# 20 mph speed limit on the way?



## Cab (16 Oct 2007)

*20mph limits, to be enforced by cameras too!*

What do you think?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7046200.stm


----------



## Cab (16 Oct 2007)

> I have no problem with that.




Me neither, in general it seems like a decent idea. Its going to send some people completely batty though.


----------



## Cab (16 Oct 2007)

> Go somewhere where the road culture has accepted that roads aren't just for cars and you'll see the difference.



I quite agree, there is something peculiar about some nationalities, the British included, whereby we seem to have largely accepted the ascendancy of the car as the only way to get about.


----------



## vbc (16 Oct 2007)

Road safety advisors call for 20 mph limit in town centres to reduce accident rates.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7046200.stm


----------



## gambatte (16 Oct 2007)

vbc said:


> Road safety advisors call for 20 mph limit in town centres to reduce accident rates.
> 
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7046200.stm



VBC, erm.... did you read the original post?


Be intersting to see what jeremy thinks of it on 'top gear'


----------



## gambatte (16 Oct 2007)

> Sorry, I should have said. VBC started an identical thread, so I merged the two. I couldn't find the bit where you could put in an explanation.



So who started first, so we can spend several posts berating the other for not doing a 'search' first


----------



## bonj2 (16 Oct 2007)

I think it's a good idea, but not for a safety perspective but from the perspective that it will encourage more people to cycle as they will keep seeing bikes overtaking them more, and will take the "well if you can't beat 'em, join 'em" stance.


Although I think Jon Perez has got a good point on the BBC HYS:


> If the gov want less accidents then paint more pedestrian crossings and make them the only place to legally cross roads.


This would undoubtedly reduce the number of deaths drastically. The politically correct mumbo-jumbo liberal brigade will whinge that "civil liberties are being eroded" and that "rights are being trampled on", but it's for everyone's benefit.

and, masterEloso has got a good point aswell:


> Roads are for cars, Pavements are for children, the quicker parents teach this to their children the safer they would be, a spped limit will not stop all drivers from going too fast. People should take responsibilty for there own saftey in this world.


----------



## bonj2 (16 Oct 2007)

thinking about it if they did have 20mph limits in towns it'd mean i'd only have to use 2 different gears in my van most of the time, 'high' and 'low'


----------



## magnatom (16 Oct 2007)

bonj said:


> Roads are for cars, Pavements are for children, the quicker parents teach this to their children the safer they would be, a spped limit will not stop all drivers from going too fast. People should take responsibilty for there own saftey in this world.



So where do cyclists go then?


----------



## bonj2 (16 Oct 2007)

magnatom said:


> So where do cyclists go then?



well, on the road of course. They _are_ vehicles after all.


----------



## magnatom (16 Oct 2007)

bonj said:


> well, on the road of course. They _are_ vehicles after all.



Ah but you said you agreed with this guys comments and he said _Roads are for cars_

No mention of vehicles......


----------



## Cab (16 Oct 2007)

(regarding pedestrian crossings being _the_ places to cross)



bonj said:


> This would undoubtedly reduce the number of deaths drastically. The politically correct mumbo-jumbo liberal brigade will whinge that "civil liberties are being eroded" and that "rights are being trampled on", but it's for everyone's benefit.



Trouble is that unless we really design in pedestrian crosses at appropriate places, its unworkable. That would mean a radical redesign of our road/pedestrian/crossing network. I'm up for it, but I don't believe for a moment that the motorists putting this forward are up for it.


----------



## Cycling Naturalist (16 Oct 2007)

Will it apply to bikes as well?


----------



## HLaB (16 Oct 2007)

I thought these coments were a little stupid by the Association of British Drivers


> "All you achieve by making people drive down the road looking at their speedometer is 10 times as many deaths and that's before you cause more accidents because people aren't looking where they're going".


People maybe will be distracted by their speedo but they will still have much more time to brake and research in other countries have prove its worked, reduced accident rates.


> a survey by the Transport Research Laboratory of 20mph zones across the UK and in other European countries found child road accidents fell by 67%, cyclist accidents by 29% and traffic flow by 27%


----------



## Cab (16 Oct 2007)

Patrick Stevens said:


> Will it apply to bikes as well?



Doesn't currently, so probably not.


----------



## fossyant (16 Oct 2007)

If it did apply to bikes, I'd be arrested..... I don't drop much below 20 mph on my commute anywhere ?


----------



## Maz (16 Oct 2007)

fossyant said:


> If it did apply to bikes, I'd be arrested..... I don't drop much below 20 mph on my commute anywhere ?


In another thread, someone said speed limits don't apply to non-motorised traffic. If that's true, you'll be OK.


----------



## howesym (16 Oct 2007)

Think that you will find that a spped limit for a public road is applicable to all users of the road. So if you are on the road the limit will apply.


----------



## BentMikey (16 Oct 2007)

Maz, it is true. Except in Royal Parks and some other locations where there are specific bye-laws applying to bicycles.

That doesn't mean you can't be done for dangerous cycling/pedalling furiously instead though, it's just harder to prove. It would possibly also be irresponsible/morally wrong to go faster than the motor vehicle speed limit.


----------



## BentMikey (16 Oct 2007)

howesym said:


> Think that you will find that a spped limit for a public road is applicable to all users of the road. So if you are on the road the limit will apply.



You are this: WRONG.


----------



## Tetedelacourse (16 Oct 2007)

_In the UK there are currently around 3,200 road deaths annually, compared with more than 7,000 a year in the 1960s. 

This improvement is due to a number of factors, including seatbelts, improved car design, the breathalyser and traffic-calming measures. 
_

How do they know this?



Reducing the speed limit in towns might have repercussions outside of towns if drivers feel the need to save time by speeding up. (Bit of a shaky devils advocate attempt)

20mph seems too slow to me. I can see the benefits in a city centre, but on suburban roads and corridors into the city centre it seems too slow. Maybe I'm too used to 30mph.

Do those who advocate it drive at 20mph in a 30mph limit normally? 
Are most accidents on the roads caused by people driving inside the speed limit?

I tend to think it's the culture that needs to change rather than the limit.


----------



## spindrift (16 Oct 2007)

That chap from the ABD has basically admitted he's not fit to drive.


----------



## gambatte (16 Oct 2007)

howesym said:


> Think that you will find that a spped limit for a public road is applicable to all users of the road. So if you are on the road the limit will apply.



If a cycle exceeds the speed limit, no offense has been commited. The only offense that could possibly be brought would be 'cycling furiously'.

Need to check the facts as to what your'e saying howesym. 

Don't want to be shot down on your second post as well


----------



## howesym (16 Oct 2007)

Take a look at this..

http://www.portsmouth.gov.uk/media/ET_trfmgmt_2007TRO10-PNFAQ.pdf


----------



## Maz (16 Oct 2007)

howesym said:


> Take a look at this..
> 
> http://www.portsmouth.gov.uk/media/ET_trfmgmt_2007TRO10-PNFAQ.pdf


Interesting. It says:
• Does 20mph also apply to cyclists? 
• The speed limit applies to all road users including cyclists.


----------



## Cab (16 Oct 2007)

Tetedelacourse said:


> I tend to think it's the culture that needs to change rather than the limit.




I think that changing the culture of road use in the UK would have a greater impact. But we're not changing the culture, it just ain't happening. So lets change the limit.


----------



## gambatte (16 Oct 2007)

From what I can see that still only applies to cars etc. Its for the 'safety of pedestrians and cyclists'

Surely you're not proposing the limit applied to pedestrians also?


----------



## Tetedelacourse (16 Oct 2007)

Cab said:


> I think that changing the culture of road use in the UK would have a greater impact. But we're not changing the culture, it just ain't happening. So lets change the limit.



OK but we should have a solid reason for doing so don't you think?

Do you know what percentage of accidents on the roads last year were caused by motorists who were exceeding the 30mph speed limit?


----------



## Cab (16 Oct 2007)

Maz said:


> Interesting. It says:
> • Does 20mph also apply to cyclists?
> • The speed limit applies to all road users including cyclists.



I suspect that they are in error, I don't believe that under the acts they quote they can actually enforce that speed limit on bicycles.


----------



## Cab (16 Oct 2007)

Tetedelacourse said:


> OK but we should have a solid reason for doing so don't you think?



Yes.



> Do you know what percentage of accidents on the roads last year were caused by motorists who were exceeding the 30mph speed limit?



I don't think thats the solid reason in question though.

This is as much about reclaiming the streets such that people _feel_ safer to walk or cycle. We can argue tooth and nail about what the best default road position for a cyclist would be (we wouldn't, but we could!) but it ain't the case that beginner cyclists instinctively take the best position on the roads, we need to encourage them out by making the roads seem less hostile to them. It also ain't the case that we're going to encourage more people to walk by telling them that if there are more pedestrians their school children are safer. This is about changing attitudes, its a statement that cars are _less_ of a priority than bikes and pedestrians.

What are the accident stats? Well, yeah, we've seen quotes here already claiming that 20mph limits make urban roads safer. Maybe they do. I dunno, I'd have to have a close look at those claims. But if you think thats all that this is about, you're missing the point.


----------



## BentMikey (16 Oct 2007)

Besides which, from our cycling experience most of us know that there's very little point in going much more than 20 in an urban area anyway. Just think of all those car drivers we go sailing past every day!


----------



## Jacomus-rides-Gen (16 Oct 2007)

The argument that drivers will spend more time looking at their speedometers is total bullshit, and I use that word because it really is BULLSHIT.

Why would a driver have to look at their speedo more when travelling at 20mph than 30mph, absolutely no reason AT ALL. I would say that most of us here are drivers, or bikers or both - do you find it harder to travel at 30mph than 40mph?

Does this make driving at 50mph on a motorway, in temproary speed limit zones for example, more dangerous than driving at 70mph?


----------



## andy_wrx (16 Oct 2007)

What is this 'will it apply to me on my bike' ?

Legally, yes I'm sure the law does only state motorised vehicles (or does it say _mechanically-propelled_ ? - but not bikes anyway) 

But is it morally OK to say 'naah, doesn't apply to me, just to you in cars or motorbikes' and speed along at 25mph ?

I'd say no, not when this forum has such disdain for that lawyer who gets the-rich-and-famous off motoring convictions by finding loopholes in the law.

If we want other road users to comply with the speed limit, we must also comply with it _whether technically it applies to us or not_. 

I can't accept the same argument some propose for RLJ'ing, where they believe that if a car/bus/lorry does it then it's a crime but it's OK to do it on a bike because we're not a danger to anyone else


----------



## LordoftheTeapot (16 Oct 2007)

And


----------



## Cab (16 Oct 2007)

andy_wrx said:


> What is this 'will it apply to me on my bike' ?
> 
> Legally, yes I'm sure the law does only state motorised vehicles (or does it say _mechanically-propelled_ ? - but not bikes anyway)
> 
> But is it morally OK to say 'naah, doesn't apply to me, just to you in cars or motorbikes' and speed along at 25mph ?



The damage I can do to someone else is much lower if I hit them at 25mph on a bike than if I hit them at 25mph with a car. Yeah, I know, someone did recently die in just such a collision with a cyclist, but that is _vanishingly_ rare.

Is it morally okay for bikes to go over a 20mph speed limit? If they're doing so sensibly, yes. Is it legally okay? Yes, unless there is a specific local bye-law. 

Going 30mph through a 20 zone is unlikely to be possible very often, and its probably not a good idea very often either. Nudging above 20mph on a bicycle... I dunno, comparing that with a car, its like apples and oranges.


----------



## bonj2 (16 Oct 2007)

magnatom said:


> Ah but you said you agreed with this guys comments and he said _Roads are for cars_
> 
> No mention of vehicles......



 http://www.cyclechat.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=4473


----------



## magnatom (16 Oct 2007)

bonj said:


> http://www.cyclechat.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=4473



Come on Bonj, you are the ultimate pedantic! (When it suits of course )


----------



## andy_wrx (16 Oct 2007)

Cab said:


> The damage I can do to someone else is much lower if I hit them at 25mph on a bike than if I hit them at 25mph with a car. Yeah, I know, someone did recently die in just such a collision with a cyclist, but that is _vanishingly_ rare.
> 
> Is it morally okay for bikes to go over a 20mph speed limit? If they're doing so sensibly, yes. Is it legally okay? Yes, unless there is a specific local bye-law.
> 
> Going 30mph through a 20 zone is unlikely to be possible very often, and its probably not a good idea very often either. Nudging above 20mph on a bicycle... I dunno, comparing that with a car, its like apples and oranges.




These sound very like the arguments which S*** Sp**d use - especially the 'doing so sensibly' !!!


----------



## domtyler (16 Oct 2007)

andy_wrx said:


> These sound very like the arguments which S*** Sp**d use - especially the 'doing so sensibly' !!!



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?


----------



## bonj2 (16 Oct 2007)

magnatom said:


> Come on Bonj, you are the ultimate pedantic! (When it suits of course



But I do at least understand people's arguments from the point they intended to mean, rather than decide that I can't be bothered to answer what they intended to mean, and try to use the literality of words to effectively construct a straw man argument. I don't commit the infinitely frustrating travesty of using pedantry to get out of responding to an argument or assertion that someone's thought about.
A perfect example being mickle's stupid, tiresome thread which only _exists_ to be pedantic.


----------



## Tetedelacourse (16 Oct 2007)

that thread served a practical purpose. It got me my doo-daas.


----------



## Tetedelacourse (16 Oct 2007)

Cab said:


> Yes.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



No you've missed the point.

The sole purpose of the article was to present the case that some people feel that reducing the speed limit from 30mph to 20mph in built up areas would result in a drop in motoring-related injuries and deaths. And that others contest this view. I wondered if there are any figures that back up this assertion.

You mention that "This is about changing attitudes", and when I said we need to change the culture, you pointed out that this aint gonna happen so let's lower the limit. Make up thon mind Cabula.


----------



## Cab (16 Oct 2007)

andy_wrx said:


> These sound very like the arguments which S*** Sp**d use - especially the 'doing so sensibly' !!!




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.


----------



## Cab (16 Oct 2007)

Tetedelacourse said:


> No you've missed the point.
> 
> The sole purpose of the article was to present the case that some people feel that reducing the speed limit from 30mph to 20mph in built up areas would result in a drop in motoring-related injuries and deaths. And that others contest this view. I wondered if there are any figures that back up this assertion.



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.



> You mention that "This is about changing attitudes", and when I said we need to change the culture, you pointed out that this aint gonna happen so let's lower the limit. Make up thon mind Cabula.



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


----------



## domtyler (16 Oct 2007)

Tetedelacourse said:


> No you've missed the point.
> 
> The sole purpose of the article was to present the case that some people feel that reducing the speed limit from 30mph to 20mph in built up areas would result in a drop in motoring-related injuries and deaths. And that others contest this view. I wondered if there are any figures that back up this assertion.
> 
> You mention that "This is about changing attitudes", and when I said we need to change the culture, you pointed out that this aint gonna happen so let's lower the limit. Make up thon mind Cabula.



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


----------



## Tetedelacourse (16 Oct 2007)

Cab said:


> 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.





