Reduced speed limits in residential areas not only protect cyclists and make cycling less stressful but also do not cause traffic delays for motorists, a new study from Australia suggests.
As part of the new study, researchers from the Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology (RMIT) modelled reductions of the speed limit from 50kph (31mph) to 30kph (18mph) in residential areas of Greater Melbourne and rated traffic stress levels across the city.
They found that a reduced speed limit doubled bike usage on “low-stress” streets, while the targeted imposition of a lower speed limit resulted in “minimal” journey delays for car drivers of no greater than a minute.
This negligible impact on journey times, the researchers say, was due to lowered speed limits largely being applied on local streets instead of larger, ‘busier’ roads designed to maximise the flow of traffic.

The Australian study, published in Cycling and Micromobility Research, also found that decreased speed limits reduced traffic stress for both drivers and cyclists, and built on existing research that found “purpose-built, bicycle-specific infrastructure is associated with a lower risk of crash and injury for cyclists”.
The researchers concluded that improved cycling infrastructure and safer roads resulted in the biggest cultural shifts among “interested but concerned”, risk-averse cyclists.
In other words, these policy changes do not just cater to an existing demographic of cyclists, but play a key role in encouraging more people, such as children and less confident cyclists, to ride their bikes.
“Slowing traffic makes bicycle riding less stressful, encouraging more people to choose bikes as a safe and viable mode of transport,” the study’s lead researcher, Dr Afshin Jafari, says.
This “build it and they will come” approach has also been seen in other major cities around the world such as Paris and Toronto, and in London during the recent Underground strikes.

Jafari added that most existing cycle lanes on 40mph or 50mph roads were highly stressful for less confident cyclists, discouraging them from cycling.
Following the study’s publication, the director of the Institute for Sensible Transport, Dr Elliot Fishman, pointed out that cycling rates in Australia remain low, accounting for only two per cent of commutes to work – and had barely shifted in the past 20 years.
“The main reason people are choosing to make those trips by car rather than cycling is that they don’t feel safe riding a bike,” Fishman told the Guardian.
Calling for a standard 30kph speed limit on all residential streets in Australia, Fishman said: “If you get hit by a car travelling at 50kph, you’ve only got a 1.5-in-10 chance of surviving. If it’s going 30kph you’ve got a nine-in-10 chance.”
This latest study adds to the growing volume of research and data detailing the advantages of reduced speed limits – but the policy remains politically controversial.
Last month, we reported that new data revealed that the number of cyclists injured or killed in road traffic incidents in Wales has fallen by more than a quarter since the roll-out of the country’s ‘default’ 20mph speed limit.
In September 2023, amid widespread political debate and acrimony, the Welsh government introduced a default 20mph speed limit on urban and residential roads (where most, though not all, dropped from 30mph), increasing the approximately 870km of 20mph roads in Wales to 13,000km.
And according to figures released by the Welsh government, between the policy’s rollout in September 2023 and the end of March, 348 cyclists were killed or injured on all roads in Wales, down 28 per cent compared with the 481 reported casualties from April 2022 to September 2023.
The number of cyclists seriously injured also decreased by 30 per cent during the same period. North Wales, which saw 94 per cent of its 30mph roads switch to 20mph, recorded the biggest decrease in total casualties.
The success of Wales’ reduced speed limits, and their significant impact on casualty figures, has been branded “proof that slower speeds on our roads save lives” by active travel organisations such as Cycling UK, who described the policy as the “single most significant and positive change we’ve ever seen in any nation in the UK”.
Earlier this year, Cycling UK also called on the rest of the United Kingdom to implement similar lower urban speed limits, while a recent active travel report commissioned by the Bikeability Trust and Living Streets charities urged the government to introduce default 20mph speed limits for motor vehicles in all urban areas.
The scheme hasn’t been without its critics, however. Despite the promising road safety figures, question marks continue to hang over the future of Wales’ default 20mph speed limit on residential roads, as several councils currently consider whether more roads could be switched back to 30mph.
The Conservative shadow secretary for transport in Wales, Peter Fox, also claimed that – despite causality numbers dropping – the party still held concerns about the policy, arguing that it confuses drivers and that a “more sensible” approach should be adopted.
“While we welcome any decrease in road casualties, these figures don’t tell the whole story. Our concern remains the way the 20mph speed limit has been implemented,” Fox said earlier this year.
“The Welsh Labour government’s default approach has created confusion and frustration for drivers and their current review must address these implementation issues and ensure a more sensible and effective approach.”






















38 thoughts on “Reducing speed limits to 20mph protects cyclists and doesn’t delay traffic, new research finds”
I support 20mph on
I support 20mph on residential streets, but to enable more cycling it must be just one of a package of measures.
Where residential roads are used by large volumes of through traffic, lower speed limits won’t be enough and modal filters are needed.
Many trips can’t be made on residential roads alone, and dedicated cycle tracks on busier roads are therefore required.
In London residential roads
In London residential roads are usually lined on either side with cars and few are wide enough to cycle safely when vehicles are coming in the opposite direction at 20 mph+. It would be fine if motorists yielded when a cyclist is already in a narrow section but my experience is that most don’t, which can be terrifying.
Another nuisance for cyclists is speed cushions in rows of three across the road. Drivers then veer into the middle of the road to straddle them. These features that are supposed to slow traffic down seem to cause drivers to behave more erratically and dangerously.
Exactly – turns out that the
Exactly – turns out that the great idea of “but ‘quiet streets’ for cycling” often doesn’t actually feel safer and just exposes you to different hazards *.
Of course “low-traffic streets” *can* be good to cycle on but as you say that requires a host of other measures up to “network redesign”.
https://bicycledutch.wordpress.com/2025/01/08/when-is-there-no-need-for-protected-cycling-infrastructure/
* eg. Not infrequently they’re not “quiet”.
The road surface may be even worse than the main roads, remarkably, and cars can suddenly pull out from driveways or side roads. Animals (or children) can be hidden from view between all the parked vehicles and appear near you. That’s leaving aside any “social safety” aspects and the fact that this makes cycling into an indirect navigation exercise.
The results of 20mph limits
The results of 20mph limits are irrefutable: better safety, more active travel, fewer crashes, and massive cost savings, all things any sensible person wants.
Not RefUK
“Reform UK leader Nigel Farage pledges to ditch 20mph and ‘reopen’ Port Talbot steelworks”
Like all his promises, it is a lie, just said to get the simpletons to vote for him.
https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/politics/nigel-farage-reform-wales-live-31815273
Also on the subject of
Also on the subject of decriminalisation his plans for massive government cuts will mean that under Farage there could not possibly be any police response to anything (including breaking speed limits).
“Yeah street violence, murder and arson are terrible problems but there’s nothing much we can really do about them” said every policeman.
Not only Farrage. There are
Not only Farrage. There are newly RefUKed councils where they promised to make efficiencies and cut council tax, but when they get in and manage to organise themselves, they find that all the cuts have already been made and they’re having to up the council tax exactly the same as all the other councils. Just like Farrage, all promises and no delivery. At what stage will the electorate cotton on?
The list of RefUK councillors who have either resigned their post or left the party is getting rather large.
In fact just the other day
In fact just the other day Richard Tice stated that Reform UK were abandoning their pledge to make £90bn of savings but instead would make various civil service cuts etc (to be quantified), once in power.
Funny that Farage is never around when there is bad news, but is always on the podium to announce good news (such as a senior party member who has previously resigned, rejoining the party).
Reform UK wrote:
This nonsense is still in their manifesto though. Savings on this level just cannot be made without leaving the country open to civil unrest.
Presumably those savings
Presumably those savings would be something like:
– chuck out “wasteful council bureaucracy”
– ditch large chunks of the NHS
– … and the welfare budget – “a day without work is a day without food”
– encourage more businesses to move here by lowering taxes and removing regulations
Then to deal with all the outrage when families starve to death because the wage-earners died of treatable conditions / in workplace incidents / by being eaten by giant rodents as the bins aren’t collected, spend a bit on buying more guns for the police. Also reduce regulation for them as long as they “get the job done”.
Then Reform finally get ejected from office when all the older folks who were the core vote have died due to reductions in NHS / welfare. Or when the angry young folks who were initially attracted realise they’re propping up the old / the digital capitalists more than ever and physically overthrow them…
Hey, calm down soft lad or
Hey, calm down soft lad or i’ll burn yer till yer notten.
