# Petition: 30 km/h (20 mp/h) urban speed limit



## Jimmy Doug (29 Jan 2013)

It's about time. Another child was knocked down in our little market town the other day - yet another. I'm sick and tired of seeing cars bombing though our town centre at 50 km/h (or above) when there are pedestrians trying to negotiate the pathetic pavements barely wide enough for two, when children are trying to cross the road and people's pets are being squashed. I'm fed up of the noise, the pollution, the stress ... A pedestrian struck by a car has a 90% chance of survival; a pedestrian hit at 45 km/h has less than 50%. Isn't it time we did something about it? The petition is here.


----------



## GrasB (29 Jan 2013)

Not signing. I've experienced several villages where the setting up of a 20 mph limit has made the village more unpleasant & harder for the villagers to get about their business. I don't want a default, I want the speed limit to be considered properly & not some knee-jerk reaction to people whining about people who are speeding, etc.


----------



## Peter Armstrong (29 Jan 2013)

How about bollards that pop up if you do over 40mph, then smash!!


----------



## Jimmy Doug (29 Jan 2013)

GrasB said:


> Not signing. I've experienced several villages where the setting up of a 20 mph limit has made the village more unpleasant & harder for the villagers to get about their business. I don't want a default, I want the speed limit to be considered properly & not some knee-jerk reaction to people whining about people who are speeding, etc.


 
Since when do people _need_ to drive at 30 mph (or about) in a village? Perhaps it adds 10 seconds to the time to drop the kids off at school. Wouldn't it be better if the kids could actually _walk_ to school in safety instead?


----------



## mickle (29 Jan 2013)

[quote="GrasB, post: 2282368, member: 7408".... I've experienced several villages where the setting up of a 20 mph limit has made the village more unpleasant & harder for the villagers to get about their business..... [/quote]

Which villages? And how exactly was it 'more unpleasant harder for them to go about their business'? Unless you mean more unpleasant and harder for _drivers_?


----------



## GrasB (29 Jan 2013)

Peter Armstrong said:


> How about bollards that pop up if you do over 40mph, then smash!!


Now that's something I could go for 

Seriously, 20mph limits are good in some places but also can cause problems in others. As I said before I don't want a default, that's not just a 20 mph limit but also a 30 mph limit etc. I can think of 2 places I'd put a 10mph limit!


----------



## GrasB (29 Jan 2013)

mickle said:


> [quote="GrasB, post: 2282368, member: 7408".... I've experienced several villages where the setting up of a 20 mph limit has made the village more unpleasant & harder for the villagers to get about their business.....


 
Which villages? And how exactly was it 'more unpleasant harder for them to go about their business'? Unless you mean more unpleasant and harder for _drivers_?[/quote]
Because it becomes a nightmare to cross the road. cars nose to tail or when there's space cars bowling along at much higher than speed limit speed....


----------



## GrasB (29 Jan 2013)

Jimmy Doug said:


> Since when do people _need_ to drive at 30 mph (or about) in a village? Perhaps it adds 10 seconds to the time to drop the kids off at school. Wouldn't it be better if the kids could actually _walk_ to school in safety instead?


You've got to factor in not just the speed but the way motorists respond to that speed limit. It's part of the deal that you have to deal with the psychological effects of a 20 mph limit. If the limits start raising very negative feelings in the motoring public it reflects on their driving & makes navigating the streets by foot awful.


----------



## Linford (29 Jan 2013)

Would agree to a degree with GrasB on the lower speed limits

Arbitrary lower limits will cause more problems for vehicles entering main roads. Nose to tail doing 20mph in the rush hour makes it a nightmare to get out of side roads near me, and people have to wait for a pedestrian crossing to stop the trafficbefore they can join it.

Time and a place for all things. What was the circumstance of the child being hit ?


----------



## Jimmy Doug (29 Jan 2013)

Linford said:


> Time and a place for all things. What was the circumstance of the child being hit ?


 
Three incidents in the last couple of months, in a town of less than 5000 people, one involving an adult, two a child. If you can understand French, here is the first. The bloke was crossing the road on a pedestrian crossing and was hit by a car - he was very badly injured. The second incident involved a 13 year-old child. No details are given, but the road is near my house and I can just picture what happened - child tried to cross at the pedestrian crossing and was hit by a car travelling too fast. The third was reported last week - I have no details on this. There have been several others during the past few years.


----------



## Linford (29 Jan 2013)

Jimmy Doug said:


> Three incidents in the last couple of months, in a town of less than 5000 people, one involving an adult, two a child. If you can understand French, here is the first. The bloke was crossing the road on a pedestrian crossing and was hit by a car - he was very badly injured. The second incident involved a 13 year-old child. No details are given, but the road is near my house and I can just picture what happened - child tried to cross at the pedestrian crossing and was hit by a car travelling too fast. The third was reported last week - I have no details on this. There have been several others during the past few years.


 
It isn't the speed which is the issue in any of what you have quoted, but the poor standard of observation, and being prepared to stop within the distance they can see to be safe....they obviously didn't, and lower speed limits will just get ignored. You need to improve driving standards, not just use a cosh to try and beat people into submission. Half of the drivers on the roads have no idea what the posted limits are on my commute.


----------



## Jimmy Doug (29 Jan 2013)

Linford said:


> It isn't the speed which is the issue in any of what you have quoted, but the poor standard of observation, and being prepared to stop within the distance they can see to be safe....they obviously didn't, and lower speed limits will just get ignored. You need to improve driving standards, not just use a cosh to try and beat people into submission. Half of the drivers on the roads have no idea what the posted limits are on my commute.


 
I agree with some of this but not all. As I said in the OP : 30 km/h - 90% chance of survival in case of being run over; 45 km/h, less than 50 %. The simple fact is, the faster a car is going, the more chance a pedestrian will get killed in case of an accident; and the faster the car is travelling, the more chance there is of an accident. As for the two incidents, there is nothing that points to how fast the cars were travelling at - but as I cross both roads several times a day, I suspect it is: people rarely slow down to 30 in this part of the world, even (in the very rare cases) when it is the marked maximum. This brings me to my point of agreement with you: it's one thing having a speed limit, it's another making people respect that speed limit and getting them to adapt their driving to circumstance. Lowering the speed limit is but a start; it will also be necessary to enforce these limits and educate the average Picard into adapting his of her speed according to conditions.


