20 mph Speed Limit Rejected - A Rare Win
Discussion
I don't think that reducing the limit to 20mph will reduce the average speeds at all - for the reasons you mention, oddly enough.
The traffic is so stop/start/stop/start that you could potentially do 190mph between lights, but you'd still average 9mph or less in Zone 1/other densely populated areas.
So all you lose, by implementing a lower limit, is the pointless 2nd gear, foot down lunge followed by hard on the brakes.
I commute into the very centre of London from zone 3, along the A205, then Brixton Road, Kennington Road, over Waterloo bridge and then into Soho.
All of these roads are 30mph, and (Kennington especially) allows 30mph to be done. However, you could do 60mph down here, or 20mph, you'd still end up stopped at the lights with everyone else, if not halfway down then certainly at the major junction outside the Imperial War Museum.
The only thing that would increase average vehicle speeds would be reducing the overall number of vehicles, allowing those that remain to enjoy open roads.
Which means that to enjoy driving, you need to invest in other means of travel.
The traffic is so stop/start/stop/start that you could potentially do 190mph between lights, but you'd still average 9mph or less in Zone 1/other densely populated areas.
So all you lose, by implementing a lower limit, is the pointless 2nd gear, foot down lunge followed by hard on the brakes.
I commute into the very centre of London from zone 3, along the A205, then Brixton Road, Kennington Road, over Waterloo bridge and then into Soho.
All of these roads are 30mph, and (Kennington especially) allows 30mph to be done. However, you could do 60mph down here, or 20mph, you'd still end up stopped at the lights with everyone else, if not halfway down then certainly at the major junction outside the Imperial War Museum.
The only thing that would increase average vehicle speeds would be reducing the overall number of vehicles, allowing those that remain to enjoy open roads.
Which means that to enjoy driving, you need to invest in other means of travel.
No 20mph limit for Worthing.
The Council have seen sense anddecided to convey the will of the people remembered who elects them.
http://www.worthingherald.co.uk/news/local/council...
The Council have seen sense and
http://www.worthingherald.co.uk/news/local/council...
Pixelpeep7r said:
raise motorway limits, lower speed limits around school roads.
Win win.
No issue with that at all.Win win.
It's blanket, sweeping - pointless - measures that I object to.
Worthing Herald said:
Pro group leader Duncan Kay argued the public consultation was flawed, suggesting the process was biased.
Mr Kay said: “If the decision you make tonight is not fair, impartial and without bias, then this issue will not be resolved or fixed.
“The young, the elderly, the frail, the hard of hearing, the parent who wants their child to be able to walk to school, those wit protected characteristics won’t go away or move somewhere else.
“The decision will continue to be challenged vigorously.”
It's statements like the above that annoy me. He makes it sound like it's utter carnage on the roads and pedestrians and cyclists are being picked off around every corner by cars intent on hitting them. It's not.Mr Kay said: “If the decision you make tonight is not fair, impartial and without bias, then this issue will not be resolved or fixed.
“The young, the elderly, the frail, the hard of hearing, the parent who wants their child to be able to walk to school, those wit protected characteristics won’t go away or move somewhere else.
“The decision will continue to be challenged vigorously.”
I believe that one of the biggest issues around pedestrian/cyclist safety is that many of them do not take appropriate precautions or responsibility for their own actions. The number of people I see just wandering into the road whilst engrossed on their phone is surprising and I've given up being annoyed at cyclists riding in the dark with no lights at all (or with lights that look like they've got a light output equivalent to a twinkling, distant star). My bike is lit up like a Christmas tree in the dark, front and rear.
A blanket 20mph scheme is not the answer to getting people to think, look and listen.
Edited by Funk on Thursday 20th November 13:35
Funk said:
It's statements like the above that annoy me. He makes it sound like it's utter carnage on the roads and pedestrians and cyclists are being picked off around every corner by cars intent on hitting them. It's not.
I believe that one of the biggest issues around pedestrian/cyclist safety is that many of them do not take appropriate precautions or responsibility for their own actions. The number of people I see just wandering into the road whilst engrossed on their phone is surprising and I've given up being annoyed at cyclists riding in the dark with no lights at all (or with lights that look like they've got a light output equivalent to a twinkling, distant star). My bike is lit up like a Christmas tree in the dark, front and rear.
A blanket 20mph scheme is not the answer to getting people to think, look and listen.
This Mr Kay reminds me of Alex Salmond. They both asked the electorate to make decisions then when they said no both want to start again until they get the decision they want. I believe that one of the biggest issues around pedestrian/cyclist safety is that many of them do not take appropriate precautions or responsibility for their own actions. The number of people I see just wandering into the road whilst engrossed on their phone is surprising and I've given up being annoyed at cyclists riding in the dark with no lights at all (or with lights that look like they've got a light output equivalent to a twinkling, distant star). My bike is lit up like a Christmas tree in the dark, front and rear.