Cab said:


> 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 (16 Oct 2007)

domtyler said:


> 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 (16 Oct 2007)

Tetedelacourse said:


> 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 (16 Oct 2007)

Tetedelacourse said:


> 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 (16 Oct 2007)

bonj said:


> 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 (16 Oct 2007)

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 (16 Oct 2007)

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 (16 Oct 2007)

domtyler said:


> 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 (16 Oct 2007)

Tetedelacourse said:


> 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 (16 Oct 2007)

Cab said:


> 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 (16 Oct 2007)

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


----------



## gambatte (16 Oct 2007)

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 (16 Oct 2007)

magnatom said:


> 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 (16 Oct 2007)

col said:


> 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 (16 Oct 2007)

gambatte said:


> Till they get that 4th ticket that means they've lost their licence.
> 
> They do lose 'em
> 
> ...




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


----------



## gambatte (16 Oct 2007)

col said:


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



Never said it was instant

But it isn't exactly 'won't achieve anything'?


----------



## col (16 Oct 2007)

gambatte said:


> Never said it was instant
> 
> But it isn't exactly 'won't achieve anything'?





Oh alright then,not much,very quickly


----------



## gambatte (16 Oct 2007)

Think tanks like this always remind me of the barter system. Its haggling. 

Ask for more than you think you'll get, then when you get what you want people will think they've got a bargain.

There'll be more 20mph areas, there'll be more cameras. It just wont be to the extent recommended.


----------



## Terminator (16 Oct 2007)

spindrift said:


> That chap from the ABD has basically admitted he's not fit to drive.




There are a lot of people out there like that.

If you watch Police Camera Action you will see shocking driving.


----------



## ufkacbln (16 Oct 2007)

I can speak from experience here as I live in Portsmouth....

It has made a big difference in general.

Queen Street is an example. The traffic is slower, you don't get the same manic overtaking at chicanes and there are more cyclists.

Even better is that the move is supported by the locals who want the traffic on their streets to move more slowly. The detractors and ones against are the moves are the ones who have been forced to recognise the wishes of the locals...


----------



## BentMikey (16 Oct 2007)

Hahahaha, funny that! No-one wants speeding on their home streets.


----------



## gambatte (16 Oct 2007)

I find its 'easier' for me to stay below or at the speed limit, since I've started riding.

On the bike I only tend to be between 15 & 20mph, even on the m'way I'm happier to sit at 65/70 and don't jump into the outside lane as readily.

I guess Its 'cos I'v got a comparison with commuting by car and bike and realise that over the complete journey the ability to hit 70mph doesn't have a drastic effect on the journey time.

In fact, today I'd have been quicker by bike


----------



## Elmer Fudd (16 Oct 2007)

Terminator said:


> If you watch Police Camera Action you will see shocking driving.



Yes, and police RTA fatalities are increasing, so much for highly trained highly skilled drivers !


----------



## cannondale boy (16 Oct 2007)

I am all for the speed limit to be reduced. Trouble with that is 9 out of 10 drivers will probably still break the speed limit. So if you impliment a 20 zone they will go at 25...its the same now with the 30 zone, drivers will push it, and go between 30-35mph.
What annoys me the most is that drivers still go pretty fast over speed bumps near schools. The council have installed those signs that flash 20mph zone, only in school hours. But still go way over the speed limit, especially HGV drivers, they are the worlds worst. All it takes is one nutter, and a child is killed.


----------



## gambatte (16 Oct 2007)

Rather than speed cameras I'd like to see more of those setups where within a couple of secs they can read your plate, check the databases and see if your vehicle has tax/test/insurance. Pulling you over 100yds up the road if something doesn't check out.

In South Yorks they were confiscating and crushing untaxed vehicles


----------



## davidwalton (16 Oct 2007)

> As usual the press have picked the juicy, current bit out of the report, which also discusses other measures to ensure that the number of road casualties falls.
> 
> The RAC and AA both make reasonable comments-
> 
> ...



To the AA I ask:-

Why does anyone require a car that can far exceed all speed limits? Freedom to have the facility to break the law seems the answer.

It wasn't that long ago that cars were restricted to how fast someone could run in front with a warning flag. Going back to that would be draconian. Reducing down to a limit where if the majority kept to it reduces accidents and deaths is a good thing.

Yes, accidents would reduce because a reduced speed also means more time to think and act.

The AA and other motoring organisations are the champions of the motor, not the general public. What may restrict the motor may increase the joy of everyone else using the roads. The motor does NOT own the roads.

I would be happy to see urban roads at 20mph max, non urban at 50mph (with exception of blackspots = 30mph max), and only Motorways left at 70mph. All roads except Motorways should be single lane. The rest of the road for cyclists and pedestrians (with proper surfacing and protection from motor lane).

David


----------



## gambatte (16 Oct 2007)

cannondale boy said:


> What annoys me the most is that drivers still go pretty fast over speed bumps near schools. The council have installed those signs that flash 20mph zone, only in school hours. But still go way over the speed limit, especially HGV drivers, they are the worlds worst. All it takes is one nutter, and a child is killed.



Usually exacerbated by parents ignoring any parking restrictions.
(2 year old hospitalised near us this year, took that to get the council to attend to enforce parking regs)


----------



## col (16 Oct 2007)

gambatte said:


> Usually exacerbated by parents ignoring any parking restrictions.
> (2 year old hospitalised near us this year, took that to get the council to attend to enforce parking regs)




Why do they wait for something bad to happen,why not just get on and enforce,they know its likely to happen dont they?


----------



## domtyler (16 Oct 2007)

col said:


> Why do they wait for something bad to happen,why not just get on and enforce,they know its likely to happen dont they?



Er, because they don't give a fig about normal people, only themselves and their careers.


----------



## col (16 Oct 2007)

> Because if they did, they'd just give the petrolheads fuel to their "what did you do that for? It's a perfectly safe road, there were no accidents" argument.





To which the reply should be,"your breaking the rules,which are there for safety reasons" surely.If they got caught going up a one way street the wrong way,they would be fined,even if there had not been any accidents,why should double yellows near school entrances,or zig zags,which are plainly signed,be less serious?Its so obviously a danger to people what they do.Get a copper there for the hour each day,and ticket them instantly,if they give slavver,arrest them for something,and confiscate the car,which can be retrieved for a minimul fee.


----------



## Rhythm Thief (16 Oct 2007)

davidwalton said:


> All roads except Motorways should be single lane. The rest of the road for cyclists and pedestrians (with proper surfacing and protection from motor lane).
> 
> David



Well that would make, say, the journey to South Wales from the Midlands about three million times more dangerous than it is now for the vast majority of road users. Any more great ideas?


----------



## Elmer Fudd (16 Oct 2007)

My personal opinion is that :-
If you are batting down a road at, say, 25mph in a 30 zone, on a bike, it may hold a driver up, it may not, but the majority here seem to have a downer on vehicle drivers.

So, if the limit is dropped to a 20mph zone (which I agree with in highly congested areas, outside schools, shopping areas etc.), do you think it's right for cars to be doing 20mph while you whizz past at 25mph ?

This brings to mind pot and kettle (the law applies to you, not me) and seems to me to be just a tad hypocritical.

Imagine, kid on way to school, sees car going at 20mph, thinks " I can get to the ped island before car gets here, so runs across road, only to get taken out by a cyclist doing 25-26mph that he didn't see overtaking the car.

I'm sure the fact that you are technically (if not legally) breaking the law, will really enamour the cycling fraternity to motorists.

BTW. I don't need a speed camera or sign to tell me to drive at 20mph, if I think 10mph is the safest speed to drive at, that's the speed I do (and yes, at 3am in the morning, when I'm on the M6 all alone I'll do 90mph, because it's safe and empty.


----------



## Cab (16 Oct 2007)

andy_wrx said:


> 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...



Good.



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



I'd be startled to see it, and I would be concerned for the welfare of the animal. As for the risk involved, I wouldn't have thought that we're imposing