A new report from the International Transport Forum has called for 20mph speed limits as standard in built-up areas. The study examined road safety performance in ten countries after they changed speed limits or introduced automatic speed cameras and in all cases found a strong relationship between average speed and the number of crashes.
Part of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), the International Transport Forum is an intergovernmental organisation that acts as a think tank for transport policy.
Driver risks losing licence for repeatedly breaking 20mph limit
It looked at changes in speed limits in six countries and the introduction of automated speed enforcement in four more to gauge the impact on the number of collisions.
The report states that an increase in mean speed was accompanied by a higher number of crashes and casualties, while a decrease was associated with fewer crashes and casualties. In no case did an increase in mean speed coincide with fewer crashes or casualties.
The International Transport Forum therefore makes a number of recommendations.
- Reduce the speed on roads as well as speed differences between vehicles
- Set speed limits based on the Safe System principles, i.e. at a level that humans can survive without dramatic consequences in case of a crash
- Introduce compensation measures where speed limits are increased; for instance, stricter enforcement or a safety upgrade of the road infrastructure
- Use automatic speed control to effectively reduce speed
Working towards a Safe System, the authors proposed as reasonable speed limits:
- 30 km/h in built-up and residential urban areas where motorised vehicles and vulnerable road users share the same space
- 50 km/h in other urban areas with intersections and high risk of side collisions
- 70 km/h on rural roads without a median barrier and a risk of head-on collisions
The report also notes that lower driving speeds generally improve citizens’ quality of life, especially in urban areas.
Rod King MBE, founder and director of the 20’s Plenty for Us campaign commented:
“This is yet another report coming to the firm conclusion that 20 is plenty where people live, work, play, shop and learn.
“Other countries have adopted a near universal 30km/h limit for urban and residential streets. Over 25% of the UK live in authorities who have also set 20mph as the right urban limit. The Scottish assembly is considering a bill to make 20mph the limit (with exceptions) for built up roads. It’s time to end the postcode lottery on pedestrian/cycling safety and general well-being in our residential and urban places by setting a 20mph default limit for built-up roads across the UK.”
Cycling UK supports Member of Scottish Parliament’s 20mph urban speed limit bill
-1024x680.jpg "“Clear anti-cyclist bias”: Lawsuit filed against Toronto police after cop doored cyclist… before ticketing rider over incident")
50 thoughts on “Global study calls for 20mph speed limit as standard in built-up areas”
That and geting drivers to
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.
Whilst they’re at it we should get rid of the blanket NSL, far too many roads are simply not safe with vehicles bombing along at 60mph with motorists simply not capable nor even wanting to slow down to a speed they can stop well within the space they can see to be clear.
Forcing manufacturers to build in speed limiters linked to an internal GPS or detection system so they can never go over the limit at least and then for government to spend some money getting every single road reviewed. Will it cost hundreds of millions, even billions, yes, but the lives and injuries saved never mind the money and costs to NHS/police/fire on top of people on bikes not being driven at at ridiculous speeds will far outweigh the cost.
The amount of times I’ve given people living down my own street the hair dryer treatment for driving at speed is ridiculous, but I’ll continue to do it and will continue to threaten to report them to the police if they continue to disrespect where I live and make it a less safe place for the families/kids who live here.
20mph limits are only any good if there is enforcement and a zero tolerence approach by police and government as there should be for all speed limits. That we have a 10& + x mph before you will get a FPN is a reflection of how little governments give a shit about safety on our roads.
BehindTheBikesheds wrote:
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:
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:
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:
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:
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:
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:
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.
You speak sense.
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.
felixcat wrote:
yes, but Brexit. We won’t be allowed to use kilometres, it’ll all be furlongs and chains again.
I’m all in favour of reducing
I’m all in favour of reducing the speed limit but perhaps they could try properly enforcing the existing 30 miles per hour limit first!
I cycle quite fast but why are cars still trying to get past me in a 20 mph zone?
Why when I try to drive at the speed limit, either at 20 or 30, do I sometimes get angry drivers behind shaking their fists?
It’s almost like it’s deemed socially unacceptable to keep to the speed limit. These attitudes need to change!
I had a few angry driver
I had a few angry driver behind me in Cambridge yesterday. I was doing about 30mph and was riding outside the far too narrow cycle lane, and the drivers wanted to overtake despite me cycling at the speed limit behind other traffic.
We need proper enforcement of speed limits, and better observance of rules by drivers as well as common sense (slowed by 2mph or so over 1 mile makes no real time loss).
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)
WillRod wrote:
Except for royal parks and promenades, speed limits don’t apply to cyclists, so they can’t break them.
hirsute wrote:
Do they have any moral obligation to follow them? Fixie-boy managed to kill someone at less than 20mph.
Yorkshire wallet 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?
hirsute wrote:
Get something for £5 from Aldi and google 700c circumference. There, saved you a couple of hundred.
Yorkshire wallet wrote:
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’.
When our County Council announced the introduction of 20 limits in some residential areas the local police commander replied they could do as they wished but the force would not be enforcing those limits.
Words failed me then and continue to do so.
Why not just reduce the speed
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.
nbrus wrote:
For what?
nbrus wrote:
“
The UK DOT analyzed injury and death rates for pedestrians hit by vehicles at 20 mph, 30 mph, and 40 mph. They found that at 20 mph, or at the typical speed limit in school zones in the US, roughly 5% of pedestrians would not survive a vehicular collision. Let’s use a sample of 20 random people (young adults, children, middle-aged men and women, and seniors) to make the percentages more understandable.
In our hypothetical 20 mph collision, a 5% fatality rate means 1 out of 20 individuals would die, whether at the scene or at the hospital. 65%, or 13 out of 20, would survive with some injury, such as a broken leg or arm. A full 30% would walk away without any injuries whatsoever, or 6 out of our sample 20 people. Those are pretty good odds; you’d have a 95% chance of surviving what could otherwise be the last day of your life.
The picture changes dramatically at 30 mph; just 10 mph more.
What are my odds of surviving if I’m hit by a car at 30 mph?
Now we’re at the typical speed limit for urban and suburban areas in many parts of the US. Keep in mind most people in 30 mph zones aren’t going to be traveling at 30 mph; they’re going to be traveling faster. But if they obeyed the speed limit, here’s what would happen, on average, if they hit random members of our random sample of 20 people.
First of all, the death rate jumps to 45%. A full 9 out of 20 people would die, whether at the scene or soon afterward. Game over. No take backs, no do-overs. Just dead. Another 50% would be injured, or 10 out of 20 people. And a scant 5%, or just 1 out of 20 people, could expect to walk away without injury.
The difference is sobering. Think of it the next time you’re driving past a crosswalk, or better yet, crossing one on foot. If you’re hit at 20 mph, you’re going to have a bad day, but you’re almost guaranteed to survive to complain about it the next day. If you’re hit at 30 mph, it’s a coin flip as to whether you’re going to see your loved ones again, ever. Is it fair to give so much power over to someone who wanted to get somewhere, anywhere a few seconds earlier?
Of course, the picture gets still worse at 40 mph. In fact, it makes 30 mph look marvelous.
What are my odds of surviving if I’m hit by a car at 40 mph?
You’re likely to see 40 (or 45) mph speed limits on the outskirts of towns or on 2-4 lane roadways and expressways through large cities (e.g., Lake Shore Drive in Chicago or State Street or Harrison Avenue in Rockford, IL). They’re pretty common, and the odds are good that you can think of an area close to where you live with 40+ mph speed limits that doesn’t require going on the highway. Yet you can also probably think of a number of times when you’ve seen pedestrians attempting to cross such streets, with or without cross-walks. Here’s what would happen, on average, if 20 people were hit at these speeds.
To put it simply, nearly all of them would die at the scene. The death rate jumps to a near-conclusive 95%. That’s 19 out of 20 people, or pretty much everyone. That’s not the injury rate; it’s the death rate. The 20th person would be injured. That’s a 5% survival rate. There are very few diseases with 95% fatality rates (untreated Rabies is the only one most Americans have any real risk of coming across), but those are your odds of dying if you’re hit by a vehicle at speeds you’re likely to find in every city in the country.”
nbrus wrote:
For many roads, I’d agree. Did you have a point?
FluffyKittenofTindalos 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…
nbrus wrote:
That’s a lot of words to say absolutely fuck-all.
nbrus wrote:
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.
The current limits are fine,
The current limits are fine, if enforced (or accepted).
Summary:At 20mph one in
Summary:At 20mph one in twenty pedestrians hit will die.
At 30mph nine in twenty pedestrians hit will die.
At 40mph nineteen in twenty pedestrians hit will die.
felixcat wrote:
20MPH limits are pretty much
20MPH limits are pretty much de rigeur in London these days but my cynicism about them was blown away by a recent trip to Bath. I freely admit that in London the limit is ignored by too many people, but average speeds have dropped to the mid-20’s or thereabouts. In contrast, in Bath folk were hammering thru’ Widcombe High Street (please note, not the Lower Bristol road) at 35MPH+ and crossing the road was a genuine cause for concern.
We walked into Bath a couple of times via the Farmers’ Market in the old train station and folk were speeding on those tiny roads too. A few years ago those speeds would have been normal in Leyton or Wanstead, but thankfully we have moved on. I might still comment on folk ignoring the limits in Town, but how 30MPH can be considered acceptable in any suburban setting is beyond me.
Hussain Bolt, that famous
Hussain Bolt, that famous Iraqi runner.
If the speed limit was
If the speed limit was reduced to 10 mph, then that would get more people onto bicycles. What needs changing is getting people to drive safely instead of being in a rush to get to their destination. Eating your bowl of cereal whilst stopped at the lights is not a sensible idea and those people need to get their act together. In terms of carrot/stick, I think rewarding people for good driving bahaviour (e.g. cheaper insurance) is more effective that imposing excessive restrictions that have minimal effect on those that already offend.
nbrus wrote:
There’s at least an argument here.
But how does that relate to your earlier post about 20mph being too slow and making an outlaw of Hussein Bolt?
davel wrote:
If the speed limit was reduced to 10 mph, then that would get more people onto bicycles. What needs changing is getting people to drive safely instead of being in a rush to get to their destination. Eating your bowl of cereal whilst stopped at the lights is not a sensible idea and those people need to get their act together. In terms of carrot/stick, I think rewarding people for good driving bahaviour (e.g. cheaper insurance) is more effective that imposing excessive restrictions that have minimal effect on those that already offend.
— davel There’s at least an argument here. But how does that relate to your earlier post about 20mph being too slow and making an outlaw of Hussein Bolt?— nbrus
Hussain Bolt’s top speed is 27 mph !!!
He’s faster than me on my bike and could easily exceed a 20 mph speed limit, so you can’t just allow him to ignore speed limits if you want to impose them on motor vehicles.
Speed limits are a mechanism for ensuring safe driving. We should be targeting the cause not the symptom. Why do we make cars that can easily exceed any speed limit? Everyone knows that owners will exceed the speed limit when conditions allow and no one is looking. Draconian measures will not fix a problem that has a deeper cause. Drug dealers still deal drugs. You will never eliminate accidents, so you need to be sensible about what measures you take to reduce them.
It wasn’t that long ago when Aliston was done for killing a pedestrian on his fixie and everyone (i.e. cyclists) was screaming that the pedestrian had a duty of care to look where she was going. Are we now suggesting the opposite? Every sensible driver already drives at a speed appropriate for the conditions, so imposing unneccessary draconian 20 mph speed restrictions that apply even when driving conditions can safely support 30 mph is taking things a little too far IMHO.
nbrus wrote:
that’s an argument for removing all speed restrictions. Which is not necessarily a bad idea, but leaves things open to subjective interpretation.
ConcordeCX wrote:
I feel confident that in the not too distant future we will have A.I. built into all motor vehicles and it will prevent us from driving in an unsafe manner, or may even do the driving for us if we choose. When this happens we will have no need for speed limits.
nbrus wrote:
Such a scenario would come with consequences though such as not allowing cycling and only allowing pedestrians to cross at designated points.
I don’t have that level of confidence in software either.
hirsute wrote:
there won’t be any pedestrians or cyclists, we’ll all have jetpacks.
Software’s fine. It’s the people who commission it that are the problem. See Uber for further details.
Your scenario won’t happen. Not only because it’s socially unacceptable, but also because properly specified and written software can deal with the difficulties. We are only at the very beginning right now, and as far as I can see the best of the software is already better than humans. This doesn’t mean that no-one will be killed or injured in the forthcoming utopia, but there will be very significantly fewer than now, and each death will be treated far more seriously than the deaths brought about now by human drivers. It’s irrational but hey, humans.
it will also be possible for cyclists, pedestrians, skateboarders and so on to equip themselves with smart watches or phones which will communicate with the rest of the infrastructure and with other portable devices. By then we probably won’t even need a phone or watch, they’ll be built into our false teeth,which will be permantly clamped to Strava.
nbrus wrote:
I feel confident that in the not too distant future we will have A.I. built into all motor vehicles and it will prevent us from driving in an unsafe manner, or may even do the driving for us if we choose. When this happens we will have no need for speed limits.— ConcordeCX
Another one falling for the hype. Why are so many so gullible about this stuff?
nbrus wrote:
Where to start…
Maybe with “Usain” Bolt…
He’s kind of a pedestrian, with about 95kg of mass, no?
Unlikely to be travelling at 27mph for much longer than 200 yards, no?
Do you spot any differences between him and a car, say even a little one, like a Fiat 500, that is over 5 times his mass and has no tissue or flesh?
Is it just a bit possible that we might make laws that treat the damage dealt by such different vehicles, er, differently? Kind of how they already do?
Here’s a clue…
It might be just a tad fucking cretinous, short-sighted, and fuckwitted to suggest that “Every sensible driver already drives at a speed appropriate for the conditions” is any kind of solution when 5 people die every fucking day on the roads.
davel wrote:
Let’s say you’re driving around town at 01.00 am in the morning and no one is around … do you think a 20 mph speed limit is appropriate for these conditions? Is it ok for police, ambulance, and fire services to break speed limits? Most in town traffic rarely reaches 20 mph as it is.
nbrus wrote:
Yes!
nbrus wrote:
I don’t know about ‘everyone’, but I for one certainly didn’t regard Aliston as blameless. Even if I thought the police ‘reconstruction’ was shockingly stupid, and felt annoyed by the glaring double-standard displayed in the whole affair, Aliston did screw up in several ways.
In any case, in that example the victim stepped out at a distance where a car going at 20mph would have been unlikely to stop in time (6.5m, about the precise idealised stopping distance for a car at that speed – and since when do motorists stay under the speed limit?), so what’s the relevance to a discussion about 20mph limits?
As for ‘every sensible driver’ and ‘speed appropriate for the conditions’… Firstly there are huge numbers of drivers who are not sensible. Secondly what does ‘appropriate for the conditions’ even _mean_? I don’t understand what that phrase is supposed to mean. Appropriate for whose needs and priorities? The driver’s or everyone else’s? Fast traffic is intimidating to both pedestrians and cyclists, and it greatly increases the cost to those road users of driver errors.
It’s not up to drivers alone to decide what is ‘appropriate’, the roads in urban areas don’t belong to them, they are there on sufferance. in more than a few roads I’d prefer a speed limit for motorised traffic of zero. I’ll settle for 20. Why do you want to drive down my streets at high speed? Leave home earlier or get a bike!
You can’t outlaw Bolt, he’s
You can’t outlaw Bolt, he’s the peoples favourite!
A 20mph speed limit is not
A 20mph speed limit is not draconian.
ktache wrote:
It is to Hussain Bolt!
ktache wrote:
I tried to Google it, but it doesn’t seem as if Draco said much about traffic law. He imposed the death penalty for stealing a cabbage, apparently, but nothing about speeding chariots.
Here are my predictions, on
Here are my predictions, on the basis of the recent successful hate campaign waged by Kim Briggs’ widower with the help of the Daily Mail and the Daily Mail-owned London Evening Standard, anxious to please their paymasters in the automobile and petrochemical industries.
1. Helmets will be made compulsory for all cyclists. It won’t matter that Kim Briggs would not have been saved by a helmet on Charlie Alliston’s head. It won’t matter that there is very little reliable, peer-reivewed and methodologically sound research to indicate that helmets save lives. None of that will matter, because savings lives isn’t what it’s about. It’s about punishing cyclists for every single person killed on Britain’s roads over the past fifty years, whether they were killed by cyclists, car drivers, motorcyclists, lorry drivers, falling masonry or indeed by tripping on the kerb and hitting your head on the pavement.
2. Hi-viz will be made compulsory for all cyclists. Again, this would not have changed the outcome of the Alliston-Briggs incident. And again, none of that will matter a fuck for the reasons I outlined above. If you ask when cars are all going to have be painted bright yellow, you’ll be laughed at. Or ignored.
3. Legislation will be changed to bring cyclists into line with car drivers with regard to speed limits. It is my belief that they don’t apply in Royal Parks, but the legislation would seem to indicate that they do. We need a test case, but in the current climate, any test case would have an outcome that it is woefully trivial to predict. Indeed, the only question on the Appeal Court’s lips wouldn’t be whether speed limits apply to cyclists in Royal Parks, but whether they could pin the blame for the extinction of the dinosaurs on us as well. So speed limits will apply to cyclists. Ask anyone why they should, when your average cyclist would need to be doing 125 mph to have the same kinetic energy as a car at 30 mph, and you’ll get accused of being in favour of law-breaking. Well, that’s if they don’t accuse you of being a pædophile, of course.
4. Cyclists will be forced to use a cycle lane when one is available, and there will be a hefty fine for non-compliance, which will be a far greater sum than a car driver could expect for a s. 2 or s. 3 offence, despite the greater potential for harm. In addition, any collisions involving cyclists and pedestrians will be considered the former’s fault by default. That’s right: ‘presumed liability’ is a political hot potato and thanks to the efforts of three of the UK’s top terrorist organisations – the Daily Mail, the RAC and the AA – will never make an appearance on Britain’s political landscape. At least not for car drivers.
5. Use of the ‘ASL’ (Advanced Stop Line) by drivers and motorcycles will be decriminalised. The effect of this will be twofold. On the one hand, it will free up valuable resources in the UK’s police forces, so that the latter can devote more time to monitoring Facebook and Twitter, as well as nicking people who say nasty things on public transport. The other effect will be to reduce the statistics for road offences reported to the police. The Transport Secretary will appear on national television and in august, measured tones will assure the Tory mouthpieces at the BBC, the Telegraph and the Daily Mail that ‘… this government is committed to reducing road deaths across the board, and these latest figures reveal that we are getting it right!’ The media will lap it up, and the idiots who believe what they read in their newspapers or on the web, will lap it up too.
6. Compulsory testing, registration and insurance will finally be introduced for cyclists, with hefty fines for those who fail to comply. All new bicycles will be required by law to be fitted with RFID transmitters which will – thanks to a national network of posts by the side of the all roads, paid for out of the ‘Poor Little Kim Briggs Memorial Fund’ (a charity registered in England & Wales) – allow cyclists who commit offences to be located. Cycling UK’s request that these transmitters be installed in motor vehicles will be rejected by the human rights group Liberty as ‘an unacceptable infringement on freedom of movement’.
7. VED will be renamed ‘road tax’.
Some of these will be implemented soon. I believe that all of them will be in place within a decade.
I’ve been wondering for ages
I’ve been wondering for ages why we don’t police speeding with a GPS system, that relatively speaking would be pretty cheap and loads better than the current system.
Everyone has a compulsory GPS tracker in any road liscensed vehicle, that doesn’t log where you go but does ping a message to law enforcement every time you go over the speed limit but more than a few mph.
It would stop everyone whining about how unlucky they are when they get caught for speeding and the fines could be very small. Alot of current drivers would really notice pretty quickly if they got fined £10 every time they exceeded the speed limit, or got 3 points every 20 times.
Am I missing an obvious reason why this wouldn’t work as I can’t be the first to think of it- and seems like such an easy win.
I get that it would be politically difficult at first- but it isn’t like there aren’t a ton of restrictions already on car ownership, and I imagine the trackers being fitted in the liscense plates for example.
PeterPeterPeter wrote:
The real problem is unsafe driving, not speeding, which is an attempt to limit unsafe driving. Unfortunately, GPS systems aren’t yet able to detect unsafe driving. Self-driving or A.I. assisted vehicles could solve this issue.