Wales looks set to introduce a blanket 20mph speed limit in built-up areas from next year, reduced from 30mph, in a move that would see the country become the first UK nation to set a national 20mph default speed limit on residential streets.
The proposed law is to be put before the Welsh Parliament ahead of a vote later today and is backed by both Labour and Plaid Cymru, who together hold almost three-quarters of the 60 Senedd seats.
If voted through as expected, the 20mph limit would come into force in September 2023, and despite the estimated £33 million cost, the Welsh government says improved road safety could result in a £58 million saving with reduced emergency service demand over the next 30 years.
? Speed limits in Llandaff North, Whitchurch & Tongwynlais, Rhiwbina & Heath have been lowered to 20mph ahead of the Welsh Government’s national roll-out.
? For more info & FAQs, visit: https://t.co/4x1801yKOa
Lowering the default speed limit to 20mph saves lives. ? pic.twitter.com/RFrFTEyv9j
— Cardiff Council (@cardiffcouncil) July 6, 2022
The limit would apply on restricted roads: in residential areas and streets busy with pedestrians, where street lights are less than 200 yards apart. Road users caught speeding could face a minimum £100 fine and three penalty points.
According to police data, shared by the BBC, the largest proportion (half) of the 5,570 people hurt in collisions on Welsh roads happened on roads with a 30mph limit, while 40 per cent of the 1,131 people killed or seriously injured happened in 30mph zones.
While plenty of UK towns and cities have 20mph limits in residential areas, Wales will be the first nation to set the default at 20mph on all roads in built-up areas. Scotland is set to do the same by 2025.
Default 20mph zones in Wales could save multiple lives each year and prevent 1,000 casualties, according to research by @PublicHealthW. We’re welcoming the @WelshGovernment‘s continued commitment to implementing a #20mph speed limit on restricted roads ?https://t.co/CTGvoNkCGC
— Sustrans (@Sustrans) July 12, 2022
“We want to see that become the default position right across Wales,” First Minister Mark Drakeford said.
“We know that 20mph zones reduce speed of traffic, reduce accidents — particularly accidents to children.”
“We are united in our belief that this change will bring about a reduction in road collisions and their severity, while creating more opportunities to walk and cycle in communities,” said Plaid Cymru’s transport spokeswoman Delyth Jewell.
“A 20mph speed limit in built-up areas will allow us to work towards providing convenient, safe, pedestrian access to the places people need to go.”
Despite the support within Welsh Parliament and the government acknowledging it may not be appropriate everywhere, with local authorities able to make exceptions — the Welsh Conservatives have slammed the idea as “ludicrous”.
Shadow minister for transport, Natasha Ashgar said her party is “not against” 20mph speed limits outside schools, playgrounds, places of worship and high streets “but a blanket roll-out is quite frankly ludicrous”.
“Speed limits like this should be decided by councils in their local areas, not top-down by Labour ministers,” she said.
The policy has been hailed by active travel groups, with Living Streets suggesting it is a positive step towards “communities built for safety rather than speed”.
Sustrans added that it welcomes the Welsh government’s “continued commitment to implementing a 20mph speed limit on restricted roads” and could “save multiple lives each year and prevent 1,000 casualties, according to research by Public Health Wales.”
Main image: (CC licensed by EdinburghGreens via Flickr)
94 thoughts on “Wales set to reduce default speed limit to 20mph in residential areas”
Fantastic news! How long to
Fantastic news! How long to England follows suit though?
Probably at least 10 years.
Probably at least 10 years.
It’s really good to see though, although the apparent cost of it surprises me. I don’t think it goeas far enough though, they should reduce all speed limits with the possible exception of motorways by 10mph. We all know that there are plenty of people that will speed regardless, but I’d rather be overtaken by someone doing 35ish than someone doing 45ish, it becomes a very different experience.
Not sure what Natasha Ashgar thinks is ludicrous about it, why wouldn’t you want the cars driving along the road you live on, where your children might be crossing etc to be going more slowly? Or does she just assume that the only place anyone will walk is outside a school etc after they’ve been dropped from a car?
It is but I wouldn’t hold
It is but I wouldn’t hold your breath. Scotland managed to get a half-sensible allocation of money for active travel (10% of travel budget)… but a move to change the default urban limit from 30mph to 20mph was canned because “… a one-size-fits-all approach is not the most effective way of achieving those [safety] objectives”. Yes, you read that correctly.
Would checking who some of the antis were being funded by or receiving money to their particular areas explain that? I couldn’t possibly say.
I work in Highways for a
I work in Highways for a local council in England, and we have reduced all speed limits in residential streets in our authority to 20mph. It costs a huge amount of money (alongside the legal work, 20mph streets need 20mph signs – unlike 30mph streets where it’s indicated by the presence of streetlights and a lack of signs).
Just to complete the sorry tale, they’re enforced by the police, not the local authority, because unlike parking offences, speeding isnt decriminalised. The local police force admitted they don’t have the resources to enforce the 20s. So it was all rather a waste of money. A lot of money, provided to us by the tax payer.
Signs with a number don’t affect speeds anyway, particularly for those drivers who don’t care. So, alas it’s a good, but very expensive, public relations exercise.
