Speed Limit Change?
Discussion
How is the decision made to alter a speed limit?
A leaflet has come through my door from the local councillor stating they’d like to ‘Target Speeding’ in my local area (lists out 5 roads in local vicinity). They therefore want to lower the speed limit of my road from 30 mph to 20 mph, install speed humps and other traffic measures to enforce this new speed. They’ve stated there will be a public consultation on the matter before any decisions are made.
I can’t see why they’re presenting this to us. Speeding has, as far as I’m aware, never been an issue. We don’t have any speed watch members, we’ve never had any speed traps and I can’t remember the last time I saw or heard of an accident on my road, if ever.
It’s mostly very quiet except for the hail and ride bus that comes past and Friday nights is used as a rat run for taxis going from the main train station to the smaller train station.
I can’t help but feel our newly elected councillor might live locally and wants less traffic or something.
Obviously it’ll go to public consultation but I am strongly against this proposal. My main reasoning is they will spend a ton of money, probably hundreds of thousands to send letters, consult us public and eventually erect signs, install speed humps and other bits and pieces. They’ll also probably remove some of the much needed parking bays to fit it all in as well as change the parking restrictions. Locally that time & money could be better spent fixing potholes in the roads, re-surfacing pavements and drop kerbs for elderly people and young families or even fixing some of the other newly installed traffic systems that are generating extra traffic and aggressive behaviour.
Has anyone had anything similar and got any advice on how to proceed? I understand I’m likely to go ignored but this has really wound me up.
A leaflet has come through my door from the local councillor stating they’d like to ‘Target Speeding’ in my local area (lists out 5 roads in local vicinity). They therefore want to lower the speed limit of my road from 30 mph to 20 mph, install speed humps and other traffic measures to enforce this new speed. They’ve stated there will be a public consultation on the matter before any decisions are made.
I can’t see why they’re presenting this to us. Speeding has, as far as I’m aware, never been an issue. We don’t have any speed watch members, we’ve never had any speed traps and I can’t remember the last time I saw or heard of an accident on my road, if ever.
It’s mostly very quiet except for the hail and ride bus that comes past and Friday nights is used as a rat run for taxis going from the main train station to the smaller train station.
I can’t help but feel our newly elected councillor might live locally and wants less traffic or something.
Obviously it’ll go to public consultation but I am strongly against this proposal. My main reasoning is they will spend a ton of money, probably hundreds of thousands to send letters, consult us public and eventually erect signs, install speed humps and other bits and pieces. They’ll also probably remove some of the much needed parking bays to fit it all in as well as change the parking restrictions. Locally that time & money could be better spent fixing potholes in the roads, re-surfacing pavements and drop kerbs for elderly people and young families or even fixing some of the other newly installed traffic systems that are generating extra traffic and aggressive behaviour.
Has anyone had anything similar and got any advice on how to proceed? I understand I’m likely to go ignored but this has really wound me up.
ashleyman said:
Has anyone had anything similar and got any advice on how to proceed? I understand I’m likely to go ignored but this has really wound me up.
Try to find out what has prompted this. It may not be the councillor who is driving it but a constituent with political connections/clout who lives in one of the 5 roads. Or maybe there is a 20's Plenty activist in the area.As a lone voice you'll get nowhere. You need to garner support from those who share your views. My starting point would be a FoIA request for accident stats over the last X years for the roads in question. Have any traffic levels and/or speed monitoring surveys (official, not the speed watch brigade} been undertaken?
Objective facts are key here. Consultations often provoke knee-jerk emotive negative responses from those residents who believe everyone is going faster than they actually are. Those who are content with the status quo tend not to respond. A lot could depend on how the LA treats those households which remain silent on the issue.
FOI request would be the way to start but the scattergun request isn't useful.
Be more specific.
Request: Any committee minutes and relevant documentation presented to councillors and committees that relate to the proposal for the change in speed limit on {insert roads or refer to leaflets you have received}. If not presented to committees then any documents related to the same matter held by the council.
Add: if it is the intention to make the documents public or such documents have been made public, where can they be found and provide a list of them.