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (29 Jan 2013)

Signé.


----------



## Linford (29 Jan 2013)

Jimmy Doug said:


> I agree with some of this but not all. As I said in the OP : 30 km/h - 90% chance of survival in case of being run over; 45 km/h, less than 50 %. The simple fact is, the faster a car is going, the more chance a pedestrian will get killed in case of an accident; and the faster the car is travelling, the more chance there is of an accident. As for the two incidents, there is nothing that points to how fast the cars were travelling at - but as I cross both roads several times a day, I suspect it is: people rarely slow down to 30 in this part of the world, even (in the very rare cases) when it is the marked maximum. This brings me to my point of agreement with you: it's one thing having a speed limit, it's another making people respect that speed limit and getting them to adapt their driving to circumstance. Lowering the speed limit is but a start; it will also be necessary to enforce these limits and educate the average Picard into adapting his of her speed according to conditions.


 

The fly in the oiuntment is that by your reckoning, of the survival rates (which drop even more at 40mph), these people died. Now I would suggest that the vehicles hitting them were indeed doing more than 50kmh, and ignoring the existing limits. If people better observe the existing limits, and even more pertinently, observe what is going on around them, then the risks drop for all.

I've done some advanced training, and the thing which gets drummed in the most is observation of urban limits followed by better observation and road positioning to extend the lines of sight to give more time to react.


----------



## DRHysted (29 Jan 2013)

Sorry but I don't want a blanket speed limit, I want proper assessment of roads. The road outside my house is 30mph and I am happy with that, I can't remember anyone being hit let alone killed here (I reserve the right to be wrong). As a child I was taught how to cross roads safely, and to date the only time I've been hit by a car was when he electronic brake released on my sisters car when being jump started.


----------



## mickle (31 Jan 2013)

GrasB said:


> You've got to factor in not just the speed but the way motorists respond to that speed limit. It's part of the deal that you have to deal with the psychological effects of a 20 mph limit. If the limits start raising very negative feelings in the motoring public it reflects on their driving & makes navigating the streets by foot awful.


What a total load of bollocks.


----------



## Jimmy Doug (31 Jan 2013)

mickle said:


> What a total load of bollocks.


 
I have to agree.


----------



## Brandane (4 Feb 2013)

I am a pompous, self righteous, arrogant old git who drives a red Nissan Micra with cushions on the rear parcel shelf, or a traveling rug. I drive EVERYWHERE at 40 mph, so no point in having any speed limits in urban areas, never mind 20 mph.. 40 is my default because it saves me having to concentrate while on major trunk routes, yet it allows me some leeway if I get caught in built up areas. I also like to sit in the middle lane of empty motorways, and I use fog lights no matter the weather. Woe betide any of you reckless youngsters who try to pass me ......


----------



## porteous (4 Feb 2013)

30MPH limits properly enforced and poor/aggressive driving not tolerated under any circumstances would go a long way to protecting pedestrians and vulnerable road users. That, surely, is what we should expect and what we should be demanding?

20MPH limits seem to already be getting put in near schools and where the elderly live, quite properly, but sensible aware driving in 30MPH zones should be perfectly safe. I am a parish councilor and the best we can get is a police presence for part of a day about once every six months to enforce our normal 30MPH limit and 20MPH limit at school day beginning and end. Enforcement is so unlikely that the idiots still pile through at between 40 and 50 with no thought for others.

Proper enforcement and a real effort to change aggressive driving attitudes would be a real step forward so no, I don't support a blanket 20 MPH limit.


----------



## Feastie (22 Feb 2013)

I have to agree with others, what we need is enforcement of the 30mph speed limits (and 40mph for that matter) not more 20mph zones. All the villages around where I live have recently been converted to 20mph, including mine, and when driving it literally sets your blood boiling crawling through villages of empty pavements at a frustratingly slow and pointless 20mph. I frequently cycle faster than many of the cars are allowed to drive, and often feel like the only person following the limit in the first place. So many people just ignore the sign saying 20mph, especially when the road is actually mostly used as a through-road, and continue to travel at the old speed limits of 30mph and 40mph. Unless the road is literally the market square or right on top of a school or something, these limits often seem to have been put in place for the sake of the 1 or 2 pedestrians visible on the street in an hour, in my town at least. More zebra crossings would be better for everyone! Or just pedestrianise town centres, put in speed camera, anything really.

I also disagree that it causes less noise and pollution to have people driving at 20mph... round here, you get huge worming trains of traffic going through, especially in places where the speed limit has suddenly gone from 60mph country roads down to 20mph and so you create a 100% constant flow of traffic for hours every morning and every evening. I don't know whether statistically this causes less pollution, but as a pedestrian or cyclist you have fumes in your face the whole time and a slow parade of wub-wub-wub boy racers creeping past.


----------



## AndyPeace (23 Feb 2013)

Peter Armstrong said:


> How about bollards that pop up if you do over 40mph, then smash!!


 


porteous said:


> Proper enforcement and a real effort to change aggressive driving attitudes would be a real step forward so no, I don't support a blanket 20 MPH limit.


 
Bit expensive to set up.. how about any car caught speeding is crushed, that ought to make a real deterent to breaking speed limits? Could even recoup some of the costs of collecting/crushing cars with the scrap metal.


----------



## Linford (24 Feb 2013)

[QUOTE 2330218, member: 45"]It works and it's safer. It fascinates me the excuses people come up with to argue against more appropriate limits, as more often than not those reasons are driver attitude and nothing more. Terms like "crawling" and "blood boil" are evidence of this. If you cant drive without letting your surroundings affect your mood and resultant behaviour then you shouldn't be driving.[/quote]
Top Gear is doing a custom car for you right now


----------



## snorri (24 Feb 2013)

GrasB said:


> Seriously, 20mph limits are good in some places but also can cause problems in others.


The places where problems will be caused will be vastly outnumbered by the places where safety and the general environment will be greatly improved.


----------



## uphillstruggler (25 Feb 2013)

*Because it becomes a nightmare to cross the road. cars nose to tail or when there's space cars bowling along at much higher than speed limit speed*....[/quote]

cant see that personally, slower cars are more likely to let pedestrians cross in my experience.

hmm


----------



## Linford (25 Feb 2013)

uphillstruggler said:


> *Because it becomes a nightmare to cross the road. cars nose to tail or when there's space cars bowling along at much higher than speed limit speed*....


 
cant see that personally, slower cars are more likely to let pedestrians cross in my experience.

hmm[/quote]

There are in stances where slower speeds cause real issues for getting in and out of junctions. The gaps close, and you just end up with a continuous stream of it in both directions, with nobody wanting to let you out


----------



## uphillstruggler (25 Feb 2013)

Linford said:


> cant see that personally, slower cars are more likely to let pedestrians cross in my experience.
> 
> hmm


 
There are in stances where slower speeds cause real issues for getting in and out of junctions. The gaps close, and you just end up with a continuous stream of it in both directions, with nobody wanting to let you out[/quote]

and this is the sort of behaviour that leads to bypasses. my feeling re 20mph limits are that they should happen on one way streets, outside schools, hospitals etc with the necessary controls in place and anyone breaking the limits, liable to a fine and points above the limits set now. that doesnt necesarily stop drivers going fast straight away but it will in time. its a case of breaking behaviour patterns, similar to the seatbelt law etc.


----------



## Lee_M (25 Feb 2013)

whats the definition of in-town though?

Where I live now (London) it would be obvious which streets should be 20 and which not, where I come from in Yorkshire it would be harder. The local comp is on a corner of two main roads - should they be 20 ? In which case the whole place would be massively snarled up everyday

I don't have a particular axe to grind, but I dont think its as simple as 'outside schools'


----------



## green1 (25 Feb 2013)

Lee_M said:


> whats the definition of in-town though?
> 
> Where I live now (London) it would be obvious which streets should be 20 and which not, where I come from in Yorkshire it would be harder. The local comp is on a corner of two main roads - should they be 20 ? In which case the whole place would be massively snarled up everyday
> 
> I don't have a particular axe to grind, but I don't think its as simple as 'outside schools'


The M8 would be fun. 20 mph through the centre of Glasgow.


----------



## SquareDaff (25 Feb 2013)

30mph is the maximum speed limit. Just because the sign says you can drive at 30mph doesn't mean you have to. Isn't the real issue driver education - i.e. shouldn't you be adjusting your speed based on road conditions? Leave the speed limits as they are and educate drivers (in fact all road users) instead.


----------



## Linford (25 Feb 2013)

User said:


> Why would it? Slowing cars down doesn't mean more cars magically appear on the road.
> 
> In fact, the evidence is that slowing drivers down actually makes traffic flow more smoothly.


 
I say the smoothing of it creates a problem. It is not unusual to wait 5 minutes to exit a junction onto a busy road near me when the traffic is moving more slowly as they spread out, and the safe gaps to move into vanish. People get impatient and force their way out...as was MrP's example last week


----------



## SquareDaff (25 Feb 2013)

[QUOTE 2332749, member: 45"]You'd think this was the answer, but it's never worked. The HC and the driving test cover the education, but still many drivers think they know better.

It's not about knowledge, but attitude.[/quote]
I remember during my lessons - my instructor told me I had to drive at the posted speed limit if I was to pass my test - otherwise the examiners would fail me for driving too slowly. If this attitude was prevalent among the instructors in my region (and possibly nationally) it's no wonder people drive the way they do. If it's still taught that way now then we have a massive problem.


----------



## Linford (25 Feb 2013)

[QUOTE 2332873, member: 45"]If you want to be taken seriously I'd suggest you don't make stuff up.

My thread was the perfect illustration -driver attitude preventing things workign as they should.[/quote]

It's quite simple as I see it really, you wanted to join the flow of the traffic, no gaps in it, you got fed up and whizzed into it putting someones nose out of joint as they felt you were taking a liberty with their safe braking zone ...who then got iffy with you.
I see it day in and day out . I blame the system....


----------



## Linford (25 Feb 2013)

[QUOTE 2332917, member: 45"]I refer you to post #39. Don't be an idiot and derail the thread.[/quote]


Seriously though, if all traffic is slowed down from 30mph to 20mph, then the capacity of the road is reduced by 1/3rdb (ish)

It stands to reason that if you had the same traffic levels on it, a slower road will spend more time being occupied by that number for a longer period of time as the traffic takes a 1/3rd longer time to traverse it . You will get faster traffic more spaced out, or slower traffic all stood still


----------



## wiggydiggy (25 Feb 2013)

[QUOTE 2332937, member: 45"]I think Linf just posted. Can someone tell him he's got a spell on my ignore list?[/quote]

You just did Your ignoring his posts, not him ignoring yours...


----------



## Linford (25 Feb 2013)

User said:


> Why? Does the road space shrink as the speed limit reduces? Or do more cars magically appear as the speed limit reduces?
> 
> You really haven't thought this through, have you? Shall I ask a five year old to explain it to you with some crayons and a couple of toy cars?


 
Are you so sure you have ?

If the number of cars using the road doesn't change but the time which it takes them to traverse it does....and you then knock 1/3rd off that duration (by going from 20mph to 30mph), you actually increase the theoretical capacity of the road by 33% or if the spacings between them at 20mph are even, you increase those spacings.in the same time frame because the cars themselves don't change in size.


----------



## green1 (25 Feb 2013)

User said:


> Why? Does the road space shrink as the speed limit reduces? Or do more cars magically appear as the speed limit reduces?
> 
> You really haven't thought this through, have you? Shall I ask a five year old to explain it to you with some crayons and a couple of toy cars?


In this case he is right. Capacity of a road is reduced as you reduce the speed limit unless you increase the amount of lanes.


----------



## Linford (25 Feb 2013)

Or put another way, if the road can take 100 cars, and only 1 can leave the end of it each minute, speed the flow up so 4 can leave it each minute and you quadruple the capacity. This is why gridlock traffic jams can only cope with the numbers of vehicles in them...because you can't add any more to it.

I thought you were some sort of accountant/auditor dude Reg ?


----------



## Linford (25 Feb 2013)

User said:


> Really? Are you sure about that? Do you want to sit and have a think about what you're suggesting? Perhaps read back on some of the earlier posts?
> 
> 
> 
> You have changed the laws of physics. Someone call the Nobel Committee!


 
I've explained why I feel the argument is flawed, feel free to offer a bit more detail as I just am not seeing your case standing up to scrutiny/


----------



## green1 (25 Feb 2013)

User said:


> Really? Are you sure about that? Do you want to sit and have a think about what you're suggesting?


Think of it in simplistic terms: Think of a road as a conveyor belt filling a hopper, the belt can only take a tonne per meter, what would happen to the capacity (tonnes per hour) if you slowed the speed that the belt was operating at from 30 mph to 20 mph? It would reduce as the time it takes to traverse the belt increases. Okay safe distances between vehicles would reduce but not significantly.


----------



## Linford (25 Feb 2013)

User said:


> Think again about the analogy you're using and what Linford was suggesting (see posts _passim_).


 
How does mine deviate ?


----------



## Linford (25 Feb 2013)

User said:


> You're the one suggesting that the capacity of a road is reduced if you lower the speed limit on it. You're being asked to evidence this assertion.
> 
> So far you are floundering to say the least....


 
Let me put this another way.

Put a bottle neck on it which chokes the exit to 200 cars per hour, modify the bottle neck to ease the problem and that then lets the traffic flow faster....300 cars per hour. It can't get much simmpler than that...
slower = less
faster = more

Come on Reg, it isn't rocket science


----------



## Dan B (25 Feb 2013)

green1 said:


> In this case he is right. Capacity of a road is reduced as you reduce the speed limit unless you increase the amount of lanes.


... or reduce the space between each car. Which, spookily, is what happens if you slow them down - and, exponential functiuons being what they are, by more than the loss due to slowing them down.

I expect I'll now be told that in Safespeed-world it takes less than double the distance to brake from 60 to 0 than from 30 to 0, but that's not what the back cover of the highway code used to say


----------



## Spinney (25 Feb 2013)

Leaflet through the door from the LibDems the other week, with news from MP, LD councillors etc.

One article was about putting a pedestrian crossing in a local village that has a B road going through it. There is a 30 limit there, and I think it might be one of those places with a 20 limit at the beginning and end of the school day.

The end of the debate was that they could not put a crossing there because the traffic was too fast, averaging 42 mph. (I presume there is some issue about the time drivers have to react from the point at which they can see the crossing?).

So, rather than propose measures to make drivers obey the speed limit, the conclusion was that no, you cannot make the road safer to cross by having a crossing.


----------



## snorri (25 Feb 2013)

Linford said:


> I've explained why I feel the argument is flawed,


 
The argument is not one of achieving maximum road capacity, but of improving safety for all users. The optimum speed for maximum capacity appears to be 25-30mph, so lowering the speed limit to 20mph improves safety for all users with the possibility of increased delays only on the roads which are already at or near capacity This makes use of that road less attractive for motor vehicle drivers, thus discouraging those drivers who make unnecessary trips . Sounds good to me.


----------



## Linford (25 Feb 2013)

User said:


> What bottleneck? A speed limit isn't a bottleneck.
> 
> You've got to try harder or you'll end up on my 'Too Thick to Bother With' list...


Have you not heard of the caterpillar effect ?


----------



## Dan B (25 Feb 2013)

Linford said:


> Have you not heard of the caterpillar effect ?


Are you turning into a beautiful butterfly?


----------



## Linford (25 Feb 2013)

Dan B said:


> Are you turning into a beautiful butterfly?


 
Nope, it is where the traffic joins the jam at the back quicker than the traffic at the front leaves it. This can be caused by the weight of the traffic, a bottleneck on it, or by reducing the capacity of the road by choking it with a lower speed limit.


----------



## Dan B (25 Feb 2013)

Linford said:


> This can be caused by the weight of the traffic


Sounds like another argument against the 4x4 ...


----------



## 400bhp (25 Feb 2013)

User3094 said:


> You're using one phenomena to try and disprove another... There's loads of science and maths behind both, but its generally proven that lower speed limits at busier times improve traffic flow. These facts are proven in the manifestation of the successful enforceable variable and average speed limits, such as the M42 and M25 Heathrow. Both of which I have been through many many times, and never been held up.
> 
> If you Google you'll probably find the work behind it.


 
Ive just finished reading this thread. Please can someone move this to the second post and entitle it "in summary"


----------



## Linford (25 Feb 2013)

User3094 said:


> You're using one phenomena to try and disprove another... There's loads of science and maths behind both, but its generally proven that lower speed limits at busier times improve traffic flow. These facts are proven in the manifestation of the successful enforceable variable and average speed limits, such as the M42 and M25 Heathrow. Both of which I have been through many many times, and never been held up.
> 
> If you Google you'll probably find the work behind it.


 
I wouldn't disagree with this, but there is an optimum for average flows, and most places outside the big cities only experience peak congestion for 1/2-1 hour per day, and if the traffic is that heavy it goes to 0mph irrespective of what limit is in place.
Have you ever seen a 20mph limit enforced to keep traffic moving anywhere ?


----------



## Canrider (25 Feb 2013)

Linford said:


> I wouldn't disagree with this, but there is an optimum for average flows, and most places outside the big cities only experience peak congestion for 1/2-1 hour per day, and if the traffic is that heavy it goes to 0mph irrespective of what limit is in place.
> Have you ever seen a 20mph limit enforced to keep traffic moving anywhere ?


I've been on plenty of A-road single carriageways where if everyone keeps rolling at a steady 20mph, everyone gets where they're going much faster than if people start screaming right up to the car in front, then jumping on the brakes, rinse, and repeat.
But you'll have noticed you've changed your tune from '20 zones cause congestion' to 'When does this really happen, anyways?'


----------



## Linford (25 Feb 2013)

Canrider said:


> I've been on plenty of A-road single carriageways where if everyone keeps rolling at a steady 20mph, everyone gets where they're going much faster than if people start screaming right up to the car in front, then jumping on the brakes, rinse, and repeat.
> But you'll have noticed you've changed your tune from '20 zones cause congestion' to 'When does this really happen, anyways?'


 
From my own experiences, I see lower speeds making for more hassle integrating into traffic flows, and that is what I was intimating at. Is that is your interpretation of congestion ?


----------



## DRHysted (26 Feb 2013)

I have the perfect solution.

We make a person walk in front off all motor vehicles with a red flag. This should stop all accidents.


----------



## Jimmy Doug (26 Feb 2013)

First of all, obviously 20 mph will slow down traffic - that's the point! As for the argument that it makes life harder in villages because it takes longer for traffic to pull out - what bunk! The reason why this happens currently (if it happens at all) is obvious to anyone who thinks about it: as people generally expect cars to be travelling at 30 mph (or faster) they're not confident about the speed of oncoming vehicles; if everyone travelled slower, the longer 'wait' for the cars to go past would be compensated for by the fact that the rate at which the vehicles arrive would be slower, meaning that the safe distance to pull out would be reduced. As for the argument that life on the M8 would be harder at 20 mph, grow up! Obviously, the rule doesn't refer to motorways! Although the question about whether it's right to have motorways in the centre of town is another matter.
Some of the comments show why it'll be difficult to change to speed limit. Even on a bicycle forum, some people can't accept that anything touch the sacrilegious motor vehicle. So it'll make it slower to get from A to B in a car; it'll maybe 'choke' traffic. But when you consider that according to official statistics in the GB for 2010, 20% of all journeys in the car were less than 1 mile, that only 2% of trips of less than 5 miles were made by bicycle, *that 20% of people say they took walks of 20 minutes or less only once a year* and that 60% of adults are overweight - I say SO WHAT if car journeys in town become harder? Maybe that way people will start to think beyond their bonnet? Maybe, just maybe, people will start to become a little more intelligent: use the bus, use the bike, *walk* like they used to for God's sake. And when that happens not only will it be easier to walk and cycle in town, it'll also be easier and safer for those who really need their cars (the elderly, the handicapped ...) to drive.
The point is that when pedestrians and cars share the same space, 30 mph is too fast. On my residential road the speed limit is 30 mph. If a child - or an adult for that matter - is hit at that speed there's a very good chance they won't survive; reduce the speed limit by 10 mph, they probably will. And don't anyone dare tell me that children shouldn't be playing outside!


----------



## Linford (26 Feb 2013)

User said:


> But that's bulls***. As I've pointed out, the evidence is that it is easier to pull out when there are lower speeds and that junctions work more efficiently. All you've done is repeat anecdata and try and rewrite the laws of physics, plus throw in a few straw men.


 
And I say that if you slow a vehicle in motion down, it will occupy the measured distance for a longer period of time...that creates congestion, and mrp demonstrated last week that the vehicles who have right of way are disinclined to give it up when the roads are congested....which in turn makes it more difficult for vehicles to join the flows, speed the vehicles up between measured distances, and they occupy that space for a shorter period of time meaning the gaps become bigger and those joiningthe flows have more time to do so safely....come one Reg. I thought you were some sort of super brain.


----------



## Linford (26 Feb 2013)

User3094 said:


> You should get out of Cheltenham more often.


 
Join the epic Mancunian jams every morning and evening....no thanks. I live in the town, I work in the countryside. My commute is against the flow of traffic, and done thankfully when it is reasonably light. If I go in later, it can be a real pain with the weight of the slow moving traffic and reduces everything to a crawl (due to sets of lights clogging junctions). You can keep your rat race ta. I can't wait for the summer and back onto 2 wheels


----------



## Linford (26 Feb 2013)

User3094 said:


> I didn't read past this first bit, on account of it being totally wrong.


 
Prove it


----------



## Linford (26 Feb 2013)

User3094 said:


> Post #73


 
That isn't proof, just the assertion of some random bloke on the internet


----------



## Linford (26 Feb 2013)

User3094 said:


> In terms of comparative randomness.... my moneys on the clever bloke


 
Nope, that doesn't cut it. try harder


----------



## Linford (26 Feb 2013)

User3094 said:


> I beg to differ


 
All he has done is say that there have been many studies done which supports his world view...he hasn't listed them yet so I say put up or shut up. My arguement is based o logic, and personal observation....call it anecdotal but that is 1st hand experience, and that is still worth a lot more than 'i read an article once which said'..........


----------



## snorri (26 Feb 2013)

User3094 said:


> You should get out of Cheltenham more often.


No, I think a lot of us feel safer when we know where he is


----------



## Linford (26 Feb 2013)

User3094 said:


> But I trust his tenuous references to studies and "world views" more than I do your logic and 'personal observations'? Particular as your own choice in motoring is questionable, to say the least.


 
You mean the motorbike ?


----------



## Linford (26 Feb 2013)

User3094 said:


> No


 
2 wheels good


----------



## Dan B (26 Feb 2013)

Linford said:


> My arguement is based o logic


Not in any sense of the word that Aristotle would recognise, no.


----------



## Linford (26 Feb 2013)

User said:


> Deary me, you are in a snit. The studies are easy to find (we know that you google a lot). Here's a few to get you started:
> 
> The COBA Manual
> Improving traffic behaviour and safety through urban design
> Traffic Flow Control using Variable Speed Limits


 
So if you feel that going slower makes no difference to your journey time, why don't you give up the cycle and walk everywhere ?


----------



## benb (26 Feb 2013)

Linford said:


> That isn't proof, just the assertion of some random bloke on the internet


 
Totally unlike the arguments you're putting across then.


----------



## snorri (26 Feb 2013)

Looks as if we've wrapped this one up then, all in agreement.



Yeah, I had noticed Linf, but really......?


----------



## Linford (26 Feb 2013)

User said:


> Deary me, you are in a snit. The studies are easy to find (we know that you google a lot). Here's a few to get you started:
> 
> The COBA Manual
> Improving traffic behaviour and safety through urban design
> Traffic Flow Control using Variable Speed Limits


 
So what you are saying really is that be reducing the speed limit to 20mph, you bring the cars together, and by leaving it at 30mph, they actually bunch more at junctions....if they are bunching more at junctions, then the gaps between them on the open stretches of roads are actually going to widen....bigger gaps, the easier it becomes for traffic to join the flow..... which is what I have been saying all along


----------



## Linford (26 Feb 2013)

[QUOTE 2335419, member: 45"]I thought I'd pop you off the ignore to see how you were getting on. And this....

So what you're saying is that it's easier for traffic to join the flow at points between junctions than at junctions?

Think....very....carefully...about....what....you....just....said....[/quote]
Junctions at which the traffic is obliged to stop at, not junctions which traffic are trying to enter it by. Are we not trying to make it easier for traffic to join the flows by creating bigger gaps for them to jump into ?


These ignore lists are good aren't they


----------



## Jimmy Doug (27 Feb 2013)

This is getting tiresome - really tiresome. I started this thread because I thought it was an important issue and worth an intelligent discussion. As I'm the OP, everyone knows what my views are, but I'm quite prepared to read thoughtful and well-phrased posts that argue against my opinion. But Linford's trolling has destroyed that possibility. Now most of the people who could have contributed in a positive way have probably stopped watching this thread - and I'm about to hit the unwatch button myself. I now see why Linford has a reputation for derailing every thread he joins. Shame.


----------



## Linford (27 Feb 2013)

Jimmy Doug said:


> This is getting tiresome - really tiresome. I started this thread because I thought it was an important issue and worth an intelligent discussion. As I'm the OP, everyone knows what my views are, but I'm quite prepared to read thoughtful and well-phrased posts that argue against my opinion. But Linford's trolling has destroyed that possibility. Now most of the people who could have contributed in a positive way have probably stopped watching this thread - and I'm about to hit the unwatch button myself. I now see why Linford has a reputation for derailing every thread he joins. Shame.


 
What you are really saying is that it is ok for people to contribute as long as their views are in line with yours. You didn't want debate, you just wanted assent....


----------



## Jimmy Doug (27 Feb 2013)

Linford said:


> What you are really saying is that it is ok for people to contribute as long as their views are in line with yours. You didn't want debate, you just wanted assent....


 
Do you read anything? I said in the very post you quoted that I was very happy to have contributions from people whose views differed from mine - but your recent drivel has bored people off this thread. Here is a post I thought was expressed well but wasn't of my opinion. The fact that some members have placed you on their ignore list shows I'm not alone in getting tired of your trolling. As for me, I have more important things to do than re-read the same rubbish; so I'm not watching this thread anymore - at least until you get off it.


----------



## Linford (27 Feb 2013)

Jimmy Doug said:


> Do you read anything? I said in the very post you quoted that I was very happy to have contributions from people whose views differed from mine - but your recent drivel has bored people off this thread. Here is a post I thought was expressed well but wasn't of my opinion. The fact that some members have placed you on their ignore list shows I'm not alone in getting tired of your trolling. As for me, I have more important things to do than re-read the same rubbish; so I'm not watching this thread anymore - at least until you get off it.


 
Your POV is as valid or invalid as mine. I've looked to steer it back to the issue of lower limits, but there are people who would rather play the person than the ball.

Additionally which hasn't been covered is that a 20mph limit makes it virtually impossible for large vehices to get past any one doing 12-15mph....which then means that the limits become whatever that person is doing for anything behind it as they have to spend an unacceptable time on the wrong side of the road to get past.


----------



## Linford (27 Feb 2013)

User said:


> Of course, exactly the same applies when the limit is 30, 40, or 50 mph.


 
It is the time they take on the other side of the road which is my concern. If you force them to crawl past because of a lower limt, they will spend more time looking at the clock and increases the risk of them cutting back in early and taking a cyclist out or hitting something coming the other way.


----------



## Linford (27 Feb 2013)

[QUOTE 2336355, member: 45"]Attitude linf. Horrific attitude. And yours this time.

No-one forces a large vehicle to overtake with a 5mph speed differential in a 20mph limit.

You have soooo much to learn.[/quote]

20mph limits have their place, but not on every single urban road. I say keep things as they are and examine the issue road by road. If you put a 20mph limit inaround a school, then people will respect that more for that reason. put them in everywhere, and they will get ignored 
Incidentally, do you know which type of road the most deaths occur in the UK ?


----------



## Linford (27 Feb 2013)

[QUOTE 2336428, member: 45"]Just out of interest, how did you get here from me pulling you up on your attitude?[/quote]

Because you are insinuating that to think any differently than you do is to be irresponsible and reckless.


----------



## Linford (27 Feb 2013)

[QUOTE 2336488, member: 45"]That isnt an answer to my question.

Do you think that truck drivers are forced to overtake in 20mph limits? No you don't. So you agree with me.[/quote]

No, and realistically I don't think they really should, but they would be forced to that limit whether they road conditions justify it or not if a blanket limit is enforced. I've already stated I've not got an issue with a lower limit being used on narrow residential streets and around schools.

Could I put it any plainer than that ?


----------



## Linford (27 Feb 2013)

[QUOTE 2336518, member: 45"]No, you couldn't. Ironic that I had to force you to though by answering the question for you and asking you to confirm.

Can we forget all the nonsense now then about drivers being forced to do things and unable to join slower-moving traffic flows and move on?

If, at risk of repeating myself, we put safety first and the result is that there are more 20mph limits, then the problem drivers will just have to get over themselves. The roads are no place for pride and ego.[/quote]

This isn't about ego. This is about everyone rubbing along on thetransport network, and finding a happy medium which all can live with. If I put an extra 30 minutes onto your commute each way on the M5 with a permanent contraflow down to 40mph and a few bottle necks for good effect for no apparent reason, you'd want to see me justify it. You seem to be trying to justify blanket restrictions over very wide area's, and I'm asking how and why. I don'tthink that is unreasonable.


----------



## Linford (27 Feb 2013)

User3094 said:


> Life would be a lot more boring if you were this reasonable from the get-go
> 
> Isn't it allowable (in law) to momentarily break the speed limit to overtake? I know speed cameras don't discriminate, but its OK* to overtake cyclists, tractors etc on double white lined roads, so does the same logic applies?
> 
> * Whether this "OK" is actually legal or not I dont actually know - but its definitely a blind eye area if it isnt.


 
A limit is exactly that.


----------



## Sara_H (27 Feb 2013)

I'd be very happy to see 20mph limits for residential areas, but don't really see the point given that the currently 30mph limit is flouted with impunity by the majority of avarage drivers.


----------



## Linford (27 Feb 2013)

[QUOTE 2336548, member: 45"]Ego is all that it's about. The main thing stopping us all getting along and traffic flowing is drivers not putting others first.

I'm wrong, it's not just about ego. It's about ignorance instead.

When you understand how little time is added on by putting others first you'll see it differently.

No I don't, so stop arguing against what isn't being said.

You're putting up arguments against any lower limits, and I'm pushing them over.[/quote]

Jimmy Doug (the OP) is arguing for a blanket limit. You are saying you disagree with him now ?


----------



## atbman (27 Feb 2013)

GrasB said:


> Not signing. I've experienced several villages where the setting up of a 20 mph limit has made the village more unpleasant & harder for the villagers to get about their business. I don't want a default, I want the speed limit to be considered properly & not some knee-jerk reaction to people whining about people who are speeding, etc.


 
I'm fascinated, GrasB, by the idea that complaining about speeding should be described as "whining"? Perhaps you could clarify?

And precisely how has such a limit "made the village more unpleasant & harder for the villagers to get about their business"? Exactly how was it more unpleasant for the people walking or cycling round the village, popping into the local shop(s), crossing the road, walking their kids to school? (Assuming theire are shops/schools). Or does this only apply to villagers driving around, across, through, out of, the village? If so, why are their needs superior to those who aren't driving?


----------



## Linford (27 Feb 2013)

[QUOTE 2336849, member: 45"]I'm not Jimmy Doug. And what relevance does your question have to what you've quoted of mine?[/quote]

OK, Jimmy Doug has done the Daily Mail knee-jerk thing and we haven't even established whether the child getting knocked over was caused by either a vehicle exceeding the posted 50kmh (in which case lowering posted limits are not going to matter a fig), or any other reason he has yet to disclose. Either way, it doesn't really help the situation as we all know that Daily Mail type responses are generally frowned on here.
I think we should take a step back and set out our stall to end this confusion as seem keen to disassociate yourself with knee jerkers.

A) I'm in favour of targeted 20mph limits in urban area's where it can be proven to be beneficial to all concerned.
B) I'm in favour of a blanket lower limit of 20mph in urban area's full stop.
C) I'm in favour of keeping things as the are with the existing limits in urban area's

I'm for 'A'....what say you ?


----------



## Linford (27 Feb 2013)

[QUOTE 2337102, member: 45"]Nonsense. We know what effect speed has on road safety. There's nothing knee-jerk about it, and frankly you're being a bit of an idiot.




Your three options prove that you don't know what you're talking about. Everything with you is loaded, formed from ignorance or shallow thought or just plain daft. I'm bored with it now. We were doing the safespeeding crap years ago and you refuse to move on from it.

And it's areas.[/quote]

Where it can't be proven that it brings a benefit at a specific site, then it is change for the sake of change, and that is unjustifiable.
It isn't a trick, it isn't loaded. That is why I said 'where' and not 'if'.

If you don't agree with my three, provide your own. I'm trying to see if we have any common ground here because you clearly don't agree with Jimmy Doug.


----------



## Bad Company (11 Mar 2013)

[QUOTE 2337245, member: 45"] I can't do this any more.[/quote]

Is that a promise?


----------



## sheddy (13 Mar 2013)

Why has the EU petition had such a low response ? Only 16,000 after 4 months.


----------



## Cyclopathic (14 Apr 2013)

I'd rather it was a blanket 15 mph in all residential areas. I do not accept the arguments made here against blanket limits as they sound more like excuses. What reason is there to go any faster on roads where there are houses? A 15mph speed limit would probably lessen traffic on residential roads (if properly and strictly enforced) because it would make it a waste of time for people to use them as rat runs in rush hours as they try and avoid traffic on major roads.
Also in the most built up residential areas and within a certain distance of schools, libraries and other public buildings there should be a system of pedestrian priority where the entire area is like a huge zebra crossing and motorists be obliged to be on the lookout for people rather than the other way around. If they were going at 15 mph then it would be easy to do this.


----------



## Linford (14 Apr 2013)

Cyclopathic said:


> I'd rather it was a blanket 15 mph in all residential areas. I do not accept the arguments made here against blanket limits as they sound more like excuses. What reason is there to go any faster on roads where there are houses? A 15mph speed limit would probably lessen traffic on residential roads (if properly and strictly enforced) because it would make it a waste of time for people to use them as rat runs in rush hours as they try and avoid traffic on major roads.
> Also in the most built up residential areas and within a certain distance of schools, libraries and other public buildings there should be a system of pedestrian priority where the entire area is like a huge zebra crossing and motorists be obliged to be on the lookout for people rather than the other way around. If they were going at 15 mph then it would be easy to do this.


 
Would you be happy to stick to that as a cyclist, or do you just want it in force for others ?


----------



## Linford (14 Apr 2013)

[QUOTE 2409324, member: 45"]We are the others, silly.[/quote]

Just establishing whether the stance is a blanket one or a biased one


----------



## DRHysted (14 Apr 2013)

Cyclopathic said:


> I'd rather it was a blanket 15 mph in all residential areas. I do not accept the arguments made here against blanket limits as they sound more like excuses. What reason is there to go any faster on roads where there are houses? A 15mph speed limit would probably lessen traffic on residential roads (if properly and strictly enforced) because it would make it a waste of time for people to use them as rat runs in rush hours as they try and avoid traffic on major roads.
> Also in the most built up residential areas and within a certain distance of schools, libraries and other public buildings there should be a system of pedestrian priority where the entire area is like a huge zebra crossing and motorists be obliged to be on the lookout for people rather than the other way around. If they were going at 15 mph then it would be easy to do this.


 
There's an old saying, "if it ain't broke, don't fix it". Where I live it ain't broke, so I don't want a fix for something that isn't a problem.

If this is a problem where you live, I have no problem in you campaigning for a solution, but as long as you keep that campaigning where it is needed. i.e. not here!


----------



## DRHysted (14 Apr 2013)

[QUOTE 2409458, member: 45"]It may not be a problem in terms of collisions in your area, but too often people don't include the social aspect which cyclopathic refers to.[/quote]

It's not in terms of collisions that there isn't a problem with the speed limit being 30mph where I live. It quite simply is not a problem that the speed limit is 30mph. As such I (and my neighbours) do not want, or need some one telling us that we must change the speed limit because there are problems elsewhere.
Change things where they need (or are wanted) change, but don't fix a problem that doesn't exist. so NO to a blanket ban, but YES to consideration.


----------



## Linford (14 Apr 2013)

[QUOTE 2409455, member: 45"]How can it be biased when the person you're asking is a driver?

You've obviously not thought this through. 99% of us are drivers. So there are no others.[/quote]

I can see a few on here who aren't. They certainly make more than 1% of the active members here


----------



## Cyclopathic (16 Apr 2013)

Linford said:


> Would you be happy to stick to that as a cyclist, or do you just want it in force for others ?


Cyclists would also have to look out for pedestrians. I would certainly stick to it. It's what I pretty much do already in built up residential areas. I go around pedestrians and make allowances for the fact that a lot of them don't look if they can't hear anything.


----------



## Cyclopathic (16 Apr 2013)

DRHysted said:


> There's an old saying, "if it ain't broke, don't fix it". Where I live it ain't broke, so I don't want a fix for something that isn't a problem.
> 
> If this is a problem where you live, I have no problem in you campaigning for a solution, but as long as you keep that campaigning where it is needed. i.e. not here!


Nah, I'd roll this out everywhere. Being broken isn't the point. It's about where our priorities lie and I'd like to change our priorities to be more about people on foot than in cars in areas that are really just where people live rather than a throughfare.


----------



## DRHysted (16 Apr 2013)

So you want to annoy everyone else, to please yourself?


----------



## DRHysted (16 Apr 2013)

If a road needs its speed limit reduced, then reduce it. If it doesn't, leave it alone. 
Why annoy people just for the sake of it, when it is not necessary?


----------



## DRHysted (16 Apr 2013)

[QUOTE 2412259, member: 45"]It's the definition of "need".

To the driver who just commutes down the road and has no interest in whether the speed limit affects the residents' lives, reducing it would annoy him and therefore be unnecessary.

To the resident to whom a lower speed limit would mean it would be easier for her son to get to the park with his football, she would be annoyed with the higher limit and therefore deem it necessary to reduce it.[/quote]

Sorry I thought I'd been clear, I'm talking about the road outside my own home which is 30mph, and that is the correct speed limit for the road. But it would be classed as residential, so under the blanket legistraion would unnecessarily be reduce to 20mph against the wishes of the people who live here, the opinion off the local councillor, or the highways agency.


----------



## Cyclopathic (17 Apr 2013)

DRHysted said:


> If a road needs its speed limit reduced, then reduce it. If it doesn't, leave it alone.
> Why annoy people just for the sake of it, when it is not necessary?


For the sake of ease of application a blanket rule would be the best thing. I think the improvement in everybody's quality of life and the resultant lessening of death and injury far outweighs the annoyance of a few people. I don't really care if people are annoyed. I do care if they are injured or killed or if residential areas are more geared towards people being able to walk about freely and let their kids play out in relative safety.
I wouldn't get too upset though. It's not going to happen. Too many people would voice their annoyance and that's not a vote winner and things that don't win votes don't get done in our short termist society.
And if we are going to talk about what is not necessary, is it really necessary for anyone to drive faster than 15 mph in a residential area. If so then how. What makes that so necessary?


----------



## Cyclopathic (17 Apr 2013)

DRHysted said:


> So you want to annoy everyone else, to please yourself?


No. Firstly it would not annoy "everybody". Secondly it would not please "just" myself. Not only are you putting words into my mouth, your argument is not reasoned and unnecessarily adversarial.


----------



## mcshroom (17 Apr 2013)

DRHysted said:


> Sorry I thought I'd been clear, I'm talking about the road outside my own home which is 30mph, and that is the correct speed limit for the road. But it would be classed as residential, so under the blanket legistraion would unnecessarily be reduce to 20mph against the wishes of the people who live here, the opinion off the local councillor, or the highways agency.



Right speed for you perhaps. How about for the kids who would like to play out? I'd like to go over to assuming that all residential roads are shared space which would mean that people expect to meet pedestrians, footballs, bikes, pushchairs on the road. For far too long the drivers (including myself) have been allowed to intimidate others off of the road and take over a large proportion of the space that we all have a right to use.

I work on a large site (read multiple sq km) which has a 20mph speed limit. After the initial frustration at how slow it feels the first few times you drive round it's amazing how quickly it just settles down and feels like the right speed. We don't have problems with motor vehicles unable to overtake cyclists either.


----------