Thanks for notes from
Thanks for notes from experience. Agree – I think that was one of the ideas behind Scotland’s “lower the default” idea. That way at least you don’t waste money on yet more signs. I think that the number on the sign has some effect. If only in the “when you bargain, the first number someone mentions acts as an ‘anchor'”. However “sign it better” isn’t the best way of doing this. Ranty Highwayman also has an article on managing speeds more effectively. That’s more expensive even than signs though – but on new / redeveloped roads this can be added maybe more effectively?
As I said on another post
As I said on another post today, without proper enforcement its purely window dressing.
And I see very little adherence from drivers to 20mph limits on residential roads,and nothing in this scheme that suggests that will be changed.
Perhaps if police forces
Perhaps if police forces started calculating speeds from submitted footage, they could enforce it through other people’s efforts. They could also analyse OBD data after incidents.
Great idea only concern is
Great idea only concern is the enforcement. I can see myself standing in my street with my hi viz on and pointing my hair dryer at the cars passing faster than 20mph.
This has already been
This has already been implemented in my town and majority of drivers have slowed down. There will always be idiots that disregard limits but overall things have improved. They did have an early police presence, just an hour, but this did have an appreciable affect.
The question is… why only
The question is… why only urban roads? There are plenty of small villages and towns in Wales where the only roads into the in are 50mph (or faster) single single carriageways, generally with no footpath and no cycle provision. This means the only safe way that people can into the town/village from the outskirts or from a neighbouring town/village is by using a motor vehicle.
There was someone complaining on one of the news sites about how they need to drive 15-20 miles to get their children to school… the problem is, because of the way that people drive, those who only live a mile or two miles or five miles from the village school also have no option but to drive.
As many people mention, the
As many people mention, the cost is ridiculous. What we need is a UK wide law changing the default speed limit in urban areas from the current 30mph to 20mph, requiring only the changing of signs entering the area.
I wonder if any of the current crop of ne’er-do-wells queueing up to be the next PM would sign up to that; obviously not Penny Mordaunt.
Just listening to R4 news and the change is opposed by Welsh tories.
I think the funniest thing
I think the funniest thing about this proposal is the online commentators self-righteously announcing that they won’t obey the new speed limits, some quite happy to state that they disagree with them, others perpetuating the myths that they are totally unenforced/unenforceable, they should be higher in line with ‘improved’ braking technology, not going to distract themselves ‘watching’ their speedometer, etc.
Looking forward to the same commentators whinging and moaning about their speeding fines in a few months time (with the odd CD10 for aggressively tailgating an unmarked copper or something).
Listened to a so called
Listened to a so called expert give their opinion about 20mph limits on the news earlier and they said the following:
“When I cycle I hate having to overtake all the slow moving cars”
“I agree it will save thousands of lives but i’m still against it”
WTF?
NOtotheEU wrote:
What do they like doing, sitting in the queue with them? That is allowed if they hate it so much!
Rendel Harris wrote:
Exactly! He also said he wasn’t a particularly fit or fast rider so I think it was just your typical “I’m a cyclist too” rubbish.
NOtotheEU wrote:
— NOtotheEUWhat exactly did he claim to be expert in? Ancient Greek history perhaps?
eburtthebike wrote:
Probably. I missed his introduction so probably just assumed the ‘expert’ bit as they were asking his opinion. I think him saying he lived in London and sold his car 15 years ago as it was impractical caught my attention but it went rapidly downhill from there.
From what I’ve read about
From what I’ve read about this it doesn’t seem there’s a great amount of evidence that reducing speed limits to 20 actually reduces KSIs.
At least now we should have some proper data one way or the other.
Rich_cb wrote:
We’ve had 20mph limits on city centre roads in Bristol for a few years, so there’s data on that if you go looking.
https://www.bristol20mph.co.uk/
Interesting link here on the BBC: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-43050841
(Average speeds dropped by 2.7mph and four lives a year saved)
I’m suspicious of those
I’m suspicious of those numbers.
Would be interesting to see the overall Bristol data including the roads with no change to their limits.
Manchester found that 20 mph zones had a lower reduction in casualties than other areas but I can’t find a similar comparison for the Bristol data which makes me wonder if there’s some cherry picking going on.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-39231956
Rich_cb wrote:
Bristol has had 20mph since 2014, so the data is more significant than the shorter Manchester trial and I doubt that the data has been cherry picked – the study comes from UWE and aside from speed sign installers, I don’t see a vested interest in play.
The Manchester shorter term study has some interesting comments/lessons listed here: https://www.20splenty.org/lessons_to_learn_from_manchester
Let’s hope the Welsh implementation is more serious and has some backing from the police.
I couldn’t see a breakdown of
I couldn’t see a breakdown of where the improvements in Bristol KSIs had occurred.
Was it predominantly in the new 20mph zones?
Was it evenly spread across the city?
Was it predominantly in areas where the speed limit was unchanged?
The raw Bristol numbers look encouraging but without those details it’s hard to attribute the changes to the new 20 mph zones with any confidence.
Given that Wales is a fair bit bigger than Bristol and a huge number of roads will be reducing their limits in a short space of time we should get some really solid data over the next few years as to the effectiveness of 20 mph zones.
Rich_cb wrote:
I don’t know about the distribution of KSIs, but I’d guess that the numbers are probably too small to be analysed by specific roads.
It’s likely that they chose the roads with most KSIs as a priority to reduce speed on, so that might be an explanation of the difference.
Although the example used for
Although the example used for Manchester was not having a reduction compared to elsewhere was:-
Was there a drop in cycling along the 30mph roads in favour of using the 20mph ones? Was there other causes for safer cycling elsewhere like seperated infra?
AlsoSomniloquism wrote:
One explanation could be that most cyclists eschewed the 30mph roads and instead chose the 20mph roads, so we’d need to look at numbers of cyclists on those roads too as there could have been a change in cyclist behaviour.
As Rich_cb states, it’ll be interesting to see what happens in Wales, assuming that they don’t stuff up the implementation (probably less likely as it’ll be across all built up areas in the whole country).
Keep digging and keep us
Keep digging and keep us posted.
Given:
– changing signs leads to *some* reduction in speeds
– this doesn’t have paradoxical effects e.g. now the worst drivers actually speed up when they see these
…a reasonable assumption is the outcomes of crashes would be less serious. I’d expect to see e.g. some Killed become Seriously Injured. Also possibly a reduction in seriousness of injuries although finding data for that is something else. I’d also expect less collisions and near misses overall because people have more time for observation / reaction. However other factors might reduce that e.g. drivers becoming more relaxed so casual, more non-motorists using the streets (which I’d still say was a win) etc.
Since lots of places change speed limits over time I imagine there’s data from round the world. (NL might be a good start – they might have English versions too). What might be a difficulty for you is that other things probably change at the same time. For example more policing / speed cameras, possible infra changes (e.g. LTNs!), public campaigns etc. And you’d want to confirm that the speeds did indeed change significantly of course.
Pretty confident reducing
Pretty confident reducing speeds to 20mph will reduce KSIs.
The debate tends to be whether 20mph limits reduces travelled speeds. Maybe we should focus on enforcement? I was disapointed that the legislation in Scotland did not go through last time. It’s time will come again.
Living in Cardiff and in a
Living in Cardiff and in a 20mph speed restriction zone I can say with utter confidence that during rush hour you’ll be lucky to average10mph in a car in the city centre.
Hopefully the effect will be to convince more people to start using public transport, cycle or walk.
Living in Cardiff in a 20 mph
Living in Cardiff in a 20 mph zone I can say with utter confidence that outside of rush hour the limits are almost entirely ignored.
Rubbish; most people I know
Rubbish; most people I know would never get on a bicycle to commute, regardless of how inconvenient car travel is made; meanwhile, the numerous people that drive unregistered unroadworthy vehicles, with stolen plates and don’t have a licence to drive, will still drive at any speed they like without fear of camera enforcement.
But if everyone else is
But if everyone else is driving at 20mph they will have to as well
If you could wave a magic
If you could wave a magic wand and change things overnight – that would be an interesting question. There are factors like habit, social factors like prestige, self-identification etc which act to maintain the status quo. That’s apart from just “but my job is 40 miles in one direction, my kids go to school 8 miles in the other and the
shops we likeonly shops are 10 miles away – oh, and no buses or trains”.In the UK there have been a couple of serious attempts in the past to start with a dual cycling / driving environment. Result? Where people can easily cycle or drive, they drive. (Actually the driving was a bit more convenient and there were a few other factors at play too e.g. this was at a time of fast-increasing car ownership).
However there are places where it is possible to cycle and drive, both are convenient, and a large proportion of people *do* cycle for some trips:
https://bicycledutch.wordpress.com/2017/06/06/the-busiest-cycleway-in-the-netherlands/
It’s not just “that place” either – cities as different as Paris, Seville, Malmo etc. have shown it’s possible to start from a car-intensive place and get more journeys to happen by bike.
I live in one of the test
I live in one of the test areas in Wales, the community Facebook page was up in arms about it (I love that page it’s hilarious) but, I’ve already seen an increase in people cycling to and from school and shops. It’s getting to the point i may have to stop cycling to the train because there’s not enough space!
This blanket approach was
This blanket approach was introduced to all of the Scottish Borders a couple of years ago, I’m sure there are now plenty of results available somewhere to sho what has happened. I know when I drive there everything is so familiar that I rarely look at signs (as wiith most of us in familiar areas) and I probably exceed the 20 limit.
Although the blanket approach
Although the blanket approach to 20mph didn’t get through, many local authorities have moved anyway. West Lothian is another. Others have announced the intent (Falkirk back is an example from back in January this year).
It is the way Scotland is going.
This is a step in the right
This is a step in the right direction. Hopefully when the rage has subsided and people get used to this, a blanket ban on overtaking in 20mph limits can be quietly slipped in.
HoarseMann wrote:
Hopefully not, for several reasons:
1.a) Few people can cycle at a sustained speed over, say, 15mph. Reduce that to as little as 5mph up hill.
b) Few people enjoy cycling at the head of a queue of, probably frustrated and impatient, traffic.
2. In certain situations, 20mph limits give faster cyclists the opportunity of overtaking moving cars, which feels good.
3.a) Strictly speaking, it would then be illegal to ride to the front of a queue of stationary traffic.
b) Even if this ban only applied to motor vehicles, it would similarly prevent motorcyclists filtering. Motorbikes are far more space efficient (or at least far less space inefficient) than cars, so should be encouraged in urban areas.
Bmblbzzz wrote:
Nah, it’ll work perfectly. We’re talking about residential streets here, they already do this on some roads in the Netherlands (Fietsstraats).
1.a.) If a car has to wait behind a cyclist doing 5mph uphill, then they wait. One of the main impacts of this is making a short urban journey in a car take a similar time (or longer) than doing that journey by bicycle. Thus making car travel less desirable for these journeys that can easily be done by bike.
b) Cycling at the head of a queue is only a problem because vehicles behind are impatient to pass. If the rules were changed so that a pass was not possible and having to follow at the speed of a bicycle was just one of those things, then it would be fine.
2.) Hell no! Whilst filtering past slow moving or stationary cars would still be ok, cyclists should not be passing vehicles doing 20mph in these areas.
3.a) There is a differentiation drawn between overtaking and filtering. So this would still be ok.
b) ditto for motorbikes, they could still filter.
‘making car travel less
‘making car travel less desirable’.. this is the real reason for these very slow limits; car hating greenies.
It is certainly one reason.
It is certainly one reason. Do you have a problem with that? I know it is lovely to step into n air conditioned armoured box with two luxury sofas, but maybe it would be better for you to walk to the shops?
This is a good point. The car
This is a good point. The car that’s left at home is less damaging (in all ways, it’s not just safety) than the car that’s driven safely and considerately. The car that’s not built is better still.
Just residential streets?
Just residential streets? Default should mean applicable to all roads in built-up areas, including main roads. That’s the way it works here (Bristol). Obviously there are always a few exceptions, but they are, well, exceptions to the default and therefore exceptional…
Good point on differentiating overtaking and filtering, though I’m not sure of the actual law on this.
yes, I think it would apply
yes, I think it would apply to all urban roads, but some of the larger city centre through routes could be ‘upgraded’ to 30mph.
There’s no law on what constitutes filtering vs. overtaking, but you can’t filter in anything with more than 2 wheels, and that is all that matters!
Banning overtaking in 20mph limits would make prosecutions far easier. Rather than having to prove a ‘close pass’ was careless, which is quite difficult to do from bicycle camera footage, you just have to demonstrate that they overtook. Bang to rights, FPN issued, happy days.
Reading the posts below there
Reading the posts below there are mixed views even from (supposedly) the cycling community.
“Not a lot of evidence that it reduces KSIs” – The oft quoted fact which I have never seen proven – If a car hits a vulnerable road user at 20mph they will probably live. At 30mph they will probably die. What is indisputable, is that at 20mph there is more time for a driver to react to an unforeseen situation.
“Drivers do not obey 20mph limits anyway” – This is the paedophiles defence – There is a lot of paedophillia around, no point in introducing stricter laws, the paedos won’t obey them. Drivers don’t obey the 30mph limit either. I would rather be hit by a speeding driver at 25mph than one doing 35mph.
“Drivers will be distracted, having to check their speedos all the time. They will lose concentration driving at 20mph” – If you cannot drive at 20mph you should not be on the road.
“Driving at 20mph is innefiecient for the engine and will cause more pollution” – We’ll all be driving Electric in a few years time.
Apparently the Welsh Tories voted to oppose the 20mph limit. – For some people that in itself will be a decider. All those new signs will cost a lot of money.
To me the bottom line is – It won’t do any harm and will probably be a good thing.
Cycloid wrote:
The estimate made in the Bristol 20mph report was saving £15m a year from reduced injuries etc. so the cost of the signs should be considered an investment in public health (and a very cost effective one).
Thanks for the Information –
Thanks for the Information – Another statistic to store inside my head.
Cycloid wrote:
Meanwhile in Cornwall they’ve just voted to introduce a load. Shame they’ve actively borked literally all other proposed active travel measures down here.
Hit the nail on the head.
Hit the nail on the head.
20 is plenty is far cheaper to implement than building real cycling infrastructure, even cheaper than white paint, yet the majority on here think it’s a win.
The politicians and councillors are pulling your pants down and you lap it up.
20 is plenty is a con to make people think they are doing something.
Have a look at the experience
Have a look at the experience in Manchester.
20 mph zones seemed to perform worse than 30 mph zones in terms of KSIs.
If they work I’m all for them but let’s not assume that they will.
Whilst looking for the
Whilst looking for the Manchester report I Found this for Cheshire areas.
Key stats are:
There was a 43 per cent reduction in road traffic collisions, a 24 per cent reduction in people killed or seriously injured (KSI), and a 46 per cent reduction in slight injuries.
The committee was told that across all schemes, 134 areas saw average speeds decrease, while 63 areas saw it increase.
The council said there was an annual cost saving to the community in road traffic collisions of £3.7m per year.
They also mention that the Police were enforcing these speed limits with 350 FPN’s listed in the 12 months before the report was released.
Agreed
Agreed
Where did you get your data?
I found a report in the Manchester Evening News which said 20mph zones made little or no difference. The same article quoted RoSPA saying that 20mph zones were very effective. Cheshire West which is next door to Manchester gives a positive report – see AlsoSomniloquism below.
Common sense says 20mph zones are a No Brainer, just like Helmets and HiViz (Cynical comment)
I’m confused. Like a lot of topics, it’s not black and white
Given that damage done in a
Given that damage done in a collision is directly related to the energy of the impact, and that is in turn correlated to the square of the velocity, it stands to reason that a 30mph collision is going to KSI more often than a 20mph one. There are two likely explanations for the amanchester results – either the lower limits tempted people into “chancing it” more often, or the drivers involved in the collisions had carried on driving at the same old speed. I know which I’d bet on, as unless there was enforcement of the 20mph limit I doubt that compliance was high.
Apparently about 80% of
Apparently about 80% of drivers ignore the 20 mph limit vs 50-70% who ignore the 30mph limit (it depends on where you take your figures from).
20mph doesn’t work in Manchester but does work in Cheshire West, and it also works for RoSPA. It may depend on the margin which drivers ignore the speed limit.
Strange old world
The Cheshire council report
The Cheshire council report mentioned over 300 FPN’s issued for speeding in the just the last 12 months of it. The BBC link for Manchester mentioned one driver was ticketed for speeding. So yes, I suspect Police non-enforcement probably had something to do with it.
Richard D wrote:
I see that said a lot, but never with any source. I’d have thought the damage done to a human body was more to do with the forces acting on it and the acceleration it is subjected to, rather than the KE of the impacting object, which is not in any case transferred in whole to the person who is hit.
The human body may well have a non-linear response to force or acceleration, so possibly it comes back to the same thing, but I don’t think it is helpful to think I terms of the energy of the vehicle, as if this is somehow the agent of damage.
The Kinetic Energy of a
The Kinetic Energy of a moving vehicle is given by:-
KE=1/2MV^2
When the vehicle comes to a halt it all has to go somewhere.
The ballistics which happen in a collision are extremely complex, but I think it is fair to say that in general the higher the KE of the vehicle the worse the outcome for the vulnerable road user.
As you say the big consideration must be the amount of KE that gets transferred to the cyclist.
Would you rather get hit by a Nissan Micra at 20mph or a Cement Mixer at 30mph?
Cycloid wrote:
thanks for the Yr9 tutorial
that’d be the heat in the brakes – unless you are suggesting the impact with the cyclist has much effect on the car’s velocity
It’s fair to say I’d rather be hit by a train doing 1mph than by a car doing 30.
“It All has to go somewhere”
“It All has to go somewhere”
Yes – The fist law of thermodynamics – Energy can neither be created or destroyed, only converted from one form into another. I think It all eventually finishes up as heat, whether it is in the brake linings of the vehicle or breaking bonds in the snapping bones of the cyclist. what Feynman called “jiggling molecules”. The question is how much of the KE gets passed onto the cyclist.
Getting hit by a train at 1mph gently accelerates you in the direction of the train – Newton’s first law. (You will probably fall off and go under the wheels). I did a quick calculation and the car doing 30mph has more KE than the train, so your preference is correct. (I assumed the weight of the car was 1000 kilos and the train 100, 000 kilos).
As I have already said the ballistics which take place in a collision are extremely complex and fooling around with Newtonian mechanics can give us a feeling for the maximum (worst) outcome in a collision, but are not a simple predictor.
I think you are deliberately
I think you are deliberately missing the essential point that the cyclist does not absorb the KE of the vehicle, hence it is of little significance. Back to the example of being hit by a slow moving train – are you really suggesting that the outcome would vary depending on the mass of the train? What does matter is the force to which the cyclist is subjected.
Moreover, if acquiring KE were so harmful to the human body, how do the vehicle passengers survive travelling at such great speed to begin with? Surely they would be killed by all the KE? Unless it all turns to heat and cooks them, they will be quite OK.
The Kinetic energy which is
The Kinetic energy which is transferred to a cyclist in a collision is important.
A golf ball and a ping pong ball are about the same size but have very different masses.
Would you rather be hit by a ping pong ball or a golf ball at (say) 30mph?
The golf ball has the greater mass and therefore greater kinetic energy for a given velocity. The relationship is in the equation KE = 1/2MV^2.
As I said the ballistics are complicated, but KE is important.
5 mph is demonstrably safer
5 mph is demonstrably safer than 20 mph.. where does this statistical nonsense stop?
It Stops exactly where we want it to.
Nearly everything we do has a risk associated with it, and we balance the risk against the outcome.
In a typical year there are about 4000 cyclists killed or seriously injured on our roads, if we think this is a reasonable price to pay for driving the way we do then we do nothing.
If we are not happy with the situation we make changes to reduce the number Safer cycling infrastructure, Safer vehicles, Helmets+Hiviz? SPEED LIMITS!
Statistical information is virtually the only tool we have to help us make decisions.
It’s probably something to do
It’s probably something to do with dead children.
Cycloid wrote:
I’ve also heard that line trotted out, and even aside from a switch to electric cars I’m not convinced it’s true.
Even if we take it as a given that a car is more efficient cruising at a steady 30mph than a steady 20mph, that’s not how urban driving normally works – there’s a lot of stopping and starting. I very much expect accelerating to 30mph, driving a short while, and then stopping, requires more fuel than the same distance but only accelerating to 20mph.
If 20mph enables traffic to flow better, then that would also lower pollution. Traffic jams and repeated accelerating and braking are both bad. I don’t know about urban areas but I’m pretty sure the variable speed limits/advisory speed signs on motorways are meant to improve traffic flow and increase capacity by reducing speeds.
And of course the point already made that encouraging people out of cars and onto either active travel or public transport will reduce pollution.
Claims that reducing speed
Claims that reducing speed will increase pollution and/or harm the engine don’t seem credible to me.
Travelling at 30mph clearly takes more energy than travelling at 20mph, so more fuel will be needed. Braking from 30mph is going to produce more brake dust than from 20mph and I don’t see how tyres rolling at faster speeds are going to create less friction on the road.
If someone has a car that doesn’t have a low enough gear to travel at 20mph with revs in the right zone, then either the car’s not designed for city travel or they don’t know how to use the gears correctly.
hawkinspeter wrote:
“The Energy Saving Trust says that the most efficient speed you can travel in a car in terms of achieving the best fuel economy is 55-65mph”
(based on travelling at a steady speed, over extended period)
This is due to the combination of maximum engine efficiency speed and highest gear.
As electric cars become the norm, the most efficient speed will be much lower, as wind resistance will dominate over engine efficiency variance.
However on urban/residential roads where the driver will natully decelerate every feww hunder metres for traffic lights/junctions/hazards etc, then 20mph may well be more efficient. E.g entering a road and accelerating to 30 instead of 20 will more than consume the savings from travelling 1/4 mile at 30 instead of 20
wycombewheeler wrote:
I’d like to see how that’s worked out. Surely the increased air resistance at 55mph is going to dwarf any engine efficiency savings.
I’ve just had a quick look
I’ve just had a quick look and it seems that the 55mph optimum is for AVERAGE speed not STEADY speed. Here’s a link that says mpg at a STEADY 20mph is huge.
https://www.20splenty.org/do_emission_increase
Only a quick look and I’d be happy to be corrected if I’m wrong. It does seem more logical to me though.
Good point.
Good point.
I was giving one liners as obvious counter arguments. I have found that giving reasoned, but more complex complex arguments to people who have already made up their minds (bigots) is a waste of time.
I am amazed at the number of drivers who speed throught the 30mph zone, doing 40+ in my village just to get on the end of a queue at the crossroads. If they drove at 20mph the queue would be a bit shorter when the got there.
In Australia there was a
In Australia there was a campaign in the early 2000s called Wipe Off Five (km)
This video shows what a dramatic difference driving just 5km/h (a little over 3 mph) can do.
https://youtu.be/wrjozeqc21M
That campaign was just to
That campaign was just to justify state traffic police revenue raising by booking people just a few k’s over the limit; I was a motorcycle policeman, so I know the system. To be clear, speed limits are arbitrary.. for eg, roads designed for 70 kph speed limits in Victoria were dropped to 60 kph because of a bureaucratic decision to eliminate 70 kph speed zones; after being challenged by the RACV, the government reversed the decision but only for roads that hadn’t been changed yet, so now some 70 kph designed roads have 60 kph limits.
On FB today I found a topic
On FB today I found a topic about cars being fitted with mandatory speed limiting devices from 2024.
I posted “I’m only here to lap up the tears of all those motorists who think that they have some sort of inalienable right to break the law by driving too fast whenever they want to.”
You would not believe the number of reactions and comments that got. Lap up tears? I’d have bloody drowned in them! Those drivers do not like being told to behave themselves!
Unfortunately the limiter can
Unfortunately the limiter can be overridden by the simple expedient of pressing the go faster pedal.
I would love to see cars
I would love to see cars fitted with mandatory speed limiting devices and never heard a convincing argument for not doing so.
Unfortunately, the latest I have heard is that while the EU is bringing in some new laws, they have been watered down to a homeopathic extent, including not actually limiting the speed of the vehicle but merely warning the driver that they are exceeding the speed limit, and no requirement for the feature to be turned on, merely installed in the vehicle.
The UK, no longer being part of the EU, has no plans to implement a similar law. Whilst it is quite likely that cars sold in the UK may end up with the same features as those sold elsewhere in the EU, given the above loopholes that will have no noticeable effect (indeed many cars sold today are already able to warn you if you are exceeding the speed limit).
And if the EU were to push ahead with laws that make meaningful speed limiting devices mandatory, then car manufacturers might be more inclined to deactivate that feature in the UK assuming it remains non-mandatory here (I daresay the vast majority of customers would opt for a model without speed limitation than a model with, given the choice).
“I would love to see cars
“I would love to see cars fitted with mandatory speed limiting devices and never heard a convincing argument for not doing so.”
“You have to be able to accelerate to get out of trouble”
I had this debate with someone where I pointed out that if they were in trouble, then it was virtually certain that they could have done something prior to the situation to mitigate it. They refused to give an example of speeding to get out of trouble and just told me that I didn’t know how to drive.
hirsute wrote:
It’s when you need to avoid a falling chimney
Mercedes have been fitting
Mercedes have been fitting speed limiters for years – I’ve been using one since 1999. It’s very easy to flick on and off and the main benefit to me is to stop me unconsciously chasing other cars – in a 30moh area it is very easy to fall into pacing the car in front which almost always is running slightly faster than the speed limit. It also works well in heavy traffic on motorways where it stops you drifting over the speed limit as traffic thins out or accelerates.
Off the top of my head, I can’t think of a time in 23 years of continuous using their system that I’ve used the accelerator to break through the limit.
I have occasionally popped the limiter or cruise control up a couple of mph to avoid sitting on someone’s rear quarter – running at a similar speed is an issue with cruise control and though you could rightly say the proper action is to drop back, the problem is also inconsistency – people also unconsciously react to other cars, so you find yourself running alongside a car that previously was going considerably slower, and once you pass they relax and soon drop back.
Limiters don’t need to be mandatory to help though most people seem to struggle with 2 pedals and a steering wheel, so anything extra is a problem.
Fs. As if they didn’t slow us
Fs. As if they didn’t slow us down enough already..
One of the few joys of
One of the few joys of driving now is sticking to a 20 limit just to see how irate you can make following cars.
I was doing “plenty” through my local High Street and had a driver pull out in front of me. She was aggrieved that I shouted at her as I had to slow to avoid her. As she then decided she wanted to discuss it, I had a quick “Didn’t you see me?” to which the surprising answer was “Yes” so I just rode off. At the other end of the High Street she floored it to get past me – still in the 20. At the bottom of the hill I then had the moral victory of being able to shout at her again for encroaching on my cycle lane as I overtook her queuing for the island.
20 mph is very slow for
20 mph is very slow for residential areas; for comparison, Australia has the eqivalent of 30 mph for residential areas and 25 mph for shopping precincts and school zones, which is plenty slow enough for safety; enacting limits slower than that is real motor vehicle hating territory.
Not sure 20 mph is very slow,
Not sure 20 mph is very slow, it is demonstrated in research to be a better speed limit for people to not die when collisions happen and a better speed limit to prevent more collisions happening in the first place.
Australia has some strange speed limits and 40 km/h in school zones is not supported by science but was a political choice. Check out South Australia though who have 25 km/h or 15.5 mph in places where school children are or at road works. Australia is moving to reflect science so would suggest that in the next few years across Australia 30 km/h speed limits will become more normal and with the lead from Wales more pressure will be placed on politicians to make the roads safer.
Well “slow” and “fast” are
Well “slow” and “fast” are all relative of course…
I think in e.g. NL the residential limit is often 30 kph – that’s actually slightly below 20 mph. America – land of the car – also has some low residential area speed limits.
Some case studies here:
https://nacto.org/publication/city-limits/the-tools/case-studies-in-lowering-speed-limits/
Not saying it’s popular and certainly if you change things to slow people down there will of course be a lot of complaints – but it’s certainly done in places.
grOg wrote:
20mph is about 30% higher than the average speed on A roads where I live. If people start to realise that it doesn’t take much longer (and can sometimes be faster) to cycle rather than drive we might see more people choosing to cycle rather than drive.
As for ‘motor vehicle hating’, you say that like it is a bad thing. What is there not to hate about the great many unnecessary motor vehicle journeys? A 20 mph limit doesn’t prevent necessary journeys – it might make them take long, but how much of a problem is that, if they are necessary. I can tell you something else that makes necessary motor vehicle journeys take longer… the many unnecessary motor vehicle journeys.
The problem with 20 is plenty
The problem with 20 is plenty is that it won’t encourage new riders onto the roads. Yes, it will make it safer for those of us who already ride, but new riders are put off by more than just the speed of traffic and the perceived dangers that entails.
What really matters is safe, well designed, segregated infrastructure, not a change in speed limits and a few signs.
It’s a box ticking exercise for the politicians and you’ve all fallen for it, hook, line and sinker
I’m not sure this 20 plenty
I’m not sure this 20 plenty thing will inspire motorists to stop crashing into innocent objects.
This occurred to me as I noted a car being fished out of a fence opposite a T junction, that the road they’d emerged from was a 20 with traffic calming and they’d still failed to cope.
This. In all the debates
This. In all the debates about road safety one thing stands out: every day apparently licenced “careful competent drivers” go out and total their cars and sometimes themselves on bollards, into houses, into bridges, off carriageways… That’s not counting the other vehicles and people they crash into.
https://cyclingfallacies.com/en/16/higher-standards-of-driving-would-make-cycling-safe
That’s a sizeable argument (there are others) for more segregated infra and a better approach to road safety in general.
However that is years off and it’s not a reason not to do other things as well. Even improvements that are small relative to the “proper” infra solution could be worth while. These might be for safety, to make places more pleasant and / or to encourage what cycling we can.
So let’s have this as long as this does indeed bring down the speeds and / or improve safety. Which may also require a commitment to enforcement (more of it – or any of it!)
Which may also require a
Which may also require a commitment to enforcement (more of it – or any of it!)
Sadly, as you suggest, there will be no enforcement. The police can’t be bothered with red light offences, vehicles with No MOT, No VED and no insurance etc. so they’re no about to bother with this (although it’s still a good policy!)
chrisonatrike wrote:
And that doesn’t include the drivers that don’t crash. A large proportion of those routinely exceed urban speed limits by a large amount when traffic levels allow it – I see it every time I leave the house and find that attitude incredibly selfish and irresponsible. In-vehicle speed limiters cannot come soon enough, especially now that the police are not interested / adequately resourced to enforce speed limits around the country and it’s not practical to have ANPR or fixed cameras on every street.
Interventions such as School streets, pedestrianised high streets or open spaces and LTNs show that taking away or significantly reducing vehicle numbers has real benefits and can be used to persuade councils to do more.
Applying a blanket 20mph limit is a way of saying that we want to change the way people behave in all such spaces, not merely ‘priority’ locations such as outside schools. Not much point having a School street if the kids then turn a corner onto one where drivers continue to behave like complete twats – and I’m afraid many of them do. Example:
“Bank Farm Road showed 90 per cent of cars drove above the 30mph limit. “I think it’s quite shocking, the speed that we see. The average speed on the road is 36 to 37mph.”
My kids used to ride along BFR to secondary school. It runs through the large Radbrook housing estate, past the primary school, day nursery, Co-Op, and doctor’s surgery. One end is between two secondary schools (a total of ~2,000 pupils).
https://www.shropshirestar.com/news/local-hubs/shrewsbury/meole-brace/2022/03/03/fresh-meeting-to-update-concerned-residents-over-dangerous-shrewsbury-school-zone/
it’s not practical to have
it’s not practical to have ANPR or fixed cameras on every street
It wouldn’t matter if there were, the police still wouldn’t be interested. If you do everything for them, they still won’t do anything about No MOT +/- No VED +/- No insurance vehicles. My best guess for why they are prepared to do more work not enforcing these laws is corruption. Once these vehicles, such as Audi PJ07 NFP, have embarked upon the ‘Off Grid’ approach to cutting motoring costs, restarting MOTs and VED payments would draw attention to them- it then becomes worthwhile investing in the Lancashire Constabulary Personal Protection Plan
Unless you remove air bags
Unless you remove air bags and seatbelts, fit weak bolts to seat runners and fit a large rusty metal spike to the steering wheel I don’t think anything will stop most drivers caring about anything other than their own convenience.
I’ve got a submission in with
I’ve got a submission in with Warwickshire police (hence not sharing yet) where an Audi Q7 tried to force its way past us on a very single track road. The driver eventually sounded her horn while swerving to the left, seemingly running off the road, harassing my mate. Her excuse when he stopped and blocked her to remonstrate with her for her dangerous driving? – she was late for her school run. When we (eventually) stopped to let her past after a bit of sulking, she amazingly didn’t continue on her way but stopped for a chat. I got bored and rode off – in front of her. We stopped again later, and she wanted to chat even though we made it clear we didn’t.
That can’t be true! Audi Q7
That can’t be true! Audi Q7 drivers are always safe, observant and competent, along with all other Volkswagen Audi Group vehicle owners.
NOtotheEU wrote:
BMW drivers are the best.
In a bored moment after today
In a bored moment after today’s ride I checked something after a Tuesday incident which involved a close pass and an unrepentent van driver. The narrow stretch of one way and two way road involved had 450 metres of 20mph limit, about(!) 0.275 miles. At 20mph, that should take 50 seconds to traverse, assuming instantly hitting 20mph. I checked on my Garmin, and my average was 17.5mph up to the incident, at which point I was doing 19-20 – about 56 seconds to traverse – so I vehicle immediately behind me would have been (legally) delayed by 6 seconds at most. I reckon the van appeared when I was about 0.1 miles up the road, just at a point with indentifiable traffic calming.
The van driver’s excuse for his close pass into oncoming traffic (at about 35mph at a guess) was “I needed to get past you” plus a few bingo phrases.
I Googled how to work out “Catch up problems” as it is nearly 50 years since I did my maffs O Level.
I calculated that if he entered the road 0.1 miles behind me (that’s when I checked my mirror and glanced a vehicle entering the road) , and he was doing 20mph, so I reckon he entered the road about 18 seconds after me. My average speed was 18mph. It should have taken 3 minutes – or 1 mile – for him to catch me, more than 3/4 mile after the end of the 20mph limit. It should have taken me 55 seconds, but because my “mate” wanted to chat because I had the temerity to shout “Whoa!” as I awaited the crunch of bodywork with the oncoming car, it added a further 15 seconds onto my journey time. Actually, he should never have caught me because I was doing 20mph at the time he overtook.
Anyway, the point is, that in a 20mph limit the necessity to pass cyclists should reduce considerably.
I’m really hoping my “mate” wants to argue it in court, and West Mids police want to take action.