20 mph speed limit on the way?

[Tetedelacourse]

I'm aware of that, and you're aware that people have already quoted studies that back up the claim that 20mph limits improve safety. You seem to be ignoring the point I put forward, that this is as much about perception of safety as it is about safety itself. It is about empowering people to use the roads because they feel safer, and because they feel safer there will be more of them (cyclists and pedestrians), and thus they will actually be safer..

Your post is about the perception of safety. The article is not.

We're not changing the attitudes of problem motorists by changing speed limits. We can change how everyone else uses road space though.

Still sounds like on one hand you're saying "we can't change attitudes so let's lower the limit" and then on the other you're saying "lowering the limit will change attitudes".

 

[Tetedelacourse]

I don't understand, how can you argue against the fact that lower speeds will equal fewer and less severe accidents?

I can see that you don't understand. I asked what percentage of accidents are caused by people driving within a 30mph limit. The implication being that if there are very few accidents caused by people driving within the limit, then dropping the limit from 30 to 20 wont have much of an effect on the amount of serious RTAs that get reported.

 

[bonj2]

Do those who advocate it drive at 20mph in a 30mph limit normally?

I think this is a very good question, and I would like to see some answers to it by those who advocate 20mph limits.
I guess they won't be forthcoming though.

 

[magnatom]

I can see that you don't understand. I asked what percentage of accidents are caused by people driving within a 30mph limit. The implication being that if there are very few accidents caused by people driving within the limit, then dropping the limit from 30 to 20 wont have much of an effect on the amount of serious RTAs that get reported.

I personally agree with the reduction in limit, so long as it is limited to more minor roads, i.e. where it is appropriate. There are a number of roads near me that would not suit 20mph, i.e. there is little need for it due to good visibility, wide road, etc.

Tete,

People generally don't keep within speed limits. In general people appear to aim for about 10 mph above the limit. Obviously this is wrong, but it is a fact of life. I think if limits were reduced to 20, then realistically we could expect that most folk would drive at 30mph. So I am sure that reducing the limit would have an effect, just not the effect that is quoted.

 

[Cab]

I think this is a very good question, and I would like to see some answers to it by those who advocate 20mph limits.
I guess they won't be forthcoming though.

Easy for me to answer. Haven't got a car.

Its bloody hard cycling at 20mph and lower in many towns without some idiot literally trying to run you off the road for being so slow. Try it next time you're out driving, see what response you get from other motorists; driving at 20mph in a 30mph zone is rather a different prospect to driving at 20mph in a 20ph zone.

 

[Emu]

There's a 200 metre stretch of 20MPH road that I drive along every Saturday morning. Whilst driving at 20 I have been hooted at, tailgated and overtaken! The only place people drive this stretch of road at 20 is by the speed camera where inevitably people stamp on their brakes to slow down. I have no idea why there is this speed restriction. It's a wide road and rarely to you have to drive round parked cars but with a couple of side roads that I suppose would be quite difficult to get out of if someone was driving at 40 instead of 30. The place for 20 MPH speed limits is in roads similar to one I live on where there is parking both sides and only space for one car to drive through. The parking is dense and the potential for a person stepping out between cars is high.

 

[asterix]

It's a good idea.

I also think that all cars should be redesigned so that the driver has to pull the accelerator up to go faster. Each time they are convicted of speeding then a stronger spring will be added making it more effort to go faster.

 

[andy_wrx]

The difference being, and it's a critical one, that the speed limit doesn't actually apply to cyclists. Or pedestrians. Or horses. Or wheelchairs. And so on. It is SPECIFICALLY related to MOTOR VEHICLES. Comprendez?

I know that.
I said so.

Which bit of my post about the law applying only to motorised traffic and not bicycles is it that you don't comprendez ?!?!?

 

[Cab]

Your post is about the perception of safety. The article is not.

Your point?

Still sounds like on one hand you're saying "we can't change attitudes so let's lower the limit" and then on the other you're saying "lowering the limit will change attitudes".

Different sets of people. Can't change the attitude of the hardened speeder with enforcement of lower limits, but you can give the pedestrians and cyclists their crack of the whip that way.

 

[andy_wrx]

Not really. I've got massively less kinetic energy than a car, and I represent a tiny risk to others. I'm less able to exceed the speed limit in any conditions. I'm also not covered by speeding laws when cycling. Apples and oranges.

I know we're not covered by speeding laws (outside Richmond Park or wherever a local bylaw applies)

Dom details that the law doesn't apply to cyclists, pedestrians, horseriders and invalid carriages

OK. I accept your point about kinetic energy and risk, when applied to cyclists and pedestrians...

...but how do you feel about someone riding a horse down a residential street at more than 20mph ?
Or an electric wheelchair ?

The speed limit law doesn't apply to them.

But the kinetic energy->damage & injury point does, as does the lack of control->risk

If we are to have a 20mph limit, I think it should apply to all traffic, including cycles and anything else on the road.

Any argument about the risk being low if it's done sensibly and safely is very much the sort of argument S*** Sp**d peddle

 

[BentMikey]

A cyclist killed a pedestrian at 25mph recently. That implies that Cab is wrong.

 

[gambatte]

I don't know if there is evidence that driving at 20mph would reduce the number of accidents.

However there is evidence that you're less likely to be killed by a car doing 20 than 30. If memory serves its something like 80% less likely.

So while theres no evidence as to fewer 'accidents' theres evidence to suggest fewer fatalities, which is what they were studying

 

[col]

I personally agree with the reduction in limit, so long as it is limited to more minor roads, i.e. where it is appropriate. There are a number of roads near me that would not suit 20mph, i.e. there is little need for it due to good visibility, wide road, etc.

Tete,

People generally don't keep within speed limits. In general people appear to aim for about 10 mph above the limit. Obviously this is wrong, but it is a fact of life. I think if limits were reduced to 20, then realistically we could expect that most folk would drive at 30mph. So I am sure that reducing the limit would have an effect, just not the effect that is quoted.

Agreed,theres no point in limiting larger roads,as people who speed,will go as fast as they deem safe anyway.So wont actualy achieve anything.

 

[gambatte]

people who speed,will go as fast as they deem safe anyway.So wont actualy achieve anything.

Till they get that 4th ticket that means they've lost their licence.

They do lose 'em

Next door neighbours car has been sat on the drive for 2 months, can't use it again for another month. By that time his first ticket will be 3 years old and therfore off his licence, so he'll have 9 pts.

Problem he hasn't sussed yet is that the insurance companies keep them on record for 5 years, not 3.

He's going to get stung for insurance, if he can even get cover.

 

[col]

Till they get that 4th ticket that means they've lost their licence.

They do lose 'em

Next door neighbours car has been sat on the drive for 2 months, can't use it again for another month. By that time his first ticket will be 3 years old and therfore off his licence, so he'll have 9 pts.

Problem he hasn't sussed yet is that the insurance companies keep them on record for 5 years, not 3.

He's going to get stung for insurance, if he can even get cover.

The only problem with that is,how long it takes,and what they may have caused on the way?