they only have speed limits so they can fine people for exceeding them, and make loads of money".
There are lots of examples of how to run a successful campaign against reducing speed limits here - http://20spointless.org.uk/If I lived in a town and a 20mph limit was proposed, and if I disagreed with it as I expect I would, though it would depend on the local circumstances, I like to think I could come up with better arguments against it than "my car won't pull 20 in 3rd gear" and "I don't think I could judge 20mph without keeping my eyes glued to the speedometer".
I think most speed limits in this country are fine as they are and I don't know of any that need to be reduced further. But if we are to prevent further lowering, we need to come up with MUCH better arguments than the ones we see here nearly every day. Example of crap arguments seen on SP&L include "if I have to drive any slower I will go to sleep" and "they only have speed limits so they can fine people for exceeding them, and make loads of money".
Those guys ran a great campaign and as you said came up with much better arguments than some on this thread.
Dr Jekyll said:
singlecoil said:
Councils, being elected bodies, go with what they believe the majority of their electorate want, as far as they are able.
No, they do what they bloody well like, motivated by an irrational hatred of the motorist.Dammit said:
Is a 30-0-30-0-30 pattern desirable, though? I suspect we've all been on the motorway when it's so busy, and people follow so closely, that the traffic starts to show the concertina affect, and you end up braking to a standstill on a road upon which you should never stop.
If you reduce the terminal speed you may increase the average, smoothing the flow from it's overly choppy current state.
You misunderstand me I think.If you reduce the terminal speed you may increase the average, smoothing the flow from it's overly choppy current state.
The 20's plenty crowd will argue that the average speed in a city is only 9mph anyway, so what does a 20mph limit matter.
However, because the traffic pattern in cities is not cars humming along continuously at electric wheelchair pace and never having to slow or stop, it's stop-start, and reducing the opportunity to travel at up to 30mph could actually bring the average down.
If 30-0-30-0-30 averages out at 9mph, then 20-0-20-0-20 could mean an average of 6!
Your example which is used on motorways relies on slower speeds reducing the gap between cars and squeezing more cars onto the motorway, keeping everything moving at 50 rather than stop start.
That may work on motorways (I'm not convinced) but then there's no junctions, traffic lights or pedestrian crossings on the motorway are there. These things will still bring traffic to a standstill whether the limit is 20, 30 or 50 and therefore slowing things down by implementing a 20mph blanket limit in cities will not increase traffic flow because of the other factors which do.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff