Global study calls for 20mph speed limit as standard in built-up areas

nbrus wrote:

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

nbrus wrote:

Why not just reduce the speed to Zero mph and eliminate accidents altogether. No point in half measures. Seriously, 20 mph is way too slow.

For many roads, I'd agree.  Did you have a point?

Yes, my point is 20 mph is way too slow. Kids on pedal cycles would be done for speeding. Hussain Bolt would be done for speeding. My neighbour's cat would be done for speeding.

We already have 20 mph zones in areas where it makes sense, we don't need these zones everywhere. A max speed limit does not mean you have to drive at that speed. Always drive according to conditions and expect the unexpected. Don't start penalising drivers for driving safely when conditions allow. 20 mph is slow...

The max speed limits are for motorised vehicles, so they have no relevance to bikes, Hussain Bolt and/or neighbours' cats.

nbrus wrote:

Yes, my point is 20 mph is way too slow. Kids on pedal cycles would be done for speeding. Hussain Bolt would be done for speeding. My neighbour's cat would be done for speeding.

We already have 20 mph zones in areas where it makes sense, we don't need these zones everywhere. A max speed limit does not mean you have to drive at that speed. Always drive according to conditions and expect the unexpected. Don't start penalising drivers for driving safely when conditions allow. 20 mph is slow...

[/quote]

Unfortunately when people drive at considerably more than the stated speed limit (often 50% more) then lower limits may be the only way to get them to drive at a reasonable and responsible speed.

If limits were reduced by 10mph in most areas (excluding those already at 20) then safety would massively increase. There are very few national roads that aren't dual carriageways where driving above 50mph is necessary as all it does is get you to the next queue for a roundabout/set of traffic lights/junction, slightly more quickly.

Short of black box trackers being fitted to all cars then higher speed limits will always be broken,  humans by default will usually try to seek out advantages in life, and going a little faster than everyone else is one of those subconcious things that people do unless they have a reason to check their behaviour.

WillRod wrote:

The 20 mph limits in Cambridge are hardly ever followed by drivers, and some cyclists are often breaking them too, especially devilroo riders (fit the daily mail stereotypes perfectly)

Except for royal parks and promenades, speed limits don't apply to cyclists, so they can't break them.

hirsute wrote:

WillRod wrote:

The 20 mph limits in Cambridge are hardly ever followed by drivers, and some cyclists are often breaking them too, especially devilroo riders (fit the daily mail stereotypes perfectly)

Except for royal parks and promenades, speed limits don't apply to cyclists, so they can't break them.

Do they have any moral obligation to follow them? Fixie-boy managed to kill someone at less than 20mph. 

Yorkshire wallet wrote:

hirsute wrote:

WillRod wrote:

The 20 mph limits in Cambridge are hardly ever followed by drivers, and some cyclists are often breaking them too, especially devilroo riders (fit the daily mail stereotypes perfectly)

Except for royal parks and promenades, speed limits don't apply to cyclists, so they can't break them.

Do they have any moral obligation to follow them? Fixie-boy managed to kill someone at less than 20mph. 

Are you saying all cyclists should be morally obligded to fork out a couple of hundred on a GPS to know their current speed?

hirsute wrote:

Are you saying all cyclists should be morally obligded to fork out a couple of hundred on a GPS to know their current speed?

Get something for £5 from Aldi and google 700c circumference. There, saved you a couple of hundred.

Yorkshire wallet wrote:

hirsute wrote:

WillRod wrote:

The 20 mph limits in Cambridge are hardly ever followed by drivers, and some cyclists are often breaking them too, especially devilroo riders (fit the daily mail stereotypes perfectly)

Except for royal parks and promenades, speed limits don't apply to cyclists, so they can't break them.

Do they have any moral obligation to follow them? Fixie-boy managed to kill someone at less than 20mph. 

Motorists have managed to kill people at considerably lower speeds than even that.  By your logic that would imply there's a moral obligation for them to go even slower, no?

I think there's certainly a moral obligation to be sensible.  I don't see that simply translates to 'obey speed limits intended for much higher-mass vehicles'.

felixcat wrote:

You speak sense.

Without changing the numbers on the speed limit signs we could make them refer to kilometres instead of miles. A nice cheap start.

yes, but Brexit. We won't be allowed to use kilometres, it'll all be furlongs and chains again.

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

That and geting drivers to not use their headlights in built up area, side lights are bright enough and the law is actually fairly clear you should not use headlights in built up areas. DRLs are also too  bright as well.

I think you have misunderstood the rule. You must use highlights at night. The exception is that in a road with street lighting (generally 30), this requirement does not apply.

hirsute wrote:

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

That and geting drivers to not use their headlights in built up area, side lights are bright enough and the law is actually fairly clear you should not use headlights in built up areas. DRLs are also too  bright as well.

I think you have misunderstood the rule. You must use highlights at night. The exception is that in a road with street lighting (generally 30), this requirement does not apply.

I haven't misunderstood anything, I said built up areas which has street lights, read the rule again, it mentions nothing about you MUST use headlights in built up areas. It does say that side lights should be used, headlights particularly on modern day vehicles only add to the problem and are not necessary in urban conditons at night.

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

hirsute wrote:

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

That and geting drivers to not use their headlights in built up area, side lights are bright enough and the law is actually fairly clear you should not use headlights in built up areas. DRLs are also too  bright as well.

I think you have misunderstood the rule. You must use highlights at night. The exception is that in a road with street lighting (generally 30), this requirement does not apply.

I haven't misunderstood anything, I said built up areas which has street lights, read the rule again, it mentions nothing about you MUST use headlights in built up areas. It does say that side lights should be used, headlights particularly on modern day vehicles only add to the problem and are not necessary in urban conditons at night.

What you understand and what you wrote are not the same thing. You said you should not use headlights in a built up area which is not what the law says.

hirsute wrote:

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

hirsute wrote:

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

That and geting drivers to not use their headlights in built up area, side lights are bright enough and the law is actually fairly clear you should not use headlights in built up areas. DRLs are also too  bright as well.

I think you have misunderstood the rule. You must use highlights at night. The exception is that in a road with street lighting (generally 30), this requirement does not apply.

I haven't misunderstood anything, I said built up areas which has street lights, read the rule again, it mentions nothing about you MUST use headlights in built up areas. It does say that side lights should be used, headlights particularly on modern day vehicles only add to the problem and are not necessary in urban conditons at night.

What you understand and what you wrote are not the same thing. You said you should not use headlights in a built up area which is not what the law says.

Sorry but you're wrong!

113
You MUST

•ensure all sidelights and rear registration plate lights are lit between sunset and sunrise
•use headlights at night, except on a road which has lit street lighting. These roads are generally restricted to a speed limit of 30 mph (48 km/h) unless otherwise specified.

Also the AA advise.

"Motorists must use sidelights between sunset and sunrise and headlights at night (between half an hour after sunset and half an hour before sunrise) on all roads without street lighting and on roads where the street lights are more than 185m apart or are not lit.

This implicitly implies that you MUST not use headlights on a road with street lighting, as I said, side lights are all you need. Just because everyone uses headlights and that police do nothing to curb this problem doesn't make it right or lawful. It's a major problem that you and most others ignore and thus the light 'war' has made safety on our roads only worse because of it. The European Union is also to blame with their disgusting enforcement of DRLs on motors.

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

 

113
You MUST

•ensure all sidelights and rear registration plate lights are lit between sunset and sunrise
•use headlights at night, except on a road which has lit street lighting. These roads are generally restricted to a speed limit of 30 mph (48 km/h) unless otherwise specified.

Also the AA advise.

"Motorists must use sidelights between sunset and sunrise and headlights at night (between half an hour after sunset and half an hour before sunrise) on all roads without street lighting and on roads where the street lights are more than 185m apart or are not lit.

This implicitly implies that you MUST not use headlights on a road with street lighting, as I said, side lights are all you need.

Generally agree with the last bit but the first statement doesn't follow - "not must" isn't the same as "must not". There may be other guidance that says you should  not use headlights in those circumstances but what you've quoted above doesn't say that.

fukawitribe wrote:

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

 

113
You MUST

•ensure all sidelights and rear registration plate lights are lit between sunset and sunrise
•use headlights at night, except on a road which has lit street lighting. These roads are generally restricted to a speed limit of 30 mph (48 km/h) unless otherwise specified.

Also the AA advise.

"Motorists must use sidelights between sunset and sunrise and headlights at night (between half an hour after sunset and half an hour before sunrise) on all roads without street lighting and on roads where the street lights are more than 185m apart or are not lit.

This implicitly implies that you MUST not use headlights on a road with street lighting, as I said, side lights are all you need.

Generally agree with the last bit but the first statement doesn't follow - "not must" isn't the same as "must not". There may be other guidance that says you should  not use headlights in those circumstances but what you've quoted above doesn't say that.

Agree - "You MUST do [X] except when [Y]" is not the same as "You MUST NOT do [X] when [Y]". The 'MUST' wording in the Highway Code is there to make clear which rules are legal requirements, the breach of which is a criminal offence. There are also examples of the use of 'MUST NOT' in the Code (including in the very next rule), but this is not one of them.   

If you carry on to rule 115 it adds: "You should also use dipped headlights, or dim-dip if fitted, at night in built-up areas and in dull daytime weather, to ensure that you can be seen".

So my reading of rules 113 and 115 together is that it's not a legal requirement to use headlights at night on roads with street lighting (you can just use sidelights), but use of headlights is still advised.

What really annoys me is the number of drivers I see with only their DRLs lit at night (so no rear lights on). As DRLs are so bright and modern dashboards seem to be permanently backlit, it seems many drivers are completely unaware that they're unlit at the rear - I've seen it on motorways as well as around town.

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

 

This implicitly implies that you MUST not use headlights on a road with street lighting, as I said, side lights are all you need. Just because everyone uses headlights and that police do nothing to curb this problem doesn't make it right or lawful. It's a major problem that you and most others ignore and thus the light 'war' has made safety on our roads only worse because of it. The European Union is also to blame with their disgusting enforcement of DRLs on motors.

It does not imply that at all. Besides, the relevent legislation is The Road Vehicles Lighting Regulations 1989 and regulation 25 makes it clear that you do not have to use headlights in this situation, not that you must not.