20mph speed zones

[StuartG]

I don't like 20 mph areas thinking myself the best judge of speed to which I should take full responsibility. However having just read the comments on the BBC site I am again reluctantly appalled by the mentality of some car drivers. To think was they say is bad - to publish it is mad.

I still don't think 20 mph zones are the sole answer. We need a programme to dramatically reduce car traffic in built up areas. In London we have a public transport system that can make many journeys redundant. Building up the StreetCar concept for the rest could clear our streets from the clutter that is a danger for pedestrians and cyclists. Why, it might even be safe for buses and StreetCars to do 30 mph in this new world ...

 

[porteous]

Work life balance

I agree with Stuart G, we need a total transport rethink. Lower speed limits AND less travel perhaps? We also seem to expect to drive for an hour to get to work. I rather like the French approach, where jobs go out to where people live , in the form of subsidised small (and large) factories, government offices, etc. If we really need to bump start the economy with public works why not rebuild some old railways to take trams and put in a REAL bicycle network while increasing local bus services? I drive a Volvo estate and hold car and bus licences as well as riding a bike, I would much prefer to use bikes more and the car less! British transport planning sems to have no rationale whatever, IMHO. Jobs to where people live, infrastructure projects to encourage local public transport and bicycle use! Sensible local speed limits, 20mph in narrow residential, or near schools, etc, 30 elsewhere. Big towns 40 on main arteries. Nothing wrong with motorways for major journeys.

 

[StuartG]

Be careful. Many of our cities had work in the middle with people living around. This is the best system for public transport with their 'star' networks. In London it is very easy to get from almost anywhere to the centre of London. In can be very challenging to go anywhere else.

It is also the worst system for vehicle traffic creating a natural congestion zone and making it worse by turning into a daytime parking lot too.

Whilst you and I would like to see a lot more cycling - realistically for many people public transport is the alternative to commuting by car. So centralising work is best?

 

[Cab]

Seems irrefutably true now that lower speed limits in urban areas save lives, and as the time taken to travel from A to B in towns is overwhelmingly governed by congestion, traffic lights and junctions, it isn't like anyone is really slowed down by this.

Lower speed limits and good enforcement will save lives. Ain't difficult.

 

[StuartG]

This is what worries me. Most of the residential streets around here with two lines of parked cars are hard to navigate at much more than 20 mph anyway. However even at that speed they obscure vision and ability to swerve so an ill timed dash out between cars puts you in death's lottery.

Whereas in the more leafy surburbs with drives and garages - then a 30 mph means 40 mph away from speed cameras.

Which would make the actual raw observations interesting. There is the danger of oversimplification in drawing broad conclusions especially as the law needs to be simple.

As a thought and a sop to the motoring lobby who cannot be ignored - might it be a bargain that we reduce residential limits to 20mph and in exchange increase motorway limits to 80mph albeit with higher penalties for exceeding (up to 90 fine & points, upto 100 automatic 2 year disqualification, over 100 lifetime disqualification). At least no pedestrians or cyclists would be endangered ...

 

[marinyork]

Much more interesting would be to see where the areas were that 20mph limits where applied & if this lasted longer than an 'novelty period'. There's no point in blanket 20mph speed limits where it has no relevance as all you'll do is alienate the driving population & devalue the importance of 20 limits when they really are appropriate. That said I'm for 20mph limits in residential areas.

I used to think like this but having lived on a 20mph zone I now see that there isn't this distinction. Motorists say this line but in reality are convinced that nearly all 20mph limits are "bogus". You can have a busy ped area many hours a day, a busy school and they'll come out with the same tired old line about why do we have to have 24hr 20mph zones and the ranting and raving goes on. Motorists support school 20mph zones as it doesn't threaten their world view, just splash a 20 zone for 2x30 minute periods and it is business as usual. If you have 20mph zones in even a small percentage of roads it starts to affect people's bad habits - the monospeed drivers, the aggressive drivers and so on.

 

[jonesy]

The engine will reach full operating temp, low speed + higher rim = slightly faster warm up in general but it'll mean people are driving in lower gears so thus lower fuel economy & more emissions.

Indeed, the AA are very keen to point this out, though for an organisation that is clearly so concerned about emissions they seem reluctant to mention the CO2 savings you'd get from reducing speeds on motorways, where a vastly greater proportion of total mileage is driven...

 

[just jim]

I like driving around at 20mph. It's less stressful. What's the hurry? Leave the house 5 minutes earlier if it matters that much.

 

[addictfreak]

Bring back the man with the red flag.

Motor vehicles in urban areas are dangerous. Appropriate speed limits are the only way to mitigate that danger. Why does the limit have to be as high as 20mph?

The motor vehicle itself is not dangerous, it becomes dangerous when you introduce people into the equation. Be they drivers, cyclists or pedestrians.

 

[marinyork]

The motor vehicle itself is not dangerous, it becomes dangerous when you introduce people into the equation. Be they drivers, cyclists or pedestrians.

The motor vehicle is dangerous. It's the kinetic energy levels you can get upto easily. As Mr Scott says, you cannae change the laws of physics.

 

[addictfreak]

The motor vehicle is dangerous. It's the kinetic energy levels you can get upto easily. As Mr Scott says, you cannae change the laws of physics.

It wont go anywhere without a person in it, or a person interacting with it.

 

[MacB]

It wont go anywhere without a person in it, or a person interacting with it.

not the point, it carries more kinetic energy when it moves, therefore is inherently more dangerous.

 

[addictfreak]

not the point, it carries more kinetic energy when it moves, therefore is inherently more dangerous.

But as I clearly said, unless a person drives it, or moves it or causes it to move then its not dangerous.

 

[dellzeqq]

But as I clearly said, unless a person drives it, or moves it or causes it to move then its not dangerous.

in that case can we take the wheels off, just to be sure?

 

[Bay Runner]

I view the speed limit as the maximum NOT a target to get to ASAP.

I agree!

I get fed up with annoyed drivers behind me in 20 mph zone thinking the speed limit does not apply to them.

I don’t own a car but I drive my wife's now and again, driving round town with the speed limiter set at 30 mph, same again Mr. Important in his BMW zooms past looking at me as if I am a peasant for not breaking the law !!!!

If 20 mph zones reduce deaths and injuries they have to be a good thing!