Nigel is a new type of dynamic high achieving politician with new ways of working and I trust him with what’s left of my political future.
He may not be as attractive as Boris…..
(sorry had to take a quick time out),
But the smell of sweaty, fag smoke scented tweed and those yellow, burnt ochre tinged teeth, is becoming more attractive by the day.
N Dorries,
Bedfordshire.
Cycling on a road ! No way it
Cycling on a road ! No way it’s too dangerous (Bradford Met). Yes far-right nutters are everywhere. Best advice is to stay home to stay safe ,and fly some sort of flag (depending on where abouts you live ) to make the nutters think you’re one of them .
What! Dress like a gammon!
What! Dress like a gammon! And be threatened and attacked and annihilated by the Dangerous Radical Left? No thank you. I’ll stick to dressing as a Guardian-reading, tofu-eating wokeratus, cycling on the roads and holding up the traffic that I seem to be constantly overtaking.
Cutting pollution would
Cutting pollution would appear to be another benefit :
https://www.gloucestershirelive.co.uk/news/gloucester-news/low-emission-cars-20mph-limit-10562599?utm_source=mynewsassistant.com&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=embedded_search_item_desktop
And of course no one wants 20mph ……….. except for 150 villages in Gloucestershire :
https://www.gloucestershirelive.co.uk/news/gloucester-news/tsunami-disappointment-fears-around-150-10500868
Laws of physics ‘true’ say
Laws of physics ‘true’ say Australian academics
As I always say, mass motoring is founded on privilege, bullying, profit and lies – but you have to commit to a really special and often contradictory sub-set of lies to be against a pretty widespread roll-out of 20 mph limits.
When anything is contentious the result on the ground is fragmentary, coming to down to who won the argument on each patch. This becomes “confusing for drivers”, which becomes make it all 30 mph again. Remember too that 30 mph had to be fought for decades ago.
While I get that an ICE engine is more efficient 2-3000 RPM than idling, the myth that it somehow makes more pollution NET at tick-over than when working seems to persist. It’s a minor win that at least the driver trying to make that argument accepts that NOx and other pollution in a largely post-industrial country is made by ICE cars, which itself frequently gets denied (it’s domestic woodburners, it’s bonfires and it’s fireworks).
Other don’t drive then chestnuts include driver boredom setting in, constant checking of speedometers, never heard of any incidents around here, lack of enforcement / cash cow, can’t do more than that anyway around here, will it apply to cyclists/ get overtaken by cyclists. Then, almost as suddenly as the interests of people who live with disabilities become front and centre, the swift passage of all the buses, delivery and emergency services that have for decades had to sit in traffic largely generated by too many cars becomes the top priority.
“… the targeted imposition
“… the targeted imposition of a lower speed limit resulted in “minimal” journey delays for car drivers of no greater than a minute.”
I’ve said before that we need journey time comparisons for both cycling and driving, between rush hour during school term and other quieter periods.
The difference for me on a bike was minimal between them say 10% more, but for drivers it can more than double the time so it should be obvious what the real major cause of delays for motorists actually is.
The traffic in Pottyboro isn
The traffic in Pottyboro isn’t even that bad but with traffic lights on route if I time them right I’ll get to town approximately the same time as drivers who have been sitting at red light whilst I’ve been cycling up to them. On the occaisions when there is congestion, I’m way faster!
I can almost hear the screams
I can almost hear the screams and nashing of teeth from the IDS/Telegraph masses!!!
I also think they should go further and reduce all B roads to 40mph, most of my near death experiences (aka close passes) occur on B roads as drivers push their limited driving ability to the magic 60 (or over)!
Especially those driving Euro marque 4x4s down the middle of the road because they have no spacial awareness and/or care for anyone else on the road?
It should be obvious that in urban environments, 20mph is fast enough, clearly safer and of course has no impact on urban travel times.
Do like the Dutch – these
Do it like the Dutch – limits *can* stay at driver whoo-hoo speed (well alright, only NSL) BUT only if the motoring taxes are immediately raised to cover the costs of installing property separated cycle infra *.
If not the speed limit (mixing cycling and driving) should be 30mph tops.
* I’ve heard a few folks complain that it *is* road tax because it covers the costs of the roads – well, it should cover the cost of safe space for others if some drivers can’t drive carefully enough. So cycle infra and in some cases pedestrian infra as this is missing! Although where projected flows of cyclists are low and pedestrians even less this can just be cycle infra.
“But our streets are too narrow…” – well then it can’t really be safe to set the speed limits so high, if you’re inches from children on the footway or a few feet from driving into someone’s living room…
There is much more stringent
There is much more stringent testing regime for motorcyclists which was brought in because of the numbers of casualties.
With the continued huge number of road KSIs it is overdue to do the same with drivers.
A few suggestions then
– Link speed limits and power-to-weight ratios to the driving test just like with MCs.
– Agree to get tested every 10 years and you can drive at 60 mph on B roads else 40 mph.
– Can only drive cars with engines over say 80 bhp (or equivalent kw EV) if you have taken the advanced driving test.
etc.
Research shows us that
Research shows us that cyclists and motorcyclists make better car drivers. This is because cyclists and motorcyclists have better hazard perception and a better understanding of road conditions and how they affect safety.
Therefore, the best solution is to require everyone taking a driving test to undergo cycle training on the road. For those unable to ride a bicycle, a tricycle or power assist hand cycle would be offered. Each person would have to do a set number of hours riding in traffic. This would also be a requirement for anyone renewing a driving licence.
OldRidgeback wrote:
What about, if we ever do move to a ‘pay-per-mile’ system for driving cars, we allow an offset whereby if you can show that you have cycled x number of miles, you do not need to pay for y number of miles driven. It must be possible to record this on an app, and should encourage those who would never get on a bike now, to cycle a few miles to save some cash, especially if if was on a 1-5 or 1-10 scale, so that 1 mile cycled really pays for itself when they do find themselves needing to drive.
On that same day I
On that same day I confidently predict the launch of multiple other apps to:
– just “tidy up / help you organise” the data eg.forge it
– connection with Strava etc because “clearly that’s cycling isn’t it? ”
– “car-boure offset” trading whereby you can pay for other people to cycle / walk more somewhere to allow you to drive
– for those less well off cheap “ant-jigglers” which physically move around in circles providing feedback to the monitoring hardware to simulate cycling
– (inspired by how people got around the early congestion charging) people registering their 911 as a cycle taxi/mobility vehicle/ambulance (as there will no doubt be a range of legal exemptions)
… and their will be a tug
… and their will be a tug of love (not very much) over those currently doing food delivery cycling, presumably they will then also be carrying dozens of cheap phones registered to those who simply can’t get along without their Audi.
Pub bike wrote:
Yes. Although to be rational about things * we should also look at eg. KSI metrics (given and received) by mode adjusted per passenger- mile – and ideally in different environments (urban streets, country roads and motorways being rather different).
All sound good – I certainly think a scale – rather than just no licence / driving for life is needed. Kind of “with greater power comes greater responsibility – and testing / scrutiny”.
And also if you show you can’t eg. drive well going down the scale should be possible also.
Sadly that’s (practically) probably predicated on the existence of a mobility network where it wouldn’t seem like a cruel and unusual punishment to limit someone to eg. Public transport and nothing more powerful than an EAPC…
* But bearing in mind some of the “things” are people’s behaviours and attitudes, so we’re into the “less like a Vulcan” murky worlds of influencing humans – eg. advertising and (gulp? ) politics…
I have no idea how anyone can
I have no idea how anyone can reach that conclusion, the vast majority of cars are not keeping to 20 mph
Nah, but what it does is drop
Nah, but what it does is drop the 35mph they were illegally doing to less than 30, still illegal but energy wise, more survivable and gives more time to react.
Pretty sure most of the cars
Pretty sure most of the cars i see in our local 20 limits are still happily doing 30-35mph.
The ones out in the 30 limits are doing 40-50 thesedays
Pollyanna says: Great – that
Pollyanna says: Great – that’s harm reduction!
But also ?
stonojnr wrote:
On the odd occasions when I drive, I take great delight in driving at just below the speed limit: the expressions on the faces of the drivers behind me makes me cackle with glee.
When I’ve driven at or just
When I’ve driven at or just below the speed limit on my local roads I’ve then had drivers make dangerous overtakes around me (anecdata: seems to be Prius or similar) which is self-defeating. Very annoying. The only answer to these idiots seems to be undefeatable ‘intelligent’ speed limiters. Maybe that will come? Or maybe not in Farage’s Britain.
eburtthebike wrote:
An elderly friend of mine (94 and, remarkably, still a perfectly safe driver – he only gave up riding his ebike last year) takes pride in driving at exactly 19 mph in our local 20 mph zones; he said recently he would like to have a bumper sticker saying, “For every metre you get inside a safe following distance, I will reduce speed by 1 mph.” Seems fair.
Slowing traffic is a no
Slowing traffic is a no brainer. Think, who is inconvenienced? The motorist driving the resource burning, potentially deadly weapon? Or the pedestrian, cyclist, cargo biker, quietly rolling along not threatening anyone?
But policing it is the problem not mentioned..
It’s not *quite* no-brainer
It’s not *quite* a no-brainer without a couple of other things:
– Reduce traffic volumes within the lower speed areas. So kinds of LTN / filters / one- way treatments which make these unusable or unattractive as through-routes. (This one should be an open goal – nicer places for residents, safer streets for their kids. Although this is the UK so even this is contentious…)
– Ensuring that the cyclists can *keep* rolling along (and/or otherwise ensuring that the difference in journey time and convenience isn’t skewed towards motor traffic). Otherwise we’re still really catering to those who enjoy interval training between traffic lights (clearly not most people currently driving).
– To help reduce demand for motoring, for those times people are going further or otherwise can’t / don’t want to cycle, ensuring that the public transport exists and *doesn’t get stuck in traffic*.
… then after that the policing (which *is* needed, agreed) stands a chance of being effective.
I’ve personally have not
I’ve personally have not found it safer in Wales. I tend to find cars just sit on the outside of me instead of getting the overtake over and done with and then squeeze me out the way. Either that or thay overtake but then slam on the breaks as soon as they are in front because they realise they are speeding and I have to also break hard or swerve. Usually I anticipate these and slow to get rid of these idiots but I’m having more close shaves now in 20s than I used to in 30s.
Interesting that people are
Interesting that people are actually concerned to stick within the law.
Edinburgh has slowly been introducing 20mph limits in places, at intervals, and I find that almost all is positive. (Of course it’s a big urban area so behaviour may be different from countryside).
I’ve not had the “I would overtake but” hanging outside one – it’s either waiting behind then zooming past (albeit a few could leave more space) or “MGIF because cyclist” so any other laws are ignored. The latter certainly isn’t new…
It is a few years since I
It is a few years since I visted Scotland so can not make any judgments as to what your road policing is, but in Wales particulary in North Wales we have a history of fixed speed and mobile van cams in lots of places. These have been very pro active in handing out fines and points. I have had cars sit outside of Me and craw past, often this is in places where there is a history of speed inforcement, one particular road near to My house and one that I dive and cycle a great deal is a place that the mobile van sits and it has been like that for many years. This road that has no houses directly faceing onto it and has fields on one side, it droped to 20mph when the new laws came into place. It is down hill one way and with the wind behind you on a bike I can and do an easy 40kph, this is where there have now gone back to 30 and the road is better and a lot safer to cycle on now they put the limit back.
60kg lean keen climbing
Without entering “ours is more than yours” I think it’s competing with the worst (or least helpful to cyclists) in the UK.
It is a pity that MGIF applies even when the speed difference is tiny! On the road outside your house though, do you never go *up* the hill? (Or perhaps you’re still able to do a good speed that way)?
I was not getting competitive
I was not getting competitive in any way, in regards to road policing in the different nations of the Uk. Here in North Wales the arrive alive van have been very prominent in where they go and sit – even using social media to inform public where and when they will be in place. This has been for the good in reducing speed in these locations and divers have known where these locations are for many years. I agree that the MGIF is a problem but when you create tiny speed difference between vehicles and bikes it creates a new point of conflict that can make perceived or real dangers to ride in some locations. 20mph work and are a good thing but not in all locations, this has been only this year addressed by our local councils by upping the limit in some cases based on solid evidence.