Manchester to scrap 20 mph limits
Discussion
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4294454/Co...
http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greate...
Seems that the limits made no difference to injury stats.
Let's hope other councils follow suit and remove inappropriate 20 mph zones.
http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greate...
Seems that the limits made no difference to injury stats.
Let's hope other councils follow suit and remove inappropriate 20 mph zones.
An outbreak of common sense. I won't hold my breath that it will spread outside of Manchester, however. I follow various Merseyside/NW police groups on Twitter, and the emphasis is usually on the 'fatal 4', mostly speed and campaigning for lower limits. Many of our once-NSL roads are now down 20, 30 or 40mph, even the arterial four lane dual carriageways with armco either side, concrete armco central reservations and no human habitation! In fact I can't think of a single NSL road left around here, unless you count the motorway. Each and every time I have replied to their tweets to ask about enforcement of tailgating, lane hogging and careless driving - things that actually do slow traffic flow, cause accidents as well as increasing road rage - I get completely ignored. All this despite the accounts being very active and others getting replies all day long. Their latest focus is mobiles (since the law changed, it's to be expected). Great, that's a massive 0.4% of the causes of accidents being dealt with - how about the stuff that really scores in the statistics?
More and more roads around the north west are becoming restricted to 20mph, and the 'safety camera partnership' published this:
Usually they're found on the industrial estate (30mph double lane one way roads with nothing but the odd unit scattered around for miles), or on the 30mph dual carriageway by the cemetery (where it drops from a 40 but used to be NSL). Meanwhile traffic snakes through the surrounding 20 limits, with (at an estimate) 90% of traffic ignoring the limit completely, even around the schools. The ubiquitous nature of 20mph limits just switches off drivers who then continue to ignore them even where they would make a genuine difference. I've never, ever, in a decade seen one of the camera vans or bike units on a road with a school though. They much prefer to hide around corners where the limit drops to 30mph from a faster road. Unfortunately, several children were knocked down in my eldest's school over the last three years. Police responded to my enquiry letter stating that enforcement priorities lay elsewhere; namely the aforementioned dual carriageways with no schoolchildren to be hit, but plenty of easy pickings. You couldn't make it up.
If the 20mph limits (and other artificially lowered limits) were scrapped and resources were pumped in to enforcing actual driving, the roads would be a much safer place. The usual response is manpower, but if you were to look on Twitter you'd see dozens of vans, bikes and cars all devoted to one specific thing - sitting around and tagging people breaking arbitrary limits and using their phone. I'm sure they could be more usefully deployed elsewhere in the city, to much more realistic effect (albeit potentially lower revenue...). As a RoSPA RoADAR tutor, I recently had a lady come for tuition. She helps manage and run national speed awareness and mobile phone users' courses. She took great pleasure in describing how she insists on referring to attendees as 'offenders' rather than the usual 'client' as it proved her point (whatever that was, she never said). Ironically she spent most of her drive with me exceeding the red ring limits inappropriately, even in built up areas, yet dawdled at 40-50 in NSL areas. When I mentioned it, she said 'Oops, best be careful else I might lose my job'. Box ticking, the lot of it.
More and more roads around the north west are becoming restricted to 20mph, and the 'safety camera partnership' published this:
Merseyside Road Safety Partnership said:
NEW MOBILE ENFORCEMENT STATEGY (sic)
The majority, some 73% of all KSI’s (sic) in Merseyside take place on the main road network. National statistics also shows that drivers still routinely flout speed limits. In fact in 30 mph limits some 47% of car drivers exceed the limit. For that reason the Partnership has agreed to extend its deployment of mobile enforcement vehicles beyond certain designated sites. In future all A class, B class and classified unnumbered roads (often formerly C class roads) will be considered suitable for mobile enforcement.
Perhaps inappropriately low limits are the cause of many of those 47% of drivers? Ironically the partnership's website has a photo on the home page saying speed is a 'major factor in many collisions'. Yup, about 5%. Probably doesn't sell the idea of camera vans too well if they actually tell you that, though.The majority, some 73% of all KSI’s (sic) in Merseyside take place on the main road network. National statistics also shows that drivers still routinely flout speed limits. In fact in 30 mph limits some 47% of car drivers exceed the limit. For that reason the Partnership has agreed to extend its deployment of mobile enforcement vehicles beyond certain designated sites. In future all A class, B class and classified unnumbered roads (often formerly C class roads) will be considered suitable for mobile enforcement.
Usually they're found on the industrial estate (30mph double lane one way roads with nothing but the odd unit scattered around for miles), or on the 30mph dual carriageway by the cemetery (where it drops from a 40 but used to be NSL). Meanwhile traffic snakes through the surrounding 20 limits, with (at an estimate) 90% of traffic ignoring the limit completely, even around the schools. The ubiquitous nature of 20mph limits just switches off drivers who then continue to ignore them even where they would make a genuine difference. I've never, ever, in a decade seen one of the camera vans or bike units on a road with a school though. They much prefer to hide around corners where the limit drops to 30mph from a faster road. Unfortunately, several children were knocked down in my eldest's school over the last three years. Police responded to my enquiry letter stating that enforcement priorities lay elsewhere; namely the aforementioned dual carriageways with no schoolchildren to be hit, but plenty of easy pickings. You couldn't make it up.
If the 20mph limits (and other artificially lowered limits) were scrapped and resources were pumped in to enforcing actual driving, the roads would be a much safer place. The usual response is manpower, but if you were to look on Twitter you'd see dozens of vans, bikes and cars all devoted to one specific thing - sitting around and tagging people breaking arbitrary limits and using their phone. I'm sure they could be more usefully deployed elsewhere in the city, to much more realistic effect (albeit potentially lower revenue...). As a RoSPA RoADAR tutor, I recently had a lady come for tuition. She helps manage and run national speed awareness and mobile phone users' courses. She took great pleasure in describing how she insists on referring to attendees as 'offenders' rather than the usual 'client' as it proved her point (whatever that was, she never said). Ironically she spent most of her drive with me exceeding the red ring limits inappropriately, even in built up areas, yet dawdled at 40-50 in NSL areas. When I mentioned it, she said 'Oops, best be careful else I might lose my job'. Box ticking, the lot of it.
Bristol has decided it's about air pollution, and apparently the 20 limit is a good thing.
Not if Doris is screaming the nuts off her Atoz because she's still in first gear all the time it isn't, but it means the limit is staying even if there's no clear evidence it saves lives or reduces injuries.
Not if Doris is screaming the nuts off her Atoz because she's still in first gear all the time it isn't, but it means the limit is staying even if there's no clear evidence it saves lives or reduces injuries.
At a recent IAM group meeting our guest speaker, a former police officer, told us this about 20mph limits:
Altering a speed limit on any road (changing the limit or altering where the limits change) requires an amendment to the Road Traffic Act in Parliament. This costs about £130 000 for each and every alteration. No local authority has ever paid for this. Therefore no police force will enforce them as any case would be thrown out on the technicality that the limit is not legally based.
Make of that what you will.
Altering a speed limit on any road (changing the limit or altering where the limits change) requires an amendment to the Road Traffic Act in Parliament. This costs about £130 000 for each and every alteration. No local authority has ever paid for this. Therefore no police force will enforce them as any case would be thrown out on the technicality that the limit is not legally based.
Make of that what you will.
At a recent IAM group meeting our guest speaker, a former police officer, told us this about 20mph limits:
Altering a speed limit on any road (changing the limit or altering where the limits change) requires an amendment to the Road Traffic Act in Parliament. This costs about £130 000 for each and every alteration. No local authority has ever paid for this. Therefore no police force will enforce them as any case would be thrown out on the technicality that the limit is not legally based.
Make of that what you will.
Altering a speed limit on any road (changing the limit or altering where the limits change) requires an amendment to the Road Traffic Act in Parliament. This costs about £130 000 for each and every alteration. No local authority has ever paid for this. Therefore no police force will enforce them as any case would be thrown out on the technicality that the limit is not legally based.
Make of that what you will.
66mpg said:
At a recent IAM group meeting our guest speaker, a former police officer, told us this about 20mph limits:
Altering a speed limit on any road (changing the limit or altering where the limits change) requires an amendment to the Road Traffic Act in Parliament. This costs about £130 000 for each and every alteration. No local authority has ever paid for this. Therefore no police force will enforce them as any case would be thrown out on the technicality that the limit is not legally based.
Make of that what you will.
The tossers in my local authority gave themselves general authority to impose when nobody was looking, then denied objections as each area came up for consideration, because of the general policy decision. Slippery bunch of arses.Altering a speed limit on any road (changing the limit or altering where the limits change) requires an amendment to the Road Traffic Act in Parliament. This costs about £130 000 for each and every alteration. No local authority has ever paid for this. Therefore no police force will enforce them as any case would be thrown out on the technicality that the limit is not legally based.
Make of that what you will.
They said they were gratefuly taking advantage of a government offer to pay for implementaion.
Also said they'd love to extend the "extremely successful" road hump schemes, but couldn't afford to proceed.
The road safety partnerships will be gearing up for an onslaught of Manchester councils. Parents of dead children wheeled out with the obligatory picture to batter anyone who suggests that speed reductions do not save lives.
The same as in Swindon when they turned off the cameras, they predicted carnage and yet nothing changed.
Bristol's ex mayor hated cars and forced 20mph limits which the speed camera partnership does enforce. Unless you are a cyclist on Gloucester rd passing all the cars downhill, where you appear exempt. These limits are stupid but they are there to stay as now it is pollution that they are saving us from.
I hope this spreads but it will not as there is too much money to be made from those involved in pushing anti car anti speed messages
The same as in Swindon when they turned off the cameras, they predicted carnage and yet nothing changed.
Bristol's ex mayor hated cars and forced 20mph limits which the speed camera partnership does enforce. Unless you are a cyclist on Gloucester rd passing all the cars downhill, where you appear exempt. These limits are stupid but they are there to stay as now it is pollution that they are saving us from.
I hope this spreads but it will not as there is too much money to be made from those involved in pushing anti car anti speed messages
jamoor said:
I drive in Manchester regularly, in some of the built up areas the 20 limit is entirely appropriate during the daytime. Especially around school zones and areas with lots of pedestrians. I feel more comfortable driving at 20 than 30
I think you've answered your own question.Since hearing about my town's 20 plans, I've observed 20 limits in various parts of the country and compared behaviour in 20 and 30 limits.
I'm really hard pressed to identify anywhere that people are NOT driving at 20 or less near schools and other hazardous areas, regardless of the limit.
To impose a 24 hour limit is not necessary.
As an aside, every time I drive at 20 in a 20 limit where there's no hazard, I nearly always get somebody up my pipe, getting wound up and urging me to get moving. This does not make for safer roads.
mybrainhurts said:
jamoor said:
I drive in Manchester regularly, in some of the built up areas the 20 limit is entirely appropriate during the daytime. Especially around school zones and areas with lots of pedestrians. I feel more comfortable driving at 20 than 30
I think you've answered your own question.Since hearing about my town's 20 plans, I've observed 20 limits in various parts of the country and compared behaviour in 20 and 30 limits.
I'm really hard pressed to identify anywhere that people are NOT driving at 20 or less near schools and other hazardous areas, regardless of the limit.
To impose a 24 hour limit is not necessary.
As an aside, every time I drive at 20 in a 20 limit where there's no hazard, I nearly always get somebody up my pipe, getting wound up and urging me to get moving. This does not make for safer roads.
It seems that councils have lost faith in drivers' abilities to drive to the conditions. 95% of people know to slow down around schools and busy pedestrian areas, and the other 5% aren't going to take any notice of 20 limits anyway. It's a complete nonsense IMO.
chriscoates said:
mybrainhurts said:
jamoor said:
I drive in Manchester regularly, in some of the built up areas the 20 limit is entirely appropriate during the daytime. Especially around school zones and areas with lots of pedestrians. I feel more comfortable driving at 20 than 30
I think you've answered your own question.Since hearing about my town's 20 plans, I've observed 20 limits in various parts of the country and compared behaviour in 20 and 30 limits.
I'm really hard pressed to identify anywhere that people are NOT driving at 20 or less near schools and other hazardous areas, regardless of the limit.
To impose a 24 hour limit is not necessary.
As an aside, every time I drive at 20 in a 20 limit where there's no hazard, I nearly always get somebody up my pipe, getting wound up and urging me to get moving. This does not make for safer roads.
It seems that councils have lost faith in drivers' abilities to drive to the conditions. 95% of people know to slow down around schools and busy pedestrian areas, and the other 5% aren't going to take any notice of 20 limits anyway. It's a complete nonsense IMO.
Seems like if it's made no difference to speed or accidents, now that it's in place, they should just leave it as it is?
Having already spent the money to change it, only for nothing to happen, surely there's no point spending money again to revert it, if the result will continue to be exactly the same. This is almost the very definition of a waste of money!
Having already spent the money to change it, only for nothing to happen, surely there's no point spending money again to revert it, if the result will continue to be exactly the same. This is almost the very definition of a waste of money!
wack said:
This goes round and round
The camera van's sole purpose is to generate revenue via speed awareness courses and to give points to the odd tit stupid enough to drive past a van at well over the limit
End of
Well, yes, but there are exceptions.The camera van's sole purpose is to generate revenue via speed awareness courses and to give points to the odd tit stupid enough to drive past a van at well over the limit
End of
Sheffield
tty Council claims it's to make pedestrians free from fear and confident to walk and for children to play in the roads and stuff like that.They do freely admit, though, that they don't expect drivers to obey the limit.
So, all in all, a damn good idea.
jamoor said:
I drive in Manchester regularly, in some of the built up areas the 20 limit is entirely appropriate during the daytime. Especially around school zones and areas with lots of pedestrians. I feel more comfortable driving at 20 than 30
well yes, but a speed limit is usually seen as a hard maximum, not a target. driving at slower speeds has always been the appropriate action when road conditions mandate it. If these 20mph limits were only enforced on daytimes/weekends it'd make a lot more sense to me. I do a lot of driving after 1am on weeknights where 20mph limits are just stupid on many of the roads (upper street in islington for example)
spaximus said:
These limits are stupid but they are there to stay as now it is pollution that they are saving us from.
They actually exacerbate the pollution problem:1) Slower vehicles spend more time on the road, meaning more vehicles on the road at any point in time.
And this tends to increase congestion, which slows things down even more.
2) You use the same amount of fuel, so producing the same amount of pollution, accelerating from 15 to 20mph as you do from 25 to 30mph, probably more as you're likely in a lower gear, so because your speed is lower, that pollution is concentrated over a shorter distance
Acceleration is the major factor in fuel consumption in urban areas, as speeds are too low for air drag to be significant.
3) At 20mph, you're arguably more likely to stop to let people out or to cross the road, meaning more stop-go
4) Diesel vehicles produce more NOx at part-throttle than at full throttle
5) People riding on their brakes on downhills just to keep within the speed limits are squandering all that free energy courtesy of gravity, and subsequently have to make it up by burning more fuel and consequently creating more pollution.
You do use more fuel on uphills at a higher speed, but that's compensated for by the shorter time it takes.
Edited by Engineer792 on Thursday 9th March 03:32
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff