20 mph Speed Limit Rejected - A Rare Win

[Willy Nilly]

Pixelpeep7r said:

raise motorway limits, lower speed limits around school roads.

Win win.

I cannot understand why speed limits need to be so low around schools. There is a period of about 30 minutes at each end of the day when pupils are going into and out of the building. Normally at this time the roads around the building are just about at a stand still, so the actual legal limit is of no consequence, the rest of the day it is just a building like any other.

I want to see some evidence that shows where school age people are getting run over, and I'll bet a weeks wages it's not outside school. A couple of years ago the local police did a speed check out from a local school gateway. It was a Sunday afternoon in August, the only building on the road is the school and opposite is currently a field of oilseed rape, which doesn't have a reputation for running into the road. It is currently a 30 limit and in about 4 hours time it will be perfectly safe to do 70 along there.

[bad company]

Willy Nilly said:

I cannot understand why speed limits need to be so low around schools. There is a period of about 30 minutes at each end of the day when pupils are going into and out of the building. Normally at this time the roads around the building are just about at a stand still, so the actual legal limit is of no consequence, the rest of the day it is just a building like any other.

I want to see some evidence that shows where school age people are getting run over, and I'll bet a weeks wages it's not outside school. A couple of years ago the local police did a speed check out from a local school gateway. It was a Sunday afternoon in August, the only building on the road is the school and opposite is currently a field of oilseed rape, which doesn't have a reputation for running into the road. It is currently a 30 limit and in about 4 hours time it will be perfectly safe to do 70 along there.

The American system is much better. The speed limit reduces at certain times of day when the kids are about. This is indicated by flashing lights and a sign saying 'Speed Limit X When Lights Flashing'.

Edited by bad company on Friday 21st November 18:14

[Dr Jekyll]

singlecoil 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.

No, a sensible reason would shoe why 21MPH was inherently dangerous on the road in question even in good conditions.

The reasons listed consist of a reiterated assumption that a 20 limit makes to road safer, an unsubstantiated comment about junctions and a vague remark about pollution.

[anonymous-user]

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.

Forgive me quoting myself but this is how I see it. It's not saying 21 is dangerous, but it is safer than 30, and among other reasons one valid one is we can't have speed limits other than round numbers. A 20 needs special permission/sign off from the Secretary of state, so isn't done lightly. The police have said enforcement will be minimal, as enforced as a 30 bit with no (fixed) cameras, as none are approved. Unfortunately for us, consultations show more people are in favour than not. And they ultimately have the sway. People power, brother.

[Willy Nilly]

OpulentBob said:

Unfortunately for us, consultations show more people are in favour than not. And they ultimately have the sway. People power, brother.

They have become in favour because they have been told repeatedly that speed kills. No bad driving kills or not walking into traffic without looking kills, but speed kills and it is the responsibility of the driver not matter who is a fault.

[Blakewater]

Are they in favour? It seems that when people are allowed to vote the majority who bother to vote at all vote against. They may well be ignored though. Many people don't vote for anything except the X Factor and I'm A Celebrity because they assume political voting is pointless as all politicians are the same at every level and will do what they want regardless of the will of the people. It sometimes seems like that's the case. In my local area 20mph limits have been implemented and a great many have been scrapped again, the removal of them costing £30,000. The Conservative Blueprint missive came through my door a couple of days ago where my local MP is claiming victory for introducing a 20mph zone where I live. It's been a 20mph zone for years, it's just that the signs have been renewed. Nobody takes any notice anyway. People generally just accept things like 20mph limits will be introduced, whether they want them or not, because they're what's fashionable and government figures listen to the minority of people who enjoy having causes and make a big noise. It doesn't mean they'll take any notice of them when they are introduced.

[singlecoil]

Dr Jekyll said:

singlecoil 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.

No, a sensible reason would shoe why 21MPH was inherently dangerous on the road in question even in good conditions.

As has already been pointed out, it's not about danger and it's not about safety. It's about a lower speed being safer than a higher one. That's the argument you need to counter if you are going to have any chance against further 20mph limits in such areas.

[Dr Jekyll]

singlecoil said:

As has already been pointed out, it's not about danger and it's not about safety. It's about a lower speed being safer than a higher one. That's the argument you need to counter if you are going to have any chance against further 20mph limits in such areas.

It isn't an argument though, it's an assertion. Not about a lower speed being safer than a higher one but about a lower speed LIMIT being safer than a higher one, apparently irrespective of enforcement, compliance, or actual traffic speeds.


If I were to say that increasing the motorway limit to 80 were to be safer for such and such a reason, that would be an argument. If I were to say that the limit should be 80 because it would be safer and safety is A Good Thing, it wouldn't be an argument and nobody would have to counter it.

[singlecoil]

Dr Jekyll said:

singlecoil said:

As has already been pointed out, it's not about danger and it's not about safety. It's about a lower speed being safer than a higher one. That's the argument you need to counter if you are going to have any chance against further 20mph limits in such areas.

It isn't an argument though, it's an assertion. Not about a lower speed being safer than a higher one but about a lower speed LIMIT being safer than a higher one, apparently irrespective of enforcement, compliance, or actual traffic speeds.


If I were to say that increasing the motorway limit to 80 were to be safer for such and such a reason, that would be an argument. If I were to say that the limit should be 80 because it would be safer and safety is A Good Thing, it wouldn't be an argument and nobody would have to counter it.

Good point.

However, all they need to do is to assert that the lower speed is safer than the higher one, and I don't think anybody would be able to demonstrate that it wasn't true, quite the opposite in fact. Compliance would be consequent on enforcement, and if compliance was observed to be low, then I daresay enforcement would follow. If it did then the actual traffic speed would be lowered.

[speedking31]

singlecoil said:

Dr Jekyll said:

singlecoil 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.

No, a sensible reason would shoe why 21MPH was inherently dangerous on the road in question even in good conditions.

As has already been pointed out, it's not about danger and it's not about safety. It's about a lower speed being safer than a higher one. That's the argument you need to counter if you are going to have any chance against further 20mph limits in such areas.

But safety isn't the only consideration. If a lower limit has no discernible effect on accidents but has an economic impact, more time spent travelling and not being productive, then it may be a bad thing.

[Phatboy317]

Dr Jekyll said:

It isn't an argument though, it's an assertion. Not about a lower speed being safer than a higher one but about a lower speed LIMIT being safer than a higher one, apparently irrespective of enforcement, compliance, or actual traffic speeds.

It's not even that.

It's like saying that living in a two-storey building is safer than living in a three-storey building, because you're less likely to die if you fall out the window.

Of course that's trivially true, but would we really be making people safer by stopping them from living in three-storey buildings?

It could even be argued that in the unlikely event that you do fall out the window then it's more likely to be from a second-storey window than a third-storey one, because you're likely to be taking less care.

Especially if the council resorts to measures such as removing window-guards in order to discourage people from living in three-storey buildings.

If you're driving at a time and place where someone could run in front of you at any moment, leaving you no time to react, then you'd better be going very slowly indeed.
But if it's plain to see that that's not going to happen, then you're being no safer by driving at a low speed.

Edited by Phatboy317 on Saturday 22 November 02:56

[singlecoil]

speedking31 said:

singlecoil said:

Dr Jekyll said:

singlecoil 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.

No, a sensible reason would shoe why 21MPH was inherently dangerous on the road in question even in good conditions.

As has already been pointed out, it's not about danger and it's not about safety. It's about a lower speed being safer than a higher one. That's the argument you need to counter if you are going to have any chance against further 20mph limits in such areas.

But safety isn't the only consideration. If a lower limit has no discernible effect on accidents but has an economic impact, more time spent travelling and not being productive, then it may be a bad thing.

I agree. I doubt that argument would be strong enough to convince enough local residents that a council would reconsider a plan to bring in a 20mph limit. The reply would probably be along the lines of "the limit doesn't cover enough mileage to bring about a negative economic impact" and "safety isn't the only positive effect of cars travelling at a lower speed in a built up area".

[Dr Jekyll]

singlecoil said:

Good point.

However, all they need to do is to assert that the lower speed is safer than the higher one, and I don't think anybody would be able to demonstrate that it wasn't true, quite the opposite in fact. Compliance would be consequent on enforcement, and if compliance was observed to be low, then I daresay enforcement would follow. If it did then the actual traffic speed would be lowered.

That's an argument for enforcement not for reducing the limit. To take the building analogy it's like saying a two storey building with railings on the balcony is safer than a three storey one with no railings. You can have the enforcement without reducing the limit, in fact it's easier if it's generally regarded as an appropriate limit, and it's usually the people exceeding the existing limit anyway that cause the problems.
Enforce an appropriate limit and you catch the nutters without affecting the responsible. Reduce it below what's appropriate and the nutters carry on as before reasoning that so many people are ignoring the limit nobody will notice.

[Dammit]

I think the analogy is going to get a little strained, but it's interesting.

I live in London, and all the residential roads around here are meant to be 20mph - which of course is not enforced, so it is meaningless.

In the Worthing example was it a blanket 20mph for all roads, or were (as they are in the London boroughs which have implemented this) the main transit routes exempted?

[singlecoil]

Dr Jekyll said:

singlecoil said:

Good point.

However, all they need to do is to assert that the lower speed is safer than the higher one, and I don't think anybody would be able to demonstrate that it wasn't true, quite the opposite in fact. Compliance would be consequent on enforcement, and if compliance was observed to be low, then I daresay enforcement would follow. If it did then the actual traffic speed would be lowered.

That's an argument for enforcement not for reducing the limit. To take the building analogy it's like saying a two storey building with railings on the balcony is safer than a three storey one with no railings. You can have the enforcement without reducing the limit, in fact it's easier if it's generally regarded as an appropriate limit, and it's usually the people exceeding the existing limit anyway that cause the problems.
Enforce an appropriate limit and you catch the nutters without affecting the responsible. Reduce it below what's appropriate and the nutters carry on as before reasoning that so many people are ignoring the limit nobody will notice.

There really shouldn't be a difference.

However, if enforcement is too expensive (it's a big money-maker according to many posters on PH) then a lower limit will still have a considerable effect as many people will be influenced by it anyway, not everybody needs the threat of being caught to obey the law, a lot of people will obey it anyway.

No-one is expecting that everybody will obey all the laws, but sometimes you have to go with what you can get. And even those who customarily break speed limits are still influenced by them, a speeder will quite likely do 30 in a 20, and 40 in a 30.

[Dr Jekyll]

singlecoil said:

There really shouldn't be a difference.

However, if enforcement is too expensive (it's a big money-maker according to many posters on PH) then a lower limit will still have a considerable effect as many people will be influenced by it anyway, not everybody needs the threat of being caught to obey the law, a lot of people will obey it anyway.

No-one is expecting that everybody will obey all the laws, but sometimes you have to go with what you can get. And even those who customarily break speed limits are still influenced by them, a speeder will quite likely do 30 in a 20, and 40 in a 30.

But those of us who notice what the speed limit is and obey it anyway are hardly the ones likely to be going too fast for the conditions in the first place. The notion that the drivers who exceed speed limits are arithmetical purists who constantly monitor speed limits in order to add x MPH to them is ludicrous. Just a desperate attempt to justify lower limits at all costs. We've all come across drivers who overtake us by doing 40 in a 30, then continue doing 40 in the NSL.

Driving through a 20 limit at 19MPH with eyes glued to the speedo and an impatient queue of traffic on my bumper isn't necessarily any safer than sticking to 25-30 with the traffic flow.

[singlecoil]

Dr Jekyll said:

But those of us who notice what the speed limit is and obey it anyway are hardly the ones likely to be going too fast for the conditions in the first place. The notion that the drivers who exceed speed limits are arithmetical purists who constantly monitor speed limits in order to add x MPH to them is ludicrous. Just a desperate attempt to justify lower limits at all costs. We've all come across drivers who overtake us by doing 40 in a 30, then continue doing 40 in the NSL.

It's not ludicrous, it's behaviour I have observed many times over many years in many different places, it really is pointless your making up stuff like that in order to score an imaginary point. In any case, it's not me you need to convince, it's your local council and the people who vote for them. I'm simply trying to help you come up with some better arguments.

[Dr Jekyll]

singlecoil said:

Dr Jekyll said:

But those of us who notice what the speed limit is and obey it anyway are hardly the ones likely to be going too fast for the conditions in the first place. The notion that the drivers who exceed speed limits are arithmetical purists who constantly monitor speed limits in order to add x MPH to them is ludicrous. Just a desperate attempt to justify lower limits at all costs. We've all come across drivers who overtake us by doing 40 in a 30, then continue doing 40 in the NSL.

It's not ludicrous, it's behaviour I have observed many times over many years in many different places, it really is pointless your making up stuff like that in order to score an imaginary point. In any case, it's not me you need to convince, it's your local council and the people who vote for them. I'm simply trying to help you come up with some better arguments.

I'm making nothing up. Just because someone speed can be DESCRIBED as 'limit + 10' does not mean they chose that speed for that reason.

I refer you to what the Dept of Transport (as they then were) said on the subject

Govts own experts said:

1.It is a common but mistaken belief that drivers allow themselves a set margin over the prevailing speed limit, and that if a limit is raised by 10 mph, they will travel 10 mph faster. In fact, an increase in an unrealistic speed limit rarely brings an increase in traffic speeds. ("Unrealistic" is here used to mean "substantially below the 85 percentile speed"). It is much more likely that there will be no change, or even a fall. It seems that drivers relieved of the frustrations of too low a limit rarely abuse the higher one. Indeed it is not unusual for the accident rate to fall when a poorly-observed limit is raised. This may mean that reduced frustration leads to changes in driving behaviour conducive to accident reduction.

[singlecoil]

Dr Jekyll said:

Govts own experts said:

1.It is a common but mistaken belief that drivers allow themselves a set margin over the prevailing speed limit, and that if a limit is raised by 10 mph, they will travel 10 mph faster. In fact, an increase in an unrealistic speed limit rarely brings an increase in traffic speeds. ("Unrealistic" is here used to mean "substantially below the 85 percentile speed"). It is much more likely that there will be no change, or even a fall. It seems that drivers relieved of the frustrations of too low a limit rarely abuse the higher one. Indeed it is not unusual for the accident rate to fall when a poorly-observed limit is raised. This may mean that reduced frustration leads to changes in driving behaviour conducive to accident reduction.

Just pointing out the hole in that one, it applies only in a very small number of situations.

[Dr Jekyll]

singlecoil said:

Dr Jekyll said:

Govts own experts said:

1.It is a common but mistaken belief that drivers allow themselves a set margin over the prevailing speed limit, and that if a limit is raised by 10 mph, they will travel 10 mph faster. In fact, an increase in an unrealistic speed limit rarely brings an increase in traffic speeds. ("Unrealistic" is here used to mean "substantially below the 85 percentile speed"). It is much more likely that there will be no change, or even a fall. It seems that drivers relieved of the frustrations of too low a limit rarely abuse the higher one. Indeed it is not unusual for the accident rate to fall when a poorly-observed limit is raised. This may mean that reduced frustration leads to changes in driving behaviour conducive to accident reduction.

Just pointing out the hole in that one, it applies only in very few situations.

No, it's saying that raising unrealistic limits rarely causes in increase in speeds BECAUSE drivers don't drive at limit + x. In fact many drivers stopped for speeding don't know what the limit is.

Do you really find that drivers who come past at 40 in a 30 typically do 70 in the NSL? And drivers doing 45 in a 60 typically do 5 in the next village? Come off it.

And are you seriously maintaining you are not involved with councils/govt/brake etc? Otherwise I don't understand your agenda.