That way you have covered the matter of interest to you with FOI and will receive consideration for the release under FOI. You will also cover the provision of a list of documents that are intended to be or have been released as such documents do not have to be provided to you before they are released.
It is usual for committee minutes to be routinely released. Look for these on your council website.
Be more specific.
Request: Any committee minutes and relevant documentation presented to councillors and committees that relate to the proposal for the change in speed limit on {insert roads or refer to leaflets you have received}. If not presented to committees then any documents related to the same matter held by the council.
Add: if it is the intention to make the documents public or such documents have been made public, where can they be found and provide a list of them.
That way you have covered the matter of interest to you with FOI and will receive consideration for the release under FOI. You will also cover the provision of a list of documents that are intended to be or have been released as such documents do not have to be provided to you before they are released.
It is usual for committee minutes to be routinely released. Look for these on your council website.
As well as the council suggestions, see if you have a Neighbourhood Action Group locally, or similar. They often get requests like this. Our local council just doesn't have the money to do all the things people would like and the consultation acts as a useful filter.
I'd be knocking on doors and getting signatures from neighbours.
I'd be knocking on doors and getting signatures from neighbours.
You can check accident stats here: http://www.crashmap.co.uk/Search
It will be a 'vanity project' by the council. We have had similar done here. Half a dozen or so local roads have had 20 mph limits put in and speed humps, very little consultation took place, it was more or less imposed.
The cost must have been £Ks, 20 mph signs at the entrance to each road, dozens of twin humps put in, flashing repeater signs etc. Funny thing is the road surfaces are atrocious, breaking up and heavily pot holed, yet they did not re-surface. They even installed humps next to pot holes without filling them in!
The roads are already narrow and have natural speed limiting (especially with the pot holes) there was no logical reason to to impose these limits. I have never known any accidents in my 30 years of living here. There is a school locally and this is the main reason for the 20 mph limit area, however the school has been there over 100 years and we've never heard of any kids being run over.
Our council is so badly run, always in financial difficulties yet they go ahead with vanity projects like this.
The cost must have been £Ks, 20 mph signs at the entrance to each road, dozens of twin humps put in, flashing repeater signs etc. Funny thing is the road surfaces are atrocious, breaking up and heavily pot holed, yet they did not re-surface. They even installed humps next to pot holes without filling them in!
The roads are already narrow and have natural speed limiting (especially with the pot holes) there was no logical reason to to impose these limits. I have never known any accidents in my 30 years of living here. There is a school locally and this is the main reason for the 20 mph limit area, however the school has been there over 100 years and we've never heard of any kids being run over.
Our council is so badly run, always in financial difficulties yet they go ahead with vanity projects like this.
Long but hopefully relevant post alert:
In a previous life I made a large chunk of Cambridge a 20mph zone, I was the “20mph Officer” (not my choice, it was thrust upon me!).
I do think you’re worrying a little unnecessarily and maybe have things a little bit confused, hopefully I can clear them up a bit below.
Firstly, there are useful guidelines here:
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploa...
It 99% won’t be because a Cllr lives locally. If anything Cllrs want better/faster routes to their homes. I can’t think of any Cllr led schemes that reduced speed limits, believe it or not. The last Cllr-led scheme I worked on actually doubled the speed limit on his route home, I swear to God.
One stipulation to make a road a 20zone are that the average speed is =/<24mph.
It’s not all speed humps, in fact, they are the least preferred speed reduction measure - road engineers, users, emergence services etc all hate them, they do more harm than good. Other, better measures include 20mph lollipops, or on-road roundels. (Sect 6.1, Para 92 in the doc above). When I did Cambridge, I removed speed humps – I didn’t install a single extra one.
IMO, the aim is NOT to get everybody driving at 19mph. The impact of the old 30mph limits have been eroded so much that nowadays it is routine to see cars doing 35-40mph in a 30 limit/zone. I suggest that the 20mph zones are aiming to get average speeds down to sub-30mph, just like the 30mph limits used to be.
There will be no enforcement by the police,and as far as I am aware there are still no fixed speed cameras approved for 20mph. They can use average speed cameras but the network/infrastructure required by them is crazy – not to mention easily fooled (drive most of it at 40, stop at 1 set of lights or get caught behind a bus etc, and your average is immediately way down).