A blanket 20mph scheme is not the answer to getting people to think, look and listen.
Edited by Funk on Thursday 20th November 13:35
bad company said:
Funk said:
It's statements like the above that annoy me. He makes it sound like it's utter carnage on the roads and pedestrians and cyclists are being picked off around every corner by cars intent on hitting them. It's not.
I believe that one of the biggest issues around pedestrian/cyclist safety is that many of them do not take appropriate precautions or responsibility for their own actions. The number of people I see just wandering into the road whilst engrossed on their phone is surprising and I've given up being annoyed at cyclists riding in the dark with no lights at all (or with lights that look like they've got a light output equivalent to a twinkling, distant star). My bike is lit up like a Christmas tree in the dark, front and rear.
A blanket 20mph scheme is not the answer to getting people to think, look and listen.
This Mr Kay reminds me of I believe that one of the biggest issues around pedestrian/cyclist safety is that many of them do not take appropriate precautions or responsibility for their own actions. The number of people I see just wandering into the road whilst engrossed on their phone is surprising and I've given up being annoyed at cyclists riding in the dark with no lights at all (or with lights that look like they've got a light output equivalent to a twinkling, distant star). My bike is lit up like a Christmas tree in the dark, front and rear.
A blanket 20mph scheme is not the answer to getting people to think, look and listen.
Edited by Funk on Thursday 20th November 13:35
Funk said:
No 20mph limit for Worthing.
The Council have seen sense anddecided to convey the will of the people remembered who elects them.
http://www.worthingherald.co.uk/news/local/council...
It seems common sense has prevailed, but we know what will happen.The Council have seen sense and
http://www.worthingherald.co.uk/news/local/council...
(a) The subject will be quietly put back on the agenda a polite distance from now, and passed, or,
(b) Another consultation will be held with even more heavily loaded questions and the yes vote will be carefully orchestrated, or,
(c) One 'special case' road at a time will be given a 20mph limit, until there is no point leaving the others out.
Mr GrimNasty said:
It seems common sense has prevailed, but we know what will happen.
(a) The subject will be quietly put back on the agenda a polite distance from now, and passed, or,
(b) Another consultation will be held with even more heavily loaded questions and the yes vote will be carefully orchestrated, or,
(c) One 'special case' road at a time will be given a 20mph limit, until there is no point leaving the others out.
I would normally agree but the campaign was very well organised & I reckon those guys will watch out for such skulduggery.(a) The subject will be quietly put back on the agenda a polite distance from now, and passed, or,
(b) Another consultation will be held with even more heavily loaded questions and the yes vote will be carefully orchestrated, or,
(c) One 'special case' road at a time will be given a 20mph limit, until there is no point leaving the others out.
bad company said:
Mr GrimNasty said:
It seems common sense has prevailed, but we know what will happen.
(a) The subject will be quietly put back on the agenda a polite distance from now, and passed, or,
(b) Another consultation will be held with even more heavily loaded questions and the yes vote will be carefully orchestrated, or,
(c) One 'special case' road at a time will be given a 20mph limit, until there is no point leaving the others out.
I would normally agree but the campaign was very well organised & I reckon those guys will watch out for such skulduggery.(a) The subject will be quietly put back on the agenda a polite distance from now, and passed, or,
(b) Another consultation will be held with even more heavily loaded questions and the yes vote will be carefully orchestrated, or,
(c) One 'special case' road at a time will be given a 20mph limit, until there is no point leaving the others out.
They only seem to listen when there's a risk they would be on the wrong side of popular opinion and it could cost them their job.
Also I don't know if it helps but the leader of the council is pro car and has publicly defended their use. He also had the council take control of town centre parking and reduced the charges. Unsurprisingly this saw an increase in their use and more people visiting the town. He used to work with my dad at Nissan so maybe he's got some petrol in his veins.
bad company said:
Mr GrimNasty said:
It seems common sense has prevailed, but we know what will happen.
(a) The subject will be quietly put back on the agenda a polite distance from now, and passed, or,
(b) Another consultation will be held with even more heavily loaded questions and the yes vote will be carefully orchestrated, or,
(c) One 'special case' road at a time will be given a 20mph limit, until there is no point leaving the others out.
I would normally agree but the campaign was very well organised & I reckon those guys will watch out for such skulduggery.(a) The subject will be quietly put back on the agenda a polite distance from now, and passed, or,
(b) Another consultation will be held with even more heavily loaded questions and the yes vote will be carefully orchestrated, or,
(c) One 'special case' road at a time will be given a 20mph limit, until there is no point leaving the others out.
20's Plenty member: said:
It would be very interesting to know the method used in the consultation since the reported result does go against results elsewhere, particularly:
- Was it a paper survey, or online or a mixture?
- Was it possible to "vote" more than once?
- Was responding limited to local residents?
- What proportion of people responded out of the total eligible to respond?
- Was it easy for someone to skew the result by e.g. handing out response forms to those more likely to respond in a particular way?
- Was it a paper survey, or online or a mixture?
- Was it possible to "vote" more than once?
- Was responding limited to local residents?
- What proportion of people responded out of the total eligible to respond?
- Was it easy for someone to skew the result by e.g. handing out response forms to those more likely to respond in a particular way?
Mr Kay: said:
Hi xxx,
In answer to your questions:
1. It was a paper survey with consultation packs sent out in the post to every address - households and businesses - the anti-20 mph group "20's Pointless" loudly demanded that WSCC did not allow responses online I think because they were worried that 20's Plenty supporters across the UK would fraudulently vote in favour! During the consultation process they then proceeded to scan a copy of the paper documents and email this out to anyone who was anti 20 mph and wanted to vote!
2. WSCC has assured us taht responses were carefully checked to ensure there was no double counting of addresses, however given that only about 18% of Worthing's population responded, it would have been very easy for 20's Pointless to find plenty of "spare" addresses to send negative responses from!!
3. Again 20's Pointless refused to allow the idea that anyone outside Worthing should be allowed to 'vote' even though they might well be affected by the scheme so only addresses within Worthing borough were counted.
4. About 18% response rate in terms of individuals versus Worthing's population (~100,000). Expressed another way, about 22% of addresses returned a form.
5. Yes, see answer to point 2, however I have no evidence to suggest this is what has happened. My gut feeling is that they just managed to whip up everyone who strongly objected and get them to return a form, whereas the vast majority of Worthing's residents who seemed to be broadly in favour (perhaps 70-80% pro from our door to door surveys) didn't actually get round to sending forms back as they thought it would just happen anyway.
Having carried out similar consultations myself, I agree his points are valid (if a little victim), but can also be "spun" the other way. For example, the people he accuses of whipping up the anti-20's are going to be matched in number by the residents, extended families, cycling groups, school groups etc from the area affected.In answer to your questions:
1. It was a paper survey with consultation packs sent out in the post to every address - households and businesses - the anti-20 mph group "20's Pointless" loudly demanded that WSCC did not allow responses online I think because they were worried that 20's Plenty supporters across the UK would fraudulently vote in favour! During the consultation process they then proceeded to scan a copy of the paper documents and email this out to anyone who was anti 20 mph and wanted to vote!
2. WSCC has assured us taht responses were carefully checked to ensure there was no double counting of addresses, however given that only about 18% of Worthing's population responded, it would have been very easy for 20's Pointless to find plenty of "spare" addresses to send negative responses from!!
3. Again 20's Pointless refused to allow the idea that anyone outside Worthing should be allowed to 'vote' even though they might well be affected by the scheme so only addresses within Worthing borough were counted.
4. About 18% response rate in terms of individuals versus Worthing's population (~100,000). Expressed another way, about 22% of addresses returned a form.
5. Yes, see answer to point 2, however I have no evidence to suggest this is what has happened. My gut feeling is that they just managed to whip up everyone who strongly objected and get them to return a form, whereas the vast majority of Worthing's residents who seemed to be broadly in favour (perhaps 70-80% pro from our door to door surveys) didn't actually get round to sending forms back as they thought it would just happen anyway.
Does my head in reading their incredibly biased guff. I've taken them to task on a few things they've said before, and to be fair they're quick to change any inaccurate information they publish. I'm no 20 supporter but I can see it coming even thicker and faster over the next 10 years. Any residential non-A or B road, is my guess.
irocfan said:
OpulentBob said:
I'm no 20 supporter but I can see it coming even thicker and faster over the next 10 years. Any residential non-A or B road, is my guess.
and watch the money pour in.... cynical? Moi?
Currently (my caveat!) no fixed speed cameras are type-approved for 20mph. I've removed some GATSO cameras when my limits went from 30 to 20. You COULD use average speed cameras (SPECS type) but, seeing as 20mph zones are pretty much all in built-up areas, then things like traffic lights, or buses stopping, or pulling over to post a letter, can massively vary your ACTUAL average speed. For example, you could roar in to a 20 zone at 50mph, hammer it through, but get stopped by a single red light and have your AVERAGE speed still below 20mph.
The Police are somewhat resistant to enforcing them, although they will do it if there's a genuine issue. However, in my experience of making the northern portion of "my" city a 20mph zone, average speeds are down, people are generally sticking to them, and for the most part, people seem quite happy. But then, we didn't restrict A, B or certain C class roads.
I like to put it thus (and this is my view, not sanctioned by my boss or anyone):
People are happy with 30mph. However, many people push it slightly and drive at 35mph. Not the crime of the century, but bear with me.
If we can get the same attitude towards 20mph, i.e. people are gently encouraged to lower speed to around 25mph, rather than dead-on-20mph-nose-to-the-speedo, then you get the benefits of increased survivability from accidents, and as little disruption as possible.
Just my suggestion for a bit of pragmatism.
OpulentBob said:
I like to put it thus (and this is my view, not sanctioned by my boss or anyone):
People are happy with 30mph. However, many people push it slightly and drive at 35mph. Not the crime of the century, but bear with me.
If we can get the same attitude towards 20mph, i.e. people are gently encouraged to lower speed to around 25mph, rather than dead-on-20mph-nose-to-the-speedo, then you get the benefits of increased survivability from accidents, and as little disruption as possible.
Just my suggestion for a bit of pragmatism.
I actually like the way you think therePeople are happy with 30mph. However, many people push it slightly and drive at 35mph. Not the crime of the century, but bear with me.
If we can get the same attitude towards 20mph, i.e. people are gently encouraged to lower speed to around 25mph, rather than dead-on-20mph-nose-to-the-speedo, then you get the benefits of increased survivability from accidents, and as little disruption as possible.
Just my suggestion for a bit of pragmatism.
The crazy thing is that cars are safer now for both occupants and pedestrians than they've ever been. Speeds should be increasing on that basis (they shouldn't be increased in residential areas, but I'm sure you get my point). I still strongly believe that many incidents where a car is to 'blame' is because of lemming-like mentality of other road users rather than a car doing 30mph.
The other point I'd like to make is this. The Government's own figures show that in 2013:
118 cyclists were killed on roads nationally
420 pedestrians were killed on roads nationally
Overall, fatalities fell to 1754, 8% lower than 2012, but the really telling figures are going back a couple of decades (where the speed limit hasn't changed dramatically, certainly in residential areas):
1979 - 6532 deaths
1989 - 5373 deaths
1999 - 3423 deaths
2000 - 3409 deaths
2009 - 2222 deaths
2010 - 1850 deaths
2011 - 1901 deaths
Speed limits haven't dropped to 20 until relatively recently so those big drops can't be attributed to lower speed limits. I would also suggest we are reaching the point at which it becomes nearly impossible to 'get deaths lower' as there will ALWAYS be a risk. We will never see zero deaths, so how far do we penalise/slow people down in pursuit of something that will never happen?
Just something to think about when talking about 'preventable deaths'. Hospital mistakes resulted in nearly 12,000 deaths in 2012 which could have been prevented. If we're looking at ways to make people safer we shouldn't be f
king about with 20mph limits, we should be focussing on improving patient care and saving 9x more lives in the process.
The other point I'd like to make is this. The Government's own figures show that in 2013:
118 cyclists were killed on roads nationally
420 pedestrians were killed on roads nationally
Overall, fatalities fell to 1754, 8% lower than 2012, but the really telling figures are going back a couple of decades (where the speed limit hasn't changed dramatically, certainly in residential areas):
1979 - 6532 deaths
1989 - 5373 deaths
1999 - 3423 deaths
2000 - 3409 deaths
2009 - 2222 deaths
2010 - 1850 deaths
2011 - 1901 deaths
Speed limits haven't dropped to 20 until relatively recently so those big drops can't be attributed to lower speed limits. I would also suggest we are reaching the point at which it becomes nearly impossible to 'get deaths lower' as there will ALWAYS be a risk. We will never see zero deaths, so how far do we penalise/slow people down in pursuit of something that will never happen?
Just something to think about when talking about 'preventable deaths'. Hospital mistakes resulted in nearly 12,000 deaths in 2012 which could have been prevented. If we're looking at ways to make people safer we shouldn't be f
king about with 20mph limits, we should be focussing on improving patient care and saving 9x more lives in the process.In the last few years new cars have been designed to be safer for pedestrians in a collision. This could well cause pedestrian fatalities to reduce as such cars become more common, perhaps councils are rushing through 20 limits so that this anticipated reduction can be credited to the reduced limits.
OpulentBob said:
It's as I thought, those councils proposing 20mph limits have a number of carefully thought out and sensible reasons. Those opposing such limits need better arguments than most of those that we have heard on this thread so far.Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff