Video of "busiest cycle path in the Netherlands" goes viral, where "private cars are not allowed"... and there's "no congestion"; Police Scotland called out for "incorrect" cycling advice; Magistrate resigns over 20mph speed limits + more on the live blog

Maybe the government needs to run some of those New Zealand anti-speeding adverts like
https://youtu.be/B2rFTbvwteo?si=qyxBAcaNAU8b3XYI
Or
https://youtu.be/PJIDX1kcvGk?si=TZUwjkV0YX-lBat3
(From Northern Ireland)

Amd remind people *why* the speed limit exists.

And don't just put them on after the watershed either.. run them during the day, between the Sun Life insurance and the Gala Bingo adverts.

Precisely. From Welsh Gov FAQs:

Why can’t the 20mph limit be only used around schools?

Introducing a 20mph default speed limit will make children safer from the moment they leave home – regardless of where they are going, and keeps them safe – inside and outside of school hours.

A 20mph speed limit outside the school won’t protect children for the whole journey as they walk or cycle from home, it would only protect them near the school.

But it won’t just protect children. This change is designed to make streets safer for all of us.

Isn't this similar logic to people saying, 'Make the airplane out of the same material as the black box'?

ajuk.uk [at] gmail.com wrote:

Isn't this similar logic to people saying, 'Make the airplane out of the same material as the black box'?

No.

I like how some people use the loaded term 'pro speeding' when, in fact, it's dropping the speed limit that massively increases incidents of speeding and helps to make exceeding the speed limit much more normal and socially acceptable. Advocates of these schemes claim to want the opposite and are some of the most vocal in asserting that limits should just be respected and obeyed.

That's exactly what happens when you use the 85th percentile speed to set limits. We've already seen non-compliance rates of over 99%. That's what happens when posted limits don't match the one implied by the design of the street. There's probably a good reason for that and it's not helpful to make hasty generalisations about people in cars as the answer.

It's partly down to how our brains function, and driving is a system 1 activity. People will drive to the road regardless of what the limit is. It's also the Pygmalion effect; if you set rules that show people contempt, they won't respect them.

At that level, you have to drive dangerously if you don't "speed" because you're driving significantly slower than the mean flow of traffic, increasing accident risks. When you think of people speeding, it's properly set limits that work to single these people out. When limits are set properly, the kind of people speeding will overwhelmingly also be the sort of drivers who run red lights, tailgate, close-pass cyclists, and generally are the most llikely to do harm and the police can just concentrate on them.

The New Zealand adverts show people obviously driving way too fast. You can't really say that about people going under 25 mph on roads designed for 40 mph limits, presuming prevailing conditions allow for it.

There's a good reason why speed limits haven't always been set uniformly low, and you should look at traffic speeds in the context of setting speed limits. Exceptions to this need to be just that—exceptional.

I wonder where all these roads (clearly not *exceptional* ones - from what you're saying) which perfectly and precisely signal "30mph" have been all my life?

Many if not most of our roads aren't really "designed" for a speed. There are roads designed to accommodate high speeds, and there are motorways (which drivers regularly demonstrate aren't *designed* for 70mph - they are just for very high speed long- distance travel).

Or could it be that 30mph is no more "natural" or logical than 20mph, it's merely a default we settled on?

Yet again, that doesn't invalidate the criticism about not designing roads which might invite higher speeds. There is indeed a better way, but:

a) the cheap hack 20mph change has been shown to work (to a useful degree) and

b) perhaps drivers need to adapt to the concept of obeying the law - until we get all the money and time to fix it so it's easier for them again*? Especially laws which have important safety implications.

* The better road design way again is *for drivers* - it's to guide them, to make their job more human-friendly. We have people driving faster than they can handle or is safe for the other people around because of our previous road designs. They invited drivers to have at it with wide roads and sweeping corners...

The speed limit should be the speed most sensible drivers would not exceed in the absence of a speed limit. However as conditions vary there is also the need for reckless driving laws etc. You never could barrel down a tight residential street lined with parked cars on either side, run over a kid then claim in court "I wasn't speeding". The emphesis used to be much more on positive driver behaviour rather than drive-by-numbers.

What you did there with point B is use the hasty generalisation fallacy I already pointed out. If there's 99% non-compliance is it a good idea to assume they're all bad. Maybe it's better to listen to an explination from a traffic engineer as to why that happens.
It's probably better to assume they're not all bad and you'll sleep better at night.

Are you not effectively saying we should just have another round of applying the percentile rule and generally increasing the speed limits? You don't seem to be proposing some massive rebuilding programme...?

Unfortunately we already tried that... and people still keep edging the speeds up. (Partly another human "design feature", the anchoring effect).

That also completely ignores a few reasons for having speed limits (lower ones in many places) like the effects on drivers (rate they crash into each other and buildings) and on everyone else (serious increase in danger to those outside vehicles, place becomes less pleasant because speeding vehicles and road noise, people are less keen to cycle or even cross the road...)

What you're refering to is called 'speed creep' and it's not real.
I already posted this here but it's worth reapting.
According to a DfT study. (circular roads 1/80)
"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
A before and after study carried out at 20 locations through Kent, where the limit had been raised from 30 mph to 40 mph, showed a fall in speed, or no change, in 80% of the measurements taken."

This isn't to say raising speed limits is always the safest thing to do, obviously not, this is refering to raising limits on higher standard roads where previously they had to be either 30 or derestricted. The introduction of 40 limits made no difference to speeds, the repeaters did more to warn pedestrains better of the road danger of those roads.
Having the correct speed limit is the safest thing to do and 20mph limits have been shown to be effective on roads that lend themselve naturally to lower speeds, Wales are not doing that and including much higher standard and arterial roads, it's important on those types of roads that pedesrians have a realistic expectation of the road danger and the actual speed of traffic.

Well, I think a good way to evalute things is to see if/how they change things.

This being the real world things clearly vary.  However:

Apparently after the change, speeds did indeed reduce in Wales (here's a BBC article noting a very recent review).  Sensibly it looks like there is a plan to actually keep a watch on this.  FWIW here's some initial research commissioned by the Senedd - this is more a "what we hope to look at" and looking at the general position).

After a wide rollout of this change in Edinburgh, speeds reduced.  A follow up some years later found a significant decrease in collisions and casualties.  (Now - to be fair in 3 years, other things may change - including a pandemic occurring...).

Most of what you've mentioned is covered here, I think:

https://www.20splenty.org/20_questions_about_20_s_plenty

Are you confusing "this isn't perfect / the best way of doing things" with "actually doesn't work"?  I agree, there are better ways - but if it works, it works, no?

I don't think chasing "compliance" as a goal (why?) trumps "reduction in danger".  Don't forget that (by government stats - 2017 / 2022) while the majority of drivers break the law on 20mph roads the average is still less than 30mph (and indeed the speeds on 30mph roads).

Like I said, having the correct speed limit is the safest thing to do, and lowering limits can be effective on roads that naturally lend themselves to lower speeds.
Wales is including roads that don't come close to that, and not only does that have the potential to undermine lower limits where they make more sense, but there are also other unintended consequences. For example, lowering speed limits on higher standard roads can lead to issues where Sat Nav systems no longer see main roads as faster routes, potentially sending more traffic along side streets. Also, having the speed limit set deliberately low with the expectation of non-compliance raises significant concerns about the long-term impact.
It can make it much harder for the police to single out those most likely to cause harm. Additionally, it's important to consider the sources of the studies that have been linked. While some sources may have a bias, a more measured and nuanced approach, like the one presented in the Atkins study, is more balanced.

If the "correct" (according to who?) speed is higher, how is that safer?

I agree that the effect of Sat Navs on driving traffic flow may be important - surely a separate issue however (or one that can be addressed separately as required)?

ajuk.uk [at] gmail.com wrote:

It can make it much harder for the police to single out those most likely to cause harm.

Why?

ajuk.uk [at] gmail.com wrote:

Additionally, it's important to consider the sources of the studies that have been linked. While some sources may have a bias, a more measured and nuanced approach, like the one presented in the Atkins study, is more balanced.

Well, I'm not familiar with that one so I better go look at some point.  I do note the 20's plenty folks clearly think it's a bit of a "Thompson, Rivara & Thompson" type.  They say: "It's unconvincing. Case study samples were small (<20 casualties pa)[. Atkins did not consider other evidence where casualties HAVE reduced on 20mph roads and underplayed the significant benefits in Brighton where faster roads were included."

... but of course they wouldn't find it convincing given that they are pushing for this change!

Are you suggesting that the government's own data is biased e.g. DfT Vehicle Speed Compliance Statistics - and if so how?

Why does it make it harder to single people out? Because higher standard roads included in 20 limits frequently have non-compliance figures over well over 90%, Pennywell Road in Bristol it was 97.5% and in Rogiet it was 99.4%, that's not targeting anyone and an example of limits being brought into contempt when they should be being taken seriously. When limits are set at a level to which most people adhear to naturally, people exceeding the limits will overwhelmingly also be the sort most likely to do harm.

A couple of high-standard roads in Manchester even saw speeds increase after the limit was lowered, that's the extent to which it's the design of the road that dictates traffic speed. I've heard 20mph advocates in the past be critical of including high-standard roads as being unhelpful.
 

Again I think you have rather different concerns than I do so we may be talking at cross purposes.  TL/DR - I think reducing average speeds towards 20mph (seems a reasonable compromise for the UK ATM for areas with vulnerable road users) will improve safety.  The evidence for a couple of places - including Wales - is that this has indeed happened.  Thus "good enough" for me, for the moment.  Just as before there's nothing to stop local authorities applying to make adjustments either.  It's just that the default number (people tend to focus on numbers when one is given) has changed from 30 to 20.

"Not targetting anyone" - as we discussed before the police are empowered and capable of stopping motorist for careless / dangerous driving on plenty of other grounds than "they were hooning it, so a guaranteed wrong'un".  OTOH - if they are doing 30 in a 20 - why should they not stop people (or put up cameras etc.)?

With this idea of "limits being brought into contempt" - as we discussed before perhaps you're more concerned about people suddenly calling bluff on rules in general?  Obviously I can't say that couldn't happen - historically it has.  However in some places people commonly break certain laws (or even the majority do) but that doesn't mean that that law is therefore pointless, or unenforceable, or not respected across a wider area.

You may have questions as to whether it works in theory, or even whether it should work.  And I don't disagree that (given enough time and resources) a better way is to fix our roads to work via the better mechanism.  As before that's get road design to guide behaviour towards the desired speeds for a particular type of area (e.g. slower in areas with more people walking / cycling).

However .... in Edinburgh and in Wales overall it seems that it has worked in practice.  "Worked" for me means it has brought the speed down closer to a reasonable compromise in places where there will be vulnerable road users around ("if you hit me at 20mph I'm more likely to survive" etc.).  I'm happy to call that a positive outcome - for an imperfect intervention.

I guess I shouldn't assume that anyone would consider that a safety measure, but perhaps I can assume many people would?

It's interesting to see how people believe in setting very low speed limits despite high non-compliance figures because they believe it should work.
My perspective on this matter is rooted in the extensive data I've encountered over the years regarding the relationship between speeds and speed limits. I tend to separate the two.
Properly set speed limits are not meant to rely on enforcement the guidelines state they should "encourage self-compliance" and be "largely self-enforcing" and that's what happens on many roads where limits align with the road design and that's contrary to VERY popular opinion, people still assume that most people travel X over the limit. I've spoken to driving examiners and police officers who've been surprised when I've shown them these charts.
Well-designed roads naturally get drivers to follow the speed limit, and they're not aggrieved or distracted by it.
While it has indeed brought down overall average speeds, it's worth noting that they have crept up slightly from the initial decrease of 2.8 mph. It would likely be more effective had more high-standard roads been exempted. According to the Atkins report, the average long-term drop was only 1.4 mph, that's for a 10 mph reduction in the expected speed for vulnerable road users. It's crucial that people are aware of the actual danger on a road so they can exercise caution when crossing it.
I've seen a study that states roads are safer when limits are set slightly below engineering recommendations, however I'm still on the lookout for an academic study on setting speed limits that supports the idea of taking little or no account of existing traffic speeds when determining limits.

Friends of Parklands Walk appear to be a bit of a kneejerking hate-mob of cycle-obsessed bigoted monomaniacs. Is Vincent Stops involved?

Never mind the impact on disabled people, as long as we keep the cyclists out !!!

Having read the results of the consultation at the link below, no mention has been made of a tarmac surface in the proposals, yet a large number of responses seem to be obsessed with it.

As the analysis says:
Given that no mention of tarmac surafacing or cycling was made in the information shared with the community it is highly unusual to have 725 consultation responses raising concerns about encouragement of cyclists and e-bike users and equally unexpected to have a further 1033 respondents under the impression that the council is proposing meaures which will have a negative impact on biodiversity.

It would be funny if it wasn't so pathetic.

https://www.parkland-walk.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/Parkland-Wal...

And I haevn't even mentioned their defamation of Sustrans, who create a "walking, wheeling and cycling network", not just cycling. That's a common conspiracy theory amongst anti-LTN types, for example.

Sustrans are doing fantastic work for accessibility.

mattw wrote:

Sustrans are doing fantastic work for accessibility.

Except when they allow A-frames on NCN paths... 

hawkinspeter wrote:

Just seen that there's been a nasty pedestrian(s)/cyclist collision in Nailsea

https://www.bristolpost.co.uk/news/bristol-news/live-woman-collision-cyclist-suffers-8858328

I hope she pulls through.

The comments BTL on that are appalling actually, are exactly what I'd expect from the Bristol Post crowd.

However, I notice it's unclear from the story whether the cyclist was (allegedly illegally) coming downhill on the (white-line divided between pedestrians and cyclists) cycle path, or whether the pedestrian was on the cycle path, or even whether this was a crossing-the-road incident.

Apparently the woman is in a medically induced coma, which isn't good  

brooksby wrote:

Quote:

courts were sometimes facing 60-70 motoring cases a day

Given how many motoring cases don't appear to even make it to the courts, that factoid is TERRIFYING 

If they start punishing properly the 1 or 2 who derserve it that'll probably fall to 6-7 motoring cases a day

If they start punishing properly the 1 or 2 who deserve it that'll probably fall to 6-7 motoring cases a day
Unfortunately, such a dawning of consciousness is unavailable to those officers who have complied with the police employment requirements of: IQ 80 or less

One of the reasons speed radar has been so effective at reducing deaths on roads is because of this attitude. If a radar catches you at 35 in town you have a conviction. This bloke would have let you off.

It's because all to often the reasoning for dropping the speed limit is the behaviour of people already going above the speed limit or driving recklessly as a rationele for prohibiting the behaviour of those already going substantially below the current limits and forcing the police to target them.

According to a DfT study. (circular roads 1/80)
"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."