There will be no need to remove parking bays. This is typical of what you’ll see in a 20 zone: https://goo.gl/maps/4nz957jfL8B2
In my consultation, I found that residents were very much FOR it, and commuters were against it - it is very effective against rat runs, in this case at least.
Regarding the funding, I don’t know for sure but I bet the 20mph is from a totally different budget to the maintenance, and for various local gov’t reasons can’t be cross-spent. Frustrating but not fixable by the council workers/engineers. It would need governance changes, right at the top of the Council, which you are free to enquire about but I don’t fancy your chances – it would set a precedent and would make a hash of the maintenance funding forecasts for a few years to come, I’d imagine.
I genuinely don’t think it will negatively impact you, and definitely not worth getting wound up over. If you have any specific questions about your locality then feel free to PM me – I’m happy to have a look at streetview of where you live and let you know what the likely measures will be; if you’re near a reasonably sharp bend (I can’t remember the angle, it's something like 68 degrees) then that in itself counts as a speed reduction measure and you won’t have anything extra installed.
I hope this gives you a bit of reassurance.
In a previous life I made a large chunk of Cambridge a 20mph zone, I was the “20mph Officer” (not my choice, it was thrust upon me!).
I do think you’re worrying a little unnecessarily and maybe have things a little bit confused, hopefully I can clear them up a bit below.
Firstly, there are useful guidelines here:
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploa...
It 99% won’t be because a Cllr lives locally. If anything Cllrs want better/faster routes to their homes. I can’t think of any Cllr led schemes that reduced speed limits, believe it or not. The last Cllr-led scheme I worked on actually doubled the speed limit on his route home, I swear to God.
One stipulation to make a road a 20zone are that the average speed is =/<24mph.
It’s not all speed humps, in fact, they are the least preferred speed reduction measure - road engineers, users, emergence services etc all hate them, they do more harm than good. Other, better measures include 20mph lollipops, or on-road roundels. (Sect 6.1, Para 92 in the doc above). When I did Cambridge, I removed speed humps – I didn’t install a single extra one.
IMO, the aim is NOT to get everybody driving at 19mph. The impact of the old 30mph limits have been eroded so much that nowadays it is routine to see cars doing 35-40mph in a 30 limit/zone. I suggest that the 20mph zones are aiming to get average speeds down to sub-30mph, just like the 30mph limits used to be.
There will be no enforcement by the police,
There will be no need to remove parking bays. This is typical of what you’ll see in a 20 zone: https://goo.gl/maps/4nz957jfL8B2
In my consultation, I found that residents were very much FOR it, and commuters were against it - it is very effective against rat runs, in this case at least.
Regarding the funding, I don’t know for sure but I bet the 20mph is from a totally different budget to the maintenance, and for various local gov’t reasons can’t be cross-spent. Frustrating but not fixable by the council workers/engineers. It would need governance changes, right at the top of the Council, which you are free to enquire about but I don’t fancy your chances – it would set a precedent and would make a hash of the maintenance funding forecasts for a few years to come, I’d imagine.
I genuinely don’t think it will negatively impact you, and definitely not worth getting wound up over. If you have any specific questions about your locality then feel free to PM me – I’m happy to have a look at streetview of where you live and let you know what the likely measures will be; if you’re near a reasonably sharp bend (I can’t remember the angle, it's something like 68 degrees) then that in itself counts as a speed reduction measure and you won’t have anything extra installed.
I hope this gives you a bit of reassurance.
Edited by OpulentBob on Friday 18th August 08:30
Edited by OpulentBob on Friday 18th August 11:17
Does sound a bit strange. The council will have next to no road safety budget, so spending any of that on a road where there's no evidenced Personal Injury Accident record is extremely difficult to justify. The signs and necessary legal work won't be very expensive (£5k-£10k assuming we're not talking about miles) but any traffic calming gets expensive.
However, councils are politically motivated and Councillors don't always follow the sensible data-led recommendations of their officers. Although there is a statutory legal process that must be followed (including a formal public consultation), any objections received merely have to be 'considered' by the Council. That's something that's usually delegated to a committee or to a particular Councillor, and if they're already supportive of the scheme then it'll go through regardless of how many objections are received.
Your best bet might be to challenge the decision to prioritise a road that has no PIA history over the inevitably long list of sites where PIAs could be reduced through some road safety interventions. As a concerned resident of the district you want road safety addressed in the most efficient way possible, and you're concerned that the proposed scheme isn't the most effective way to do that.
However, councils are politically motivated and Councillors don't always follow the sensible data-led recommendations of their officers. Although there is a statutory legal process that must be followed (including a formal public consultation), any objections received merely have to be 'considered' by the Council. That's something that's usually delegated to a committee or to a particular Councillor, and if they're already supportive of the scheme then it'll go through regardless of how many objections are received.
Your best bet might be to challenge the decision to prioritise a road that has no PIA history over the inevitably long list of sites where PIAs could be reduced through some road safety interventions. As a concerned resident of the district you want road safety addressed in the most efficient way possible, and you're concerned that the proposed scheme isn't the most effective way to do that.
Galveston said:
Your best bet might be to challenge the decision to prioritise a road that has no PIA history over the inevitably long list of sites where PIAs could be reduced through some road safety interventions. As a concerned resident of the district you want road safety addressed in the most efficient way possible, and you're concerned that the proposed scheme isn't the most effective way to do that.
If it's a zone, then it won't specifically be prioritising his road, it will be an area of several roads/an estate. It probably won't be feasible to have all the roads in the area as 20, except his road. Chances are it will only need a couple of signs and a bit of paint. I didn't get from the OP that he was worried about safety, more about the cost and the money being better spent elsewhere on maintenance, and to address traffic congestion. The only mention of safety was drop kerbs for elderly people. If you're going to try and use safety as a factor, then you need to do some research on PIAs (including the reasons for the PIAs) around the area; not difficult but if you don't have it then the chances are you will be seen as a bit of a NIMBY. Sorry, but it happens - you get people against all sorts of schemes, and they make up lots of easily-debunked "facts" to try and support their case.
A few other observations.
Local (Parish/Community) Councillors usually stand as Independents.
Borough Councils will not act on a petition as such, because they are obviously one-sided.
Borough Councils do not take mass-produced generic letters into much account, they prefer individual letters.
This item will/should come up at a local/parish council level. Find out where, when, and attend (which you ought to all the time anyway!). A county councillor will regularly attend, and a local community police officer should too.
Parish Councils are the very starting point for these types of issues, so at the minimum find out where they take place and get up to date using their web-site (almost all have one). If you want this issue raised, contact the chairperson, and or the clerk.
As others have said, 20mph limits have to be self-enforcing.
Local (Parish/Community) Councillors usually stand as Independents.
Borough Councils will not act on a petition as such, because they are obviously one-sided.
Borough Councils do not take mass-produced generic letters into much account, they prefer individual letters.
This item will/should come up at a local/parish council level. Find out where, when, and attend (which you ought to all the time anyway!). A county councillor will regularly attend, and a local community police officer should too.
Parish Councils are the very starting point for these types of issues, so at the minimum find out where they take place and get up to date using their web-site (almost all have one). If you want this issue raised, contact the chairperson, and or the clerk.
As others have said, 20mph limits have to be self-enforcing.
I swear local councils are burning through cash doing pointless road changes and upgrades. Spend 5 minutes looking through the work done in my town (Newbury, Boundry Road Bridge, A339 improvements at the robin hood roundabout and also the planned work on the a339 onto cheap street) and you really do wonder what moron approves this sort of work.
xjay1337 said:
I swear local councils are burning through cash doing pointless road changes and upgrades. Spend 5 minutes looking through the work done in my town (Newbury, Boundry Road Bridge, A339 improvements at the robin hood roundabout and also the planned work on the a339 onto cheap street) and you really do wonder what moron approves this sort of work.
Do you know the purpose of the scheme, or the issues it is trying to address? Bit rich calling someone a moron if you aren't aware of the background etc. If it's bridge works, then it may be 5 years from failing - and you wouldn't see any difference to the bridge once repaired, so to those who don't know it would look like millions spent, and nothing done.A 2 minute Google at Boundary Rd bridge is pretty obvious why they're doing it, no? 3T limit and single lane running indicated a very weak bridge. Either needs strengthening or removing, IMO - too much risk of a 7.5T (or bigger) to go over it. Seems sensible to me.
OpulentBob said:
xjay1337 said:
I swear local councils are burning through cash doing pointless road changes and upgrades. Spend 5 minutes looking through the work done in my town (Newbury, Boundry Road Bridge, A339 improvements at the robin hood roundabout and also the planned work on the a339 onto cheap street) and you really do wonder what moron approves this sort of work.
Do you know the purpose of the scheme, or the issues it is trying to address? Bit rich calling someone a moron if you aren't aware of the background etc. If it's bridge works, then it may be 5 years from failing - and you wouldn't see any difference to the bridge once repaired, so to those who don't know it would look like millions spent, and nothing done.A 2 minute Google at Boundary Rd bridge is pretty obvious why they're doing it, no? 3T limit and single lane running indicated a very weak bridge. Either needs strengthening or removing, IMO - too much risk of a 7.5T (or bigger) to go over it. Seems sensible to me.
The bridge in particular is stupid. As I live here let me explain to you what has gone on.
Old 3T limit bridge and single lane due to space available at the time.
It was shut to allow electrification of the railway and widen it to provide access for 2 way traffic.
The first phase which was in EXCESS of a year (for a 50yard bridge) caused huge problems in the local area.
The bridge then re-opened for about 2 weeks.
Then it shut for another 3 months.
It re-opened with a HUGE footpath (well over twice the width of a "normal" footpath) and still only 1-way traffic only now it's traffic controlled rather than a traditional priority give way.
And now they are going to shut it again for another few months to actually make it 2 way.
Why not just leave it and make it 2 way all at once rather than shut it for 15 months only to then have to shut it again?
The A339 work has simply caused another bottleneck as people use it as a cut through to try and avoid having to go round the Robin Hood when heading to Thatcham
And the planned work on the A339 flyover by Sainsbury's will simply cause traffic to back up to the roundabout.
But as I said they are planning on pushing ahead with the changes despite local people not being in favour. They said public consultations would be made but they apparently happened but without them actually giving a time / date for them... funny that!! :-)
xjay1337 said:
OpulentBob said:
xjay1337 said:
I swear local councils are burning through cash doing pointless road changes and upgrades. Spend 5 minutes looking through the work done in my town (Newbury, Boundry Road Bridge, A339 improvements at the robin hood roundabout and also the planned work on the a339 onto cheap street) and you really do wonder what moron approves this sort of work.
Do you know the purpose of the scheme, or the issues it is trying to address? Bit rich calling someone a moron if you aren't aware of the background etc. If it's bridge works, then it may be 5 years from failing - and you wouldn't see any difference to the bridge once repaired, so to those who don't know it would look like millions spent, and nothing done.A 2 minute Google at Boundary Rd bridge is pretty obvious why they're doing it, no? 3T limit and single lane running indicated a very weak bridge. Either needs strengthening or removing, IMO - too much risk of a 7.5T (or bigger) to go over it. Seems sensible to me.
The bridge in particular is stupid. As I live here let me explain to you what has gone on.
Old 3T limit bridge and single lane due to space available at the time.
It was shut to allow electrification of the railway and widen it to provide access for 2 way traffic.
The first phase which was in EXCESS of a year (for a 50yard bridge) caused huge problems in the local area.
The bridge then re-opened for about 2 weeks.
Then it shut for another 3 months.
It re-opened with a HUGE footpath (well over twice the width of a "normal" footpath) and still only 1-way traffic only now it's traffic controlled rather than a traditional priority give way.
And now they are going to shut it again for another few months to actually make it 2 way.
Why not just leave it and make it 2 way all at once rather than shut it for 15 months only to then have to shut it again?
The A339 work has simply caused another bottleneck as people use it as a cut through to try and avoid having to go round the Robin Hood when heading to Thatcham
And the planned work on the A339 flyover by Sainsbury's will simply cause traffic to back up to the roundabout.
But as I said they are planning on pushing ahead with the changes despite local people not being in favour. They said public consultations would be made but they apparently happened but without them actually giving a time / date for them... funny that!! :-)
t. Hit it once, hit it hard, and get it right. Repeated faffing does nobody any good and just makes everyone involved look stupid. Road works will always cause traffic. It's inevitable. If they don't do it now, then it WILL only get worse when they do it in future. However there is no excuse at all for not knowing about other local works which will exacerbate the situation.
Regarding the works over the railway, the highways will have strict schedules agreed with the rail operator, restricting when/how long they can work for. I've had it loads of times, where working over a railway can only be done between Xmas and New Year, or across the Easter week (for example). That's not the fault of the highways; that would be entirely prescribed by Network Rail.
Just to answer a few posters:
My council is a London borough council.
I’d rather have a 20 zone than speed humps but I’m also just relaying what’s written on the notice that came through my door so I haven’t got anything confused. It’s all on the letter which I now cannot find.
I’ve looked on crash map and there’s a few more than I was expecting but there has never been a serious accident in the last 18 years. The last slight accident was in 2014 There have been 3 slight incidents the most recent taking place in 2012. There are a few clumps of ‘hot spots’ but we’re talking 4 or 5 accidents over 10 years and these are all outside the roads they’re planning to reduce the speed in.
Google doesn’t bring up any results for ‘Neighbourhood Action Group’ in my area.
OpulentBob, I’ll send you a PM.
I really wish I could share more details but obviously this is right outside my front door and I don’t want to post where I live online.
My council is a London borough council.
I’d rather have a 20 zone than speed humps but I’m also just relaying what’s written on the notice that came through my door so I haven’t got anything confused. It’s all on the letter which I now cannot find.
I’ve looked on crash map and there’s a few more than I was expecting but there has never been a serious accident in the last 18 years. The last slight accident was in 2014 There have been 3 slight incidents the most recent taking place in 2012. There are a few clumps of ‘hot spots’ but we’re talking 4 or 5 accidents over 10 years and these are all outside the roads they’re planning to reduce the speed in.
Google doesn’t bring up any results for ‘Neighbourhood Action Group’ in my area.
OpulentBob, I’ll send you a PM.
I really wish I could share more details but obviously this is right outside my front door and I don’t want to post where I live online.
OpulentBob said:
Long but hopefully relevant post alert:
In a previous life I made a large chunk of Cambridge a 20mph zone, I was the “20mph Officer” (not my choice, it was thrust upon me!).
I do think you’re worrying a little unnecessarily and maybe have things a little bit confused, hopefully I can clear them up a bit below.
Firstly, there are useful guidelines here:
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploa...
It 99% won’t be because a Cllr lives locally. If anything Cllrs want better/faster routes to their homes. I can’t think of any Cllr led schemes that reduced speed limits, believe it or not. The last Cllr-led scheme I worked on actually doubled the speed limit on his route home, I swear to God.
One stipulation to make a road a 20zone are that the average speed is =/<24mph.
It’s not all speed humps, in fact, they are the least preferred speed reduction measure - road engineers, users, emergence services etc all hate them, they do more harm than good. Other, better measures include 20mph lollipops, or on-road roundels. (Sect 6.1, Para 92 in the doc above). When I did Cambridge, I removed speed humps – I didn’t install a single extra one.
IMO, the aim is NOT to get everybody driving at 19mph. The impact of the old 30mph limits have been eroded so much that nowadays it is routine to see cars doing 35-40mph in a 30 limit/zone. I suggest that the 20mph zones are aiming to get average speeds down to sub-30mph, just like the 30mph limits used to be.
There will be no enforcement by the police, and as far as I am aware there are still no fixed speed cameras approved for 20mph. They can use average speed cameras but the network/infrastructure required by them is crazy – not to mention easily fooled (drive most of it at 40, stop at 1 set of lights or get caught behind a bus etc, and your average is immediately way down).
There will be no need to remove parking bays. This is typical of what you’ll see in a 20 zone: https://goo.gl/maps/4nz957jfL8B2
In my consultation, I found that residents were very much FOR it, and commuters were against it - it is very effective against rat runs, in this case at least.
Regarding the funding, I don’t know for sure but I bet the 20mph is from a totally different budget to the maintenance, and for various local gov’t reasons can’t be cross-spent. Frustrating but not fixable by the council workers/engineers. It would need governance changes, right at the top of the Council, which you are free to enquire about but I don’t fancy your chances – it would set a precedent and would make a hash of the maintenance funding forecasts for a few years to come, I’d imagine.
I genuinely don’t think it will negatively impact you, and definitely not worth getting wound up over. If you have any specific questions about your locality then feel free to PM me – I’m happy to have a look at streetview of where you live and let you know what the likely measures will be; if you’re near a reasonably sharp bend (I can’t remember the angle, it's something like 68 degrees) then that in itself counts as a speed reduction measure and you won’t have anything extra installed.
I hope this gives you a bit of reassurance.
Only the Gatsometer radar AUS24 is restricted to 30mph limits and above. All other speedmeters are approved for 20mph speed limits as far as I recall. In a previous life I made a large chunk of Cambridge a 20mph zone, I was the “20mph Officer” (not my choice, it was thrust upon me!).
I do think you’re worrying a little unnecessarily and maybe have things a little bit confused, hopefully I can clear them up a bit below.
Firstly, there are useful guidelines here:
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploa...
It 99% won’t be because a Cllr lives locally. If anything Cllrs want better/faster routes to their homes. I can’t think of any Cllr led schemes that reduced speed limits, believe it or not. The last Cllr-led scheme I worked on actually doubled the speed limit on his route home, I swear to God.
One stipulation to make a road a 20zone are that the average speed is =/<24mph.
It’s not all speed humps, in fact, they are the least preferred speed reduction measure - road engineers, users, emergence services etc all hate them, they do more harm than good. Other, better measures include 20mph lollipops, or on-road roundels. (Sect 6.1, Para 92 in the doc above). When I did Cambridge, I removed speed humps – I didn’t install a single extra one.
IMO, the aim is NOT to get everybody driving at 19mph. The impact of the old 30mph limits have been eroded so much that nowadays it is routine to see cars doing 35-40mph in a 30 limit/zone. I suggest that the 20mph zones are aiming to get average speeds down to sub-30mph, just like the 30mph limits used to be.
There will be no enforcement by the police, and as far as I am aware there are still no fixed speed cameras approved for 20mph. They can use average speed cameras but the network/infrastructure required by them is crazy – not to mention easily fooled (drive most of it at 40, stop at 1 set of lights or get caught behind a bus etc, and your average is immediately way down).
There will be no need to remove parking bays. This is typical of what you’ll see in a 20 zone: https://goo.gl/maps/4nz957jfL8B2
In my consultation, I found that residents were very much FOR it, and commuters were against it - it is very effective against rat runs, in this case at least.
Regarding the funding, I don’t know for sure but I bet the 20mph is from a totally different budget to the maintenance, and for various local gov’t reasons can’t be cross-spent. Frustrating but not fixable by the council workers/engineers. It would need governance changes, right at the top of the Council, which you are free to enquire about but I don’t fancy your chances – it would set a precedent and would make a hash of the maintenance funding forecasts for a few years to come, I’d imagine.
I genuinely don’t think it will negatively impact you, and definitely not worth getting wound up over. If you have any specific questions about your locality then feel free to PM me – I’m happy to have a look at streetview of where you live and let you know what the likely measures will be; if you’re near a reasonably sharp bend (I can’t remember the angle, it's something like 68 degrees) then that in itself counts as a speed reduction measure and you won’t have anything extra installed.
I hope this gives you a bit of reassurance.
Edited by OpulentBob on Friday 18th August 08:30
Truvelo and Redspeed have always been approved for the full range 20mph and upwards. All average speedmeters are approved for 20mph and above.
Good point regarding the 20mph limits being put in as a measure to reduce the average speed of traffic in a 30mph limit. The 20 limits are therefore installed as a result of manipulation by drivers of the 30 limits. This is something that I have seen too.
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff