20 mph Speed Limit Rejected - A Rare Win
Discussion
Dr Jekyll said:
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.
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.
My agenda, as already stated, is to help you construct a better argument against more 20mph limits. I don't have a strong position on such limits myself as I live in an area unlikely to be affected, and don't often find myself driving in such areas.
Phatboy317 said:
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.
Which is why the 20s aim to go up on residential and shopping streets. It's not/shouldn't be a blanket limit going up on every single road, to say that it is, is being over dramatic. Read the DfT guidance (setting local speed limits 2013), and you'll see that the only roads that should be considered are roads with an average of less than 25mph anyway. 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
I think people see 20mph and immediately think "OMG big brother is out to get me" etc. There are many considered and published reasons. I think, realistically, you probably won't notice much, if any difference.
But then what do I know? I only deal with it 5 days a week.
OpulentBob said:
Which is why the 20s aim to go up on residential and shopping streets. It's not/shouldn't be a blanket limit going up on every single road, to say that it is, is being over dramatic. Read the DfT guidance (setting local speed limits 2013), and you'll see that the only roads that should be considered are roads with an average of less than 25mph anyway.
I think people see 20mph and immediately think "OMG big brother is out to get me" etc. There are many considered and published reasons. I think, realistically, you probably won't notice much, if any difference.
But then what do I know? I only deal with it 5 days a week.
Come to Bristol sometime and see for yourself - the Bristol Council doesn't give a fig for the DfT guidance.I think people see 20mph and immediately think "OMG big brother is out to get me" etc. There are many considered and published reasons. I think, realistically, you probably won't notice much, if any difference.
But then what do I know? I only deal with it 5 days a week.
Perhaps you do things a bit differently in your corner of the world.
BTW does the DfT guidance mean less than 25mph average free-travelling speed, or less than 25mph spot average? If the latter, then I can't see many roads being exempt given that it doesn't take many traffic lights or much turning traffic etc to bring the spot average on a 30mph road down to less than 25
Phatboy317 said:
Come to Bristol sometime and see for yourself - the Bristol Council doesn't give a fig for the DfT guidance.
I guarantee you that the Bristol Council gives several figs about their voters. Which indicates that if the 20mph limits are widespread, then they have widespread support.singlecoil said:
I guarantee you that the Bristol Council gives several figs about their voters. Which indicates that if the 20mph limits are widespread, then they have widespread support.
Well, we'll see how popular they are come election time.Here's some background to the scheme, in case you're interested
Phatboy317 said:
singlecoil said:
I guarantee you that the Bristol Council gives several figs about their voters. Which indicates that if the 20mph limits are widespread, then they have widespread support.
Well, we'll see how popular they are come election time.Here's some background to the scheme, in case you're interested
Why you should think I would want any 'background to the scheme' I can't imagine. I am an Old Bristolian but I now live too far away from Bristol to be affected one way or the other.
singlecoil said:
I expect we will find that they are sufficiently popular to be retained
Why you should think I would want any 'background to the scheme' I can't imagine. I am an Old Bristolian but I now live too far away from Bristol to be affected one way or the other.
I wouldn't count on the mayor being re-elected.Why you should think I would want any 'background to the scheme' I can't imagine. I am an Old Bristolian but I now live too far away from Bristol to be affected one way or the other.
I gave you that link in a vain attempt to help you not to continue to speak from a position of total ignorance.
Phatboy317 said:
I gave you that link in a vain attempt to help you not to continue to speak from a position of total ignorance.
What was it in that link that you thought I didn't already know, or are you just spitting out insults in the way in which I, and several other here, have noticed that you are inclined to do when you run out of cogent argument?When you point out the specific items in that link that you feel I need to know, make sure that they are things that relate to this discussion, i.e. not specific to Bristol (which, BTW, is quite a long way from Brighton, the town that features in the first post on this thread).
Yes, I realise the names are quite similar.
singlecoil said:
What was it in that link that you thought I didn't already know, or are you just spitting out insults in the way in which I, and several other here, have noticed that you are inclined to do when you run out of cogent argument?
When you point out the specific items in that link that you feel I need to know, make sure that they are things that relate to this discussion, i.e. not specific to Bristol (which, BTW, is quite a long way from Brighton, the town that features in the first post on this thread).
Yes, I realise the names are quite similar.
That was in reply to your own comment about Bristol!!!!When you point out the specific items in that link that you feel I need to know, make sure that they are things that relate to this discussion, i.e. not specific to Bristol (which, BTW, is quite a long way from Brighton, the town that features in the first post on this thread).
Yes, I realise the names are quite similar.
You yourself then said it doesn't affect you, so why don't you stay the f
k away from things that don't concern you and which you're totally pig-ignorant about!!!You specialise in hijacking threads - that makes you, by definition, a troll - end of!
Nice update on the 20's pointless site - http://20spointless.org.uk
Hope other local areas can learn from this.
Hope other local areas can learn from this.
bad company said:
Nice update on the 20's pointless site - http://20spointless.org.uk
Hope other local areas can learn from this.
Yes, overall I feel the right outcome was achieved. Even the Police did not support 20mph limits in Worthing.Hope other local areas can learn from this.
That said, I would like to see the budget that was allocated for the 20mph changes (£400k) and is now not needed re-routed into repairing potholes and the like ahead of any wintery weather.
Funk said:
bad company said:
Nice update on the 20's pointless site - http://20spointless.org.uk
Hope other local areas can learn from this.
Yes, overall I feel the right outcome was achieved. Even the Police did not support 20mph limits in Worthing.Hope other local areas can learn from this.
That said, I would like to see the budget that was allocated for the 20mph changes (£400k) and is now not needed re-routed into repairing potholes and the like ahead of any wintery weather.
OpulentBob said:
Funk said:
bad company said:
Nice update on the 20's pointless site - http://20spointless.org.uk
Hope other local areas can learn from this.
Yes, overall I feel the right outcome was achieved. Even the Police did not support 20mph limits in Worthing.Hope other local areas can learn from this.
That said, I would like to see the budget that was allocated for the 20mph changes (£400k) and is now not needed re-routed into repairing potholes and the like ahead of any wintery weather.
From Local Transport Today:
Vote Says No Mayor Says Yes
Bristol’s independent mayor George Ferguson has vowed to press on with the city’s signed-only 20mph limit programme despite councillors voting for it to be halted.
Bristol City Council is currently implementing 20mph limits across the city but the council’s Labour and the Conservative groups this month joined forces to back a motion calling for the work to be halted. The motion was carried by 36 votes to 20, with the Liberal Democrats and Greens voting against. The vote cannot, however, stop the programme because the Mayor has executive powers.
Tabling an amendment to the Conservative motion, Labour councillor Sam Mongon distinguished between 20mph zones, which need traffic calming, and 20mph limits, which rely on signage.
“I absolutely support implementation of 20mph speed zones,” said Mongon. “The issue we have is this programme is not rolling out 20mph zones, it’s rolling out 20mph limits. The evidence shows 20mph limits have very limited impacts on speed reduction and emissions because they do not come with the things you get in 20mph zones – things like traffic calming measures, they don’t come with the backing of local people, and they don’t come with the police being able to actually enforce the limits.
“What we would like to see is a commitment to proper 20mph zones. Most importantly, the people who should decide where these zones are do not sit in this chamber and they do not sit in the officers upstairs, they sit in our communities.”
The carried motion says the mayor should ask the council’s place scrutiny committee to carry out an objective assessment of 20mph schemes, and the city’s neighbourhood partnerships should be given the power to “identify, prioritise and agree appropriate 20mph speed zones for their communities and the resources to implement them properly”.
Mayor Ferguson said he would not halt the plans. “I’m not going to put any child or person’s life at risk as a result of some anecdotal and untrue use of statistics,” he said, an apparent reference to the Conservative group who had questioned the effectiveness of Portsmouth’s pioneering signed-only 20mph policy and had cited a report by the Institute of Advanced Motorists that accidents and casualties in 20mph areas went up last year. 20mph campaigners say that’s because there are more 20mph limits.
Ferguson added: “I’m going to make sure we do everything we can to roll this out as speedily as we possibly can but with consultation taking place with neighbourhood partnerships.”
Charlie Bolton, a Green party councillor, said the Tories’ original motion amounted to an “all-out attack on children, on cyclists, on pedestrians and on pensioners in the city”.
at the Green whose emissions are either hyperbole or hyperbile.
Vote Says No Mayor Says Yes
Bristol’s independent mayor George Ferguson has vowed to press on with the city’s signed-only 20mph limit programme despite councillors voting for it to be halted.
Bristol City Council is currently implementing 20mph limits across the city but the council’s Labour and the Conservative groups this month joined forces to back a motion calling for the work to be halted. The motion was carried by 36 votes to 20, with the Liberal Democrats and Greens voting against. The vote cannot, however, stop the programme because the Mayor has executive powers.
Tabling an amendment to the Conservative motion, Labour councillor Sam Mongon distinguished between 20mph zones, which need traffic calming, and 20mph limits, which rely on signage.
“I absolutely support implementation of 20mph speed zones,” said Mongon. “The issue we have is this programme is not rolling out 20mph zones, it’s rolling out 20mph limits. The evidence shows 20mph limits have very limited impacts on speed reduction and emissions because they do not come with the things you get in 20mph zones – things like traffic calming measures, they don’t come with the backing of local people, and they don’t come with the police being able to actually enforce the limits.
“What we would like to see is a commitment to proper 20mph zones. Most importantly, the people who should decide where these zones are do not sit in this chamber and they do not sit in the officers upstairs, they sit in our communities.”
The carried motion says the mayor should ask the council’s place scrutiny committee to carry out an objective assessment of 20mph schemes, and the city’s neighbourhood partnerships should be given the power to “identify, prioritise and agree appropriate 20mph speed zones for their communities and the resources to implement them properly”.
Mayor Ferguson said he would not halt the plans. “I’m not going to put any child or person’s life at risk as a result of some anecdotal and untrue use of statistics,” he said, an apparent reference to the Conservative group who had questioned the effectiveness of Portsmouth’s pioneering signed-only 20mph policy and had cited a report by the Institute of Advanced Motorists that accidents and casualties in 20mph areas went up last year. 20mph campaigners say that’s because there are more 20mph limits.
Ferguson added: “I’m going to make sure we do everything we can to roll this out as speedily as we possibly can but with consultation taking place with neighbourhood partnerships.”
Charlie Bolton, a Green party councillor, said the Tories’ original motion amounted to an “all-out attack on children, on cyclists, on pedestrians and on pensioners in the city”.
at the Green whose emissions are either hyperbole or hyperbile.So much for democracy. Not many people are influenced one way or the other in their voting when it comes to 20mph limits. They won't make them vote for or against someone. Wilfully ignoring public opinion on something and a public vote on a particular subject should lose someone support though. It's funny how people will quote statistics as the Holy Grail when they support their opinions but dismiss them as spurious and irrelevant when they don't.
I'm not a great fan of traffic calming either though. They cause excessive wear and tear on vehicles and dangerously push different road users together into tight spaces.
I'm not a great fan of traffic calming either though. They cause excessive wear and tear on vehicles and dangerously push different road users together into tight spaces.
Blakewater said:
It's funny how people will quote statistics as the Holy Grail when they support their opinions but dismiss them as spurious and irrelevant when they don't.
What else could they do? If they hold a particular belief, and they find information that supports that belief, then naturally they will believe that the information is correct. If the find anything that undermines that belief, then it is obvious to them that that info is incorrect.I think we would find the same thing on PH if someone posted statistics that supported the use of speed cameras.
singlecoil said:
What else could they do? If they hold a particular belief, and they find information that supports that belief, then naturally they will believe that the information is correct. If the find anything that undermines that belief, then it is obvious to them that that info is incorrect.
I think we would find the same thing on PH if someone posted statistics that supported the use of speed cameras.
Some of us checked the statistics first then formed an opinion second. Not something that politicians would understand of course.I think we would find the same thing on PH if someone posted statistics that supported the use of speed cameras.
singlecoil said:
Blakewater said:
It's funny how people will quote statistics as the Holy Grail when they support their opinions but dismiss them as spurious and irrelevant when they don't.
What else could they do? If they hold a particular belief, and they find information that supports that belief, then naturally they will believe that the information is correct. If the find anything that undermines that belief, then it is obvious to them that that info is incorrect.I think we would find the same thing on PH if someone posted statistics that supported the use of speed cameras.
If you're interested in history at all you may be familiar with the campaign to have Richard III's remains buried in York Minster. Most people aren't aware of it and don't care about it, but these are a few campaigners who are sure all the world is on their side and they're in an absolute frenzy about it writing to celebrities and taking it to court. They're even insulting people online who they believe disagree with them and sabotaging their work.
People latch onto something and won't let it go and it becomes like a religion to them to the point where they close their minds to anything that disagrees with it and questions it and become very aggressive and over the top in the support of it, like the Green Party guy and his rather emotive language in the article above. They also overestimate how interested other people are and how supportive they are of them.
Speaking of York, I've been reading through conversations about introducing 20mph limits in York and people voting against it. Someone suggested only leftie, greenie cyclists wanted them. Someone else then joined in saying he was a leftie, greenie cyclist and he'd voted against them because they would cost thousands of pounds to introduce and on the roads affected traffic could rarely exceed 20mph anyway, so the benefit was minimal for the cost. All most people are interested in is how much these schemes will cost and many don't think they'll make any significant positive difference to make it worth the huge spend of public money.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff