Blanket 20mph limit across Wales from 2023
Discussion
I've signed the petition and circulated it.
I think this is one of the most ridiculous measures I've ever seen any authority attempting to implement.
My proposition to my local Welsh Assembly member is whether or not they can find a constituent who would rather the money be spent on this than on improving the health service in Wales. In my part of Wales a 5 hour wait in A&E is the standard. In other parts of Wales heart attack victims are waiting more than 24 hours for an ambulance... by which stage their condition... well, you know...
The current 30mph speed limit was implemented in 1934. Why it suddenly requires updating is impossible to fathom.
The problem with the responses from the ministers is that they start citing studies which will have been conducted one way or another and you have to read into them and dissect the small print before you can argue with them and that's the sort of thing most of us don't have time to do.
You would probably find many issues with the data such as traveling at a steady state of 20mph for 60 minutes being more polluting than 30mph for 40 minutes even though you would cover the same distance.
Then there's all the lost productivity of people being tied up sitting in slow cars adding time to their daily commute. For someone commuting every day the cumulative time becomes significant over the week / month / year.
All of the people who say they don't travel at 29.5mph down single-lane streets in built up areas with zero visibility have the right idea. 30mph isn't a target, it's a limit. So if it's not right to be doing 30mph then you don't.
I think this is one of the most ridiculous measures I've ever seen any authority attempting to implement.
My proposition to my local Welsh Assembly member is whether or not they can find a constituent who would rather the money be spent on this than on improving the health service in Wales. In my part of Wales a 5 hour wait in A&E is the standard. In other parts of Wales heart attack victims are waiting more than 24 hours for an ambulance... by which stage their condition... well, you know...
The current 30mph speed limit was implemented in 1934. Why it suddenly requires updating is impossible to fathom.
The problem with the responses from the ministers is that they start citing studies which will have been conducted one way or another and you have to read into them and dissect the small print before you can argue with them and that's the sort of thing most of us don't have time to do.
You would probably find many issues with the data such as traveling at a steady state of 20mph for 60 minutes being more polluting than 30mph for 40 minutes even though you would cover the same distance.
Then there's all the lost productivity of people being tied up sitting in slow cars adding time to their daily commute. For someone commuting every day the cumulative time becomes significant over the week / month / year.
All of the people who say they don't travel at 29.5mph down single-lane streets in built up areas with zero visibility have the right idea. 30mph isn't a target, it's a limit. So if it's not right to be doing 30mph then you don't.
Again, lots of people are conflating this with 20 zones and so on (which depending on which ones, and your point of view, can be a good or bad thing).
But these can already be done under current laws, if there's a reasonable case for it.
What this is about is fundamentally changing the whole speed limit system (and of course changing the highway code FFS) to be different on one side of the border to the other.
It won't achieve anything that simply putting in more 20 zones wouldn't, but will have so many more downsides.
But these can already be done under current laws, if there's a reasonable case for it.
What this is about is fundamentally changing the whole speed limit system (and of course changing the highway code FFS) to be different on one side of the border to the other.
It won't achieve anything that simply putting in more 20 zones wouldn't, but will have so many more downsides.
Welsh Government Research Paper said:
place a particular focus on children, not least because of the The Wellbeing of Future Generations Act goals in Wales. Risks to children are key, not least because of the harms that they suffer because of speeding traffic; road traffic injury risk deters parents from allowing them to play outside and walk or cycle...
Any parents out there who wouldn't mind if their child were hit by a car at 20mph? I know I'd be fine with that... But if I knew the cars outside the house might be travelling at 30mph I'll continue to keep them locked up in the house. Turns out the reason for the blanket 20mph everywhere is that they're worried if they make one road into a 20mph road that people won't like travelling at 20mph so they will use an alternative route where the limit is still 30mph.
They don't see the irony that for all their postulating regards the high levels of support they think this policy has they still think if they don't force it on everyone everywhere then people might behave as if they don't support it.
They don't see the irony that for all their postulating regards the high levels of support they think this policy has they still think if they don't force it on everyone everywhere then people might behave as if they don't support it.
I will be moving house soon and have always thought of Wales as a great retirement location. We have a big chunk of capital to invest in property plus decent incomes to support the Welsh economy.
But now we have ridiculous speed limits, failing NHS (increasingly significant as we age) and nasty spiteful Welsh politicians. So f
k it, I'm going to live, invest and spend elsewhere 
But now we have ridiculous speed limits, failing NHS (increasingly significant as we age) and nasty spiteful Welsh politicians. So f
k it, I'm going to live, invest and spend elsewhere bigothunter said:
I will be moving house soon and have always thought of Wales as a great retirement location. We have a big chunk of capital to invest in property plus decent incomes to support the Welsh economy.
But now we have ridiculous speed limits, failing NHS (increasingly significant as we age) and nasty spiteful Welsh politicians. So fk it, I'm going to live, invest and spend elsewhere
They're the type of politicians who won't be happy until everybody has been dragged down to the lowest level and they've achieved their goal of total equality (regardless to all else). But now we have ridiculous speed limits, failing NHS (increasingly significant as we age) and nasty spiteful Welsh politicians. So f
k it, I'm going to live, invest and spend elsewhere The whole of the conclusions section of the Welsh study into this is eye opening so I'll post it in full:
6. Conclusions
The volume of the literature, both peer reviewed and grey, is still relatively small
regarding 20mph speed limits compared with other health outcomes including for
20mph zones. With this caveat the research finding is strongest for casualty
reduction. There is now evidence from 20mph implementation within the UK which
finds a statistically significant reduction in casualties compared to background levels.
Importantly, such findings triangulate with the evidence on speed reduction and
collision reduction. The fact that for each average 1mph speed reduction in an urban
area there is a 6% reduction in collisions fits well with the findings from the UK
studies reported here.
In addition, as Pilkington and colleagues have noted in their 2018 study of the
impacts of 20mph speed limits in Bristol, casualty reduction is being achieved even
when speed driven don’t drop to 20mph itself: ‘success is not defined by all
average speeds being under the set speed limit of 20mph – it is about bringing
vehicle speeds down closer to 20mph, and assessing any positive impacts of
that speed reduction compared to the situation before the introduction of the
lower limits.’
Road Safety – casualty reduction
For casualty reduction the evidence is consistent that casualties are reduced
as a result of 20mph speed limits. The evidence is moderate to strong.
Other road safety outcomes
A number of aspects of road safety are reported. The evidence for each is weak
although suggesting positive road safety impacts beyond casualty reduction.
Air quality
For air quality the limited literature is consistent with small improvements in air
quality. However, the volume and methodological strength of studies means that it is
only possible to state that: air quality is likely to be improved as a result of
20mph speed limits but the evidence is weak.
Active Travel
For active travel the volume and methodological strength of studies means that it is
only possible to state that: active travel may be improved as a result of 20mph
speed limits but the evidence is weak.
Limitations:
As signalled above, beyond bio-medical and public health research the use of
research method which could isolate causal relationships is often rare not least
because it is harder to undertake and control for many confounding factors in the
built environment. In a complex system24 such as the built and natural environment,
it is rarely possible or appropriate to undertake an experimental approach (such as a
randomised controlled trial) that can in other circumstances offer the best way of
assessing causality. This is also partly because the research lens has only recently
been focused on the issue of 20mph speed limits. Some caution is therefore
recommended as much of the evidence examined was reliant on findings from
before and after studies albeit it is unlikely that further studies would reverse the
conclusions.
There is a lack of data regarding 20mph speed limits in any rural or small towns
settings. This is a significant gap in the evidence.
There also remains a gap in the evidence in relation to the steep social class
gradient in terms of at least pedestrian road traffic injuries and this has been
reported in many studies, notably addressing children. Cairns et al (2014) note that it
is possible to suggest that targeting 20mph speed limit interventions in more
deprived areas may be beneficial. Just three studies, including Cairns et al, were
located and met the inclusion criteria. It is feasible that 20mph could make a
disproportionately beneficial impact on pedestrian casualties in poorer communities
relative to more affluent communities where casualties are already less frequent.
However, Christie et al (2011), which was out of scope because it did not identify
20mph, warned that anti-social driving and riding behaviour in poorer communities
may be a barrier to active travel such as among children in the communities which
need safer streets most. This includes the reduced physical activity when children
have restricted independent mobility. The need for Police enforcement is cited.
The findings of this review are also limited in their inability to draw firm conclusions
about the impact of 20mph speed limits both on air quality and any changes in active
travel participation. Frustratingly, many studies addressing how to increase levels of
active travel and/or reduce injuries do not specifically address 20mph speed limits.
The recent study by Aldred et al, (2018) is a helpful exception which did find an
independent benefit of 20mph speed limits for cycle users in terms of reduced risk of
road traffic injuries.
6. Conclusions
The volume of the literature, both peer reviewed and grey, is still relatively small
regarding 20mph speed limits compared with other health outcomes including for
20mph zones. With this caveat the research finding is strongest for casualty
reduction. There is now evidence from 20mph implementation within the UK which
finds a statistically significant reduction in casualties compared to background levels.
Importantly, such findings triangulate with the evidence on speed reduction and
collision reduction. The fact that for each average 1mph speed reduction in an urban
area there is a 6% reduction in collisions fits well with the findings from the UK
studies reported here.
In addition, as Pilkington and colleagues have noted in their 2018 study of the
impacts of 20mph speed limits in Bristol, casualty reduction is being achieved even
when speed driven don’t drop to 20mph itself: ‘success is not defined by all
average speeds being under the set speed limit of 20mph – it is about bringing
vehicle speeds down closer to 20mph, and assessing any positive impacts of
that speed reduction compared to the situation before the introduction of the
lower limits.’
Road Safety – casualty reduction
For casualty reduction the evidence is consistent that casualties are reduced
as a result of 20mph speed limits. The evidence is moderate to strong.
Other road safety outcomes
A number of aspects of road safety are reported. The evidence for each is weak
although suggesting positive road safety impacts beyond casualty reduction.
Air quality
For air quality the limited literature is consistent with small improvements in air
quality. However, the volume and methodological strength of studies means that it is
only possible to state that: air quality is likely to be improved as a result of
20mph speed limits but the evidence is weak.
Active Travel
For active travel the volume and methodological strength of studies means that it is
only possible to state that: active travel may be improved as a result of 20mph
speed limits but the evidence is weak.
Limitations:
As signalled above, beyond bio-medical and public health research the use of
research method which could isolate causal relationships is often rare not least
because it is harder to undertake and control for many confounding factors in the
built environment. In a complex system24 such as the built and natural environment,
it is rarely possible or appropriate to undertake an experimental approach (such as a
randomised controlled trial) that can in other circumstances offer the best way of
assessing causality. This is also partly because the research lens has only recently
been focused on the issue of 20mph speed limits. Some caution is therefore
recommended as much of the evidence examined was reliant on findings from
before and after studies albeit it is unlikely that further studies would reverse the
conclusions.
There is a lack of data regarding 20mph speed limits in any rural or small towns
settings. This is a significant gap in the evidence.
There also remains a gap in the evidence in relation to the steep social class
gradient in terms of at least pedestrian road traffic injuries and this has been
reported in many studies, notably addressing children. Cairns et al (2014) note that it
is possible to suggest that targeting 20mph speed limit interventions in more
deprived areas may be beneficial. Just three studies, including Cairns et al, were
located and met the inclusion criteria. It is feasible that 20mph could make a
disproportionately beneficial impact on pedestrian casualties in poorer communities
relative to more affluent communities where casualties are already less frequent.
However, Christie et al (2011), which was out of scope because it did not identify
20mph, warned that anti-social driving and riding behaviour in poorer communities
may be a barrier to active travel such as among children in the communities which
need safer streets most. This includes the reduced physical activity when children
have restricted independent mobility. The need for Police enforcement is cited.
The findings of this review are also limited in their inability to draw firm conclusions
about the impact of 20mph speed limits both on air quality and any changes in active
travel participation. Frustratingly, many studies addressing how to increase levels of
active travel and/or reduce injuries do not specifically address 20mph speed limits.
The recent study by Aldred et al, (2018) is a helpful exception which did find an
independent benefit of 20mph speed limits for cycle users in terms of reduced risk of
road traffic injuries.
ingenieur said:
The whole of the conclusions section of the Welsh study into this is eye opening so I'll post it in full:
6. Conclusions
>>>The fact that for each average 1mph speed reduction in an urban area there is a 6% reduction in collisions fits well with the findings from the UK studies reported here.
Is this 6% reduction arithmetic or geometric progression?6. Conclusions
>>>The fact that for each average 1mph speed reduction in an urban area there is a 6% reduction in collisions fits well with the findings from the UK studies reported here.
If arithmetic, then lowering the speed limit from 30 to 20mph would reduce collisions by 60%. Has this been huge improvement been verified elsewhere?
Amusingly, this logic suggests a 13mph speed limit would eliminate all collisions (ie zero). That's the one for me
bigothunter said:
ingenieur said:
The whole of the conclusions section of the Welsh study into this is eye opening so I'll post it in full:
6. Conclusions
>>>The fact that for each average 1mph speed reduction in an urban area there is a 6% reduction in collisions fits well with the findings from the UK studies reported here.
Is this 6% reduction arithmetic or geometric progression?6. Conclusions
>>>The fact that for each average 1mph speed reduction in an urban area there is a 6% reduction in collisions fits well with the findings from the UK studies reported here.
If arithmetic, then lowering the speed limit from 30 to 20mph would reduce collisions by 60%. Has this been huge improvement been verified elsewhere?
Amusingly, this logic suggests a 13mph speed limit would eliminate all collisions (ie zero). That's the one for me
ATG said:
Probably worth pointing out that this isn't actually a blanket policy at all. The idea is to change the DEFAULT speed limit to 20mph and then have the relevant highway authority apply a more appropriate speed limit on a case by case basis. This is what already happens to vary the speed limit from the current default of 30mph to create the 20mph and 40mph sections we encounter.
The objective clearly is to lower speed limits in a lot of places without having to go through the current rigmarole of creating 20mph zones. Yes, there'd be loads more 20mph urban roads. But if the system works as intended there'd still be loads of 30mph and 40mph thoroughfares too.
Obviously there's plenty of scope for the implementation to be ballsed up, cost a fortune, etc, etc, but the central idea isn't completely bonkers.
No, no, no.The objective clearly is to lower speed limits in a lot of places without having to go through the current rigmarole of creating 20mph zones. Yes, there'd be loads more 20mph urban roads. But if the system works as intended there'd still be loads of 30mph and 40mph thoroughfares too.
Obviously there's plenty of scope for the implementation to be ballsed up, cost a fortune, etc, etc, but the central idea isn't completely bonkers.
You're not getting it, are you?
The OP wanted outrage. That's why he was deliberately misleading.
He wanted to scream into the ether, and find like-minded people who he could ramble on to about "the state of things".
He wanted to attract the people who constantly rant about things like dawdling drivers, speed bumps, 'scameras' and road policing.
C70R said:
ATG said:
Probably worth pointing out that this isn't actually a blanket policy at all. The idea is to change the DEFAULT speed limit to 20mph and then have the relevant highway authority apply a more appropriate speed limit on a case by case basis. This is what already happens to vary the speed limit from the current default of 30mph to create the 20mph and 40mph sections we encounter.
The objective clearly is to lower speed limits in a lot of places without having to go through the current rigmarole of creating 20mph zones. Yes, there'd be loads more 20mph urban roads. But if the system works as intended there'd still be loads of 30mph and 40mph thoroughfares too.
Obviously there's plenty of scope for the implementation to be ballsed up, cost a fortune, etc, etc, but the central idea isn't completely bonkers.
No, no, no.The objective clearly is to lower speed limits in a lot of places without having to go through the current rigmarole of creating 20mph zones. Yes, there'd be loads more 20mph urban roads. But if the system works as intended there'd still be loads of 30mph and 40mph thoroughfares too.
Obviously there's plenty of scope for the implementation to be ballsed up, cost a fortune, etc, etc, but the central idea isn't completely bonkers.
You're not getting it, are you?
The OP wanted outrage. That's why he was deliberately misleading.
He wanted to scream into the ether, and find like-minded people who he could ramble on to about "the state of things".
He wanted to attract the people who constantly rant about things like dawdling drivers, speed bumps, 'scameras' and road policing.
C70R said:
No, no, no.
You're not getting it, are you?
The OP wanted outrage. That's why he was deliberately misleading.
He wanted to scream into the ether, and find like-minded people who he could ramble on to about "the state of things".
He wanted to attract the people who constantly rant about things like dawdling drivers, speed bumps, 'scameras' and road policing.
Err, no - I'm just trying to raise awareness of what is going to happen across the whole of Wales next year, based on my personal experience of living in one of the pilot areas. Several people in the thread have now accused me of lying about the extent of the plans, without any evidence to back this up. You're not getting it, are you?
The OP wanted outrage. That's why he was deliberately misleading.
He wanted to scream into the ether, and find like-minded people who he could ramble on to about "the state of things".
He wanted to attract the people who constantly rant about things like dawdling drivers, speed bumps, 'scameras' and road policing.
Could you please explain what I have said that is "deliberately misleading"? 20 mph is going to be the default speed for any existing 30 limit across the whole of Wales. The rules for overriding this and restoring any arterial A or B roads back to 30mph are so restrictive (< 20 properties per km) that there will be no 30mph roads at all in any town or suburban areas.
If you feel safer driving at 20mph then knock yourself out, you can do so now if you like, but maybe this isn't the thread or petition for you.
C70R said:
HTH
Not really - selectively quoting me when I have already given a full explanation of how the scheme will work is not helpful. I'm not sure how I can spell it out any more clearly for you. Every existing 30 limit as defined by street light spacing will become a 20 overnight. This is what is meant by a "Blanket 20 limit". Local councils can apply for exemptions, but the criteria for these are so strict that virtually no roads will be allowed to be 30. We have already had it confirmed that there will not be a single 30 limit allowed in our town and surrounding area under the new rules.
The only intentional deception here is by the Welsh Government. They sold the plan as being for schools and residential areas, and assured us that arterial A and B roads would be exempt. I fully support this, but it isn't going to happen unless those of us in the pilot areas and beyond raise our objections.
Being pedantic about the fact that there might still be a handful of 30s left in the whole of Wales next year is missing the point entirely.
I'm glad you find the whole thing unbelievable though - our local community does too, hence the campaign and petition.
ingenieur said:
There's nothing wrong with the old rules. Councils can implement a 20mph limit in places where it is a good idea. They've done it many times already. The current law on this is actually better suited to the requirements than what they're proposing to change it to.
There is something wrong with the old rules - they don't fit the political (anti-motorist) agenda. That's the overriding principle.Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff