20mph Speed Limits

[mickle]

So I'm an idiot, which makes someone like you, who has never met me or seen me drive...what, exactly? Prejudiced, perhaps? Ignored, certainly.

Idiots like you. Which isn't calling you an idiot. The speed limit is a line over which you must not cross. If the speed limit (the clue is in the name) is used as a guide then there is no line. Which is why the majority of people I encounter on my commute routinely drive too fast. Idiotic behaviour.

Exceeding the speed limit is so routine that it has become normalised. I don't give a flying f*** how good a driver you imagine yourself to be - on any road where you are likely to encounter more vulnerable road users you should be driving at less than the speed limit. End of.

 

[mangaman]

Utter, utter nonsense, and spoken by someone who clearly has no knowledge or understanding of the IAM course or its test. On my test, when approaching the M56 junction south onto the A556, which at the time had an immediate 30mph drop in the speed limit onto the slip road, my tester agreed with me that it could be dangerous. I ignored it for a good 500 yards before slowing for the bend. Guess what, no mention of that was made in my assessment, and I passed. If you must know, I was chided for not covering the brake pedal while approaching certain hazards, a flaw in my driving that I quickly fixed.

Look on the IAM website

http://www.iam.org.uk/the_advanced_test/whattheexaminerexpects.html

and look at progress.

The posted limit is a limit but a target but you should not exceed it.

My choice is to believe them or your single anacdote.

I know which I believe.

 

[Parrot of Doom]

I know where you are coming from Parrot but I cannot support your view. I have read Roadcraft, Motorcycle Roadcraft and Cyclecraft I am definitely a better more observant rider for it, minimising risk to me and others around me. However, there are important points missing from your argument.

Unexpected things happen. When they do, speed will be a factor.

People fear traffic, especially speeding traffic. Even if you are safe, the faster you go the less people will walk and cycle in that environment.

Collective responsibility. Even if you are the best driver in the world, other drivers who lack your observational ability will feel justified in speeding when they see you do it.

​

Motorcycle Roadcraft opens with an entire chapter on rider attitude and how it contributes to the danger. Your post comes over as one with attitude.

Thankyou for bringing some sanity to this discussion. I completely agree with most of the points you've made, which is why you'll find me crawling along at 10mph through residential streets filled with parked cars, and why you'll find a queue of angry motorists behind me as I wait patiently behind the cyclist pootling along between pinch points, or why I'll be the one doing 30mph along a foggy motorway. Observation and anticipation are key elements of safe driving. Speed is another, but I believe that years of educating people at the school of "obey the speed limit = safe" isn't constructive. People have become hung up on speed, I believe at the cost of concentration and anticipation.


Of course unexpected things happen, part of driving safely is to anticipate those things. A ball popping out from behind a car may mean a child will follow shortly. A dark country lane at night may be a route used by deer or sheep. Some people here don't seem to understand that someone who exceeds the speed limit cannot factor these possibilities into his driving. Maybe that belies their driving experience, I don't know.

As far as collective responsibility goes, I don't believe I'm responsible for the behaviour of other road users. If I encounter an obstruction around which the cars in front of me are driving, thereby blocking my view of oncoming traffic, or a hazardous junction, I will wait until I know it's clear to proceed. It isn't right to blame others for your own mistakes. Going down that line leads to people blocking overtakes by accelerating to close the gap, an insanely dangerous manoeuvre.

 

[Buddfox]

Exceeding the speed limit is so routine that it has become normalised. I don't give a flying f*** how good a driver you imagine yourself to be - on any road where you are likely to encounter more vulnerable road users you should be driving at less than the speed limit. End of.

Just so I'm clear, does this mean if you're on a road where you're not likely to encounter more vulnerable road users it's OK to drive above the speed limit? Isn't that the point Parrot of Doom is making?

The original statement of breaking the speed limit every day appears to have been interpreted as if it is happening only in a 30mph zone. Which might be not be the case. When I find myself on the M4 in South Wales at 2am, for example, I'm unlikely to stick to 70mph as I'll be the only car on the road. I assume we're not saying this is the same as driving at 35mph in a 30 zone in a built up area?

 

[Wankelschrauben]

I'm not familiar with the detail, but isn't the point that the blood/alcohol limit which is applied to drivers of cars, motorbikes etc. is not applicable to cyclists? i.e. if you're drunk on a bike, they can't ding you if you fail a breathalizer (sp?) test, it's down to the judgement of the officer as to whether you are too drunk to cycle properly.

If it's the former, the police should get out in London on a Friday and Saturday night - drunks on Boris Bikes abound!

I am merely stating that laws can be and have been interpreted by judges in a manner they see fit with regards to cyclists.

Cyclists are not beyond the rules of the road and cyclists should therfore not cycle as if they are.

 

[StuartG]

Utter, utter nonsense, and spoken by someone who clearly has no knowledge or understanding of the IAM course or its test. On my test, when approaching the M56 junction south onto the A556, which at the time had an immediate 30mph drop in the speed limit onto the slip road, my tester agreed with me that it could be dangerous.

Just as he or anybody else would agree to me proceeding deliberately through a red light if there was a fire engine behind.

So there was insufficient distance to slow safely between seeing the sign and entering the zone. Fine. That's why we see an increasing number of advance signs or intermediary (50/40) restrictions so you don't have to do it. And you wouldn't next time when you know its there would you?

Arguing a general behaviour (treat speed limits as a guide) from the exceptional does suggest you really are flapping in the wind on this one.

Anyway bye-bye. I see you haven't yet posted your registration so I won't be able to wave/take cover when you pass but do troll on ... but without me.

 

[Buddfox]

I am merely stating that laws can be and have been interpreted by judges in a manner they see fit with regards to cyclists.

Cyclists are not beyond the rules of the road and cyclists should therfore not cycle as if they are.

Got it - and if it was implied, wasn't questioning the argument, just trying to understand better how it might work. Although dangerous, Boris Bikes late at night in London can be quite entertaining to observe!

 

[Dan_h]

I'm not familiar with the detail, but isn't the point that the blood/alcohol limit which is applied to drivers of cars, motorbikes etc. is not applicable to cyclists? i.e. if you're drunk on a bike, they can't ding you if you fail a breathalizer (sp?) test, it's down to the judgement of the officer as to whether you are too drunk to cycle properly.

If it's the former, the police should get out in London on a Friday and Saturday night - drunks on Boris Bikes abound!

Yes, that is exactly what I was trying (rather ineloquently perhaps) to say!


Mind you I am not sure how relevant this all is, I have a 14 mile commute, and there is no where that I can think of that I could break the speed limit if I wanted to. The 20mph sections tend to have lots of queueing cars and it would have to be a particularly steep downhill for me to break 30 or 40! The law about cycling while drunk also seems academic, not wanting to die there is no way that I am sticking myself in front of any speeding motorists without being as alert as possible!

 

[Parrot of Doom]

Fatuous claptrap. They are trained to drive at those speeds, and have lights and sirens to warn other road users.
Maybe the limits were reduced precisely because the previous limit was dangerous, did you consider that?

I did say that I don't share their experience or qualifications. Did you miss that? Perhaps it was hidden under the froth of indignation which appears to be dribbling down your monitor.

I know of at least one road local to me where the speed limit was reduced by 20mph for no other reason than the rules on setting speed limits changed, allowing the highways agency to look at the road's average speed, and not it's 85th percentile speed. The change had nothing to do with safety, being made on what is a remarkably safe road.

Accidents will always happen. We should take a broad approach to reducing them, or reducing their impact. I'm focussing on speed here, because that's what the thread is about! If you want to discuss poor observation, which I agree is a significant problem, then that's a subject for another thread. You haven't satisfactorily responded to my point that increase in speed will by definition make an accident both more likely and more serious.

Of course increased speed will make any accident more serious, I don't disagree with you there. What I disagree with is the government's emphasis on reducing speed as a way of making the roads safer, instead of improving driving standards.

Just to make the point, I believe that there are nowhere near enough traffic police on duty on our roads. I'd support many thousands more. And while I'm on the subject, most traffic police will not prosecute for minor infringements of the speed limit. My experience tells me that most motorway cops, for instance, are more interested in those people who don't notice the huge white Volvo that's been behind them the last 30 seconds while they've been doing 90mph in the outside lane.

I think you'll find that we just have no patience for people who excuse dangerous driving.
Well if you don't like it, you know what to do.

I have not, do not, and never will excuse dangerous driving. Please do me a favour, don't ever try to suggest that I do.

 

[mickle]

Just so I'm clear, does this mean if you're on a road where you're not likely to encounter more vulnerable road users it's OK to drive above the speed limit? Isn't that the point Parrot of Doom is making?

The original statement of breaking the speed limit every day appears to have been interpreted as if it is happening only in a 30mph zone. Which might be not be the case. When I find myself on the M4 in South Wales at 2am, for example, I'm unlikely to stick to 70mph as I'll be the only car on the road. I assume we're not saying this is the same as driving at 35mph in a 30 zone in a built up area?

Absolutely.

 

[dawesome]

I believe that pavement cycling actually DOES feature as a statistically significant factor in RTCs, I would go and look up the statistics, but I only have a few minutes of lunch break left and this is probably the wrong thread for it anyway!

Then you'd be wrong:


In London between 2001-05 there were 17 pedestrians killed by motor
vehicles on pavements or verges, and not a single cyclist.

http://www.ctc.org.uk/resources/campaigns/0911_CP_RLJ-pavement_brf.pdf

 

[jds_1981]

Nope, it's a silly straw man, nobody's proposed making the speed limit 5mph for cyclists and it will never happen. The default speed limit for all residential streets should be 20mph, the evidence, which you've first claimed was "biased" and then ignored clearly demonstrates this.

I think I fairly well demonstrated that the evidence that I referred to was biased. So I don't care to rehash it (although I don't understand your point as to why an intermediary year was used when there was a graph above with a different figure where a 'better' comparison with the country could be made - which in this case didn't show such a great improvement.)

Your other point you misunderstand my point once more. Why are you arguing for a 20mph limit, as opposed to 10, or 5? Why not then apply this to things other than cars? I've seen cyclist and joggers hit pedestrians before, when they were traveling below 20.
I think that either you've considered it before & you've decided that the number of accidents and deaths that happen at 20mph are acceptable, or you're working on an emotional point that you haven't considered well. If the former, why 20, if the latter, perhaps you need to consider your 20mph limit more?

 

[dawesome]

Utter, utter nonsense, and spoken by someone who clearly has no knowledge or understanding of the IAM course or its test. On my test, when approaching the M56 junction south onto the A556, which at the time had an immediate 30mph drop in the speed limit onto the slip road, my tester agreed with me that it could be dangerous. I ignored it for a good 500 yards before slowing for the bend. Guess what, no mention of that was made in my assessment, and I passed. If you must know, I was chided for not covering the brake pedal while approaching certain hazards, a flaw in my driving that I quickly fixed.

Again with the unverifiable anecdotes, flatly contradicted by the IAM's website.

How's it going with the evidence you were getting that someone doing 28 in a 30 zone on their driving test would fail.

 

[Dan_h]

Then you'd be wrong:


In London between 2001-05 there were 17 pedestrians killed by motor
vehicles on pavements or verges, and not a single cyclist.

http://www.ctc.org.u...avement_brf.pdf

Fair enough, I stand corrected!

 

[benb]

I did say that I don't share their experience or qualifications. Did you miss that? Perhaps it was hidden under the froth of indignation which appears to be dribbling down your monitor.

So you accept that you are not trained or qualified to exceed the speed limit, but do so anyway?

I know of at least one road local to me where the speed limit was reduced by 20mph for no other reason than the rules on setting speed limits changed, allowing the highways agency to look at the road's average speed, and not it's 85th percentile speed. The change had nothing to do with safety, being made on what is a remarkably safe road.

Says you. I think I'd rather trust people actually qualified in road safety and planning to make those decisions, not someone who treats speed limits with contempt.

Of course increased speed will make any accident more serious, I don't disagree with you there. What I disagree with is the government's emphasis on reducing speed as a way of making the roads safer, instead of improving driving standards.

Just to make the point, I believe that there are nowhere near enough traffic police on duty on our roads. I'd support many thousands more. And while I'm on the subject, most traffic police will not prosecute for minor infringements of the speed limit. My experience tells me that most motorway cops, for instance, are more interested in those people who don't notice the huge white Volvo that's been behind them the last 30 seconds while they've been doing 90mph in the outside lane.

At last we agree on something - we should be reducing speeds and improving driving standards. In fact the former is part of the latter.

I have not, do not, and never will excuse dangerous driving. Please do me a favour, don't ever try to suggest that I do.

I will. You have excused excess speed, which is dangerous whether you say it is or not.