20mph limits

[AllThatJazz!]

Green ringed sign shown here:
http://www.northlan.gov.uk/living+h...rt/road+safety/twentys+plenty+initiative.html
These are meant to be used in areas where kids may be playing in the street. Now I reckon that 14 stone of me, plus back pack and bike could still do a fair bit of damage to a 5 year old who runs out from between parked cars 'cos he can't hear my approach. And back to my original question - is that right for me to totally ignore it because speed limits are only applied to motor vehicles, and it isn't mandatory anyway? Or would that make me part of teh selfish "me, me, me" generation.

Now, I do admit that I ride differently on the main trunk roads than the residential back streets, but if the 20 zone is increased to all roads, should I alter the way I ride on all 20mph roads?

So it can be a council design on a play street or something? Only enforceable if red rimmed. Nothing found in any legislation to state a green rimmed like this one binds the driver to comply. Common sense should dictate that he or she should be driving slowly down a residential anyway - and play streets are usually "access only" to residents and their visitors.

If 20 mph becomes a blanket NSL on all urban roads - then I think we cyclists will have to comply so as to blend in the flow of normal traffic (assuming they all obey this limit of course ) I feel safer when "riding in the flow" somehow. Dunno why!

 

[AllThatJazz!]

Isn't the HC quite clear about what the colour and shape of a sign says about its instruction/warning?

If a sign doesn't follow these colours then I'd suggest that they're not enforceable, and that they've purposely been made different to get around the legal message that they would otherwise present.

Thank you! I think that's precisely the point. If these signs are not listed officially - then how these others be enforceable? I would think "advisory" until a law tells us otherwise!

 

[skrx]

I'm not for 20mph zones, just because I know when I start driving again they'll really wind me up.

Your inconvenience of taking an extra couple of minutes to complete your journey is far outweighed by the increased chance of survival of a pedestrian/cyclist that you hit (and I don't care whose fault it is).

(Have you seen this?)

 

[jimboalee]

A downward spiralling circle, I think.

Pedestrian is knocked down - reduce speed limit - pedestrians take risks between slower moving cars - another pedestrian is knocked down - reduce speed limit again - pedestrians take more risks between even slower moving traffic - yet another pedestrian is knocked down - Road is pedestrianised - same thing happens on the alternative route.

 

[Will1985]

I've seen quite a few green circle signs in Stamford - all around residential and school areas.

I think in residential streets 20 limits shouldn't be a problem. This was brought up at the Pushbikes meeting in October. If cars are parked up on both sides, nobody should be going too fast anyway - you never know if a cat/child/ball will appear from between cars or if a muppet opens their door without looking.

If it were imposed everywhere in a town we wouldn't need to worry - as long as we kept up with the traffic we would know that we're doing about 20 (AllThatJazz!, 2009).

That said, I was probably riding the opposite to what I've just said yesterday in north Birmingham - went through a speed camera at 36mph in a 30 residential zone (slightly downhill obviously).

 

[Dan B]

I reckon that 14 stone of me, plus back pack and bike could still do a fair bit of damage to a 5 year old who runs out from between parked cars 'cos he can't hear my approach. And back to my original question - is that right for me to totally ignore it because speed limits are only applied to motor vehicles, and it isn't mandatory anyway?

I would suggest that it is not right for you to ride through these streets faster than suitable for the conditions, and this remains the case whether or not there's a 20mph limit in force that may or may not apply to you.

Which I'm sure you wouldn't disagree with, since you chose that example yourself. The question is what you would do when there is no reason other than the fact of the limit itself to be doing only 20mph (good sight lines, wide straight road, no pedestrians, etc etc).

 

[Origamist]

A downward spiralling circle, I think.

Pedestrian is knocked down - reduce speed limit - pedestrians take risks between slower moving cars - another pedestrian is knocked down - reduce speed limit again - pedestrians take more risks between even slower moving traffic - yet another pedestrian is knocked down - Road is pedestrianised - same thing happens on the alternative route.

It is easier to judge the speed of slower moving cars. Pedestrians will therefore be in a better position to ascertain the risks of crossing.

20mph limits drive speeds down and increase survival rates in the event of a collision.

What's more, we need to move away from the idea that roads are the preserve of motorised traffic. Pedestrians should be able to cross the road without fear and we should be doing what we can to promote walking.

 

[thomas]

Hell - I hope you will not think I am be being a bit rude - but I hope it's a friendly question? I am wondering if you may be colour blind? Green v blue?

Lol, I'm not colour blind...I think there may be some confusion - I don't think I said anything about green signs...or if I did, I did mean blue

Your inconvenience of taking an extra couple of minutes to complete your journey is far outweighed by the increased chance of survival of a pedestrian/cyclist that you hit (and I don't care whose fault it is).

(Have you seen this?)

You've just shown me a reason to do 30mph, not a reason for the introduction to 20mph speed limits. I'm not against 20mph speed limits...and during rush hour outside schools doing 20 is the sensible thing to do...but there is no need to do 20mph past the same school at 11oclock at night when there will not be school kids rushing about.

 

[tyred]

What's more, we need to move away from the idea that roads are the preserve of motorised traffic. Pedestrians should be able to cross the road without fear and we should be doing what we can to promote walking.

Pedestrians need to use the road with due care and attention in the same way as all other road users are expected to. All too often I see peds just walk across the street without even looking what's coming towards them, usually with a mobile phone welded to their ear. I have to agree with Jimbo on this.

 

[Origamist]

Pedestrians need to use the road with due care and attention in the same way as all other road users are expected to. All too often I see peds just walk across the street without even looking what's coming towards them, usually with a mobile phone welded to their ear. I have to agree with Jimbo on this.

I would not disagree with you. However, in built-up areas 20mph makes it easier and safer for both pedestrians and drivers alike.

 

[domd1979]

I'm not sure what the issue is with cycling and 20mph zones - what proportion of cyclists actually exceed 20mph when cycling around town? I know I very rarely do and that's only on the main road when I do. Most people typically cycle at around 10 - 15mph.

 

[HJ]

What is really need is for all road user to apply a bit of common sense, unfortunately common sense tends to be in short supply on the roads so laws brought in instead. However the Law is rather a blunt instrument and so speed limits tend to be fixed 24/7. Under the Road Traffic Act 1991 provision is made for variable speed limits, so in some places there are lower speed limits at certain time of day (ie outside schools during school hours).

For the purposes of this debate it should be noted that according to the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 (c. 27) speed limits apply specifically to "the driving of motor vehicles" and not cyclists, but it should also be noted there is an offence of Dangerous cycling. This is given as

(1) A person who rides a cycle on a road dangerously is guilty of an offence.

(2) For the purposes of subsection (1) above a person is to be regarded as riding dangerously if (and only if)—

(a) the way he rides falls far below what would be expected of a competent and careful cyclist, and

( it would be obvious to a competent and careful cyclist that riding in that way would be dangerous.

(3) In subsection (2) above “dangerous” refers to danger either of injury to any person or of serious damage to property; and in determining for the purposes of that subsection what would be obvious to a competent and careful cyclist in a particular case, regard shall be had not only to the circumstances of which he could be expected to be aware but also to any circumstances shown to have been within the knowledge of the accused.”

So if you were to cycle at a speed above the limit for motor vehicles in a way which caused a danger to other road user, you could be prosecuted for Dangerous cycling. As stated above what is needed is the appliance of a bit common sense...

 

[grhm]

Only enforceable if red rimmed. Nothing found in any legislation to state a green rimmed like this one binds the driver to comply.

The cynic in me thinks they'll have picked green as a percentage of men have red-green colour-blindness - something between 5-10% IIRC.

So any one with red/green blindness won't be able to discern if it's not an enforcable sign.

 

[marinyork]

I'm not sure what the issue is with cycling and 20mph zones - what proportion of cyclists actually exceed 20mph when cycling around town? I know I very rarely do and that's only on the main road when I do. Most people typically cycle at around 10 - 15mph.

What has town got to do with it? Most planned 20mph limits are not in town centres or even in "residential zones" in or near the CBD. If you live somewhere flat like most of the big commuter towns/cities it is routine to see cyclists approaching the 20mph mark. It's only places that are slightly hilly such as Sheffield, extremes of Leeds and Bradford where you see people struggling along at 10mph.

 

[tyred]

The situation needs to move from one of blame, rights and expectation to mutual consideration.

It is hardly considerate to expect a cyclist or driver to have to slam on the brakes because you couldn't be bothered to check for traffic before walking across the road. It works both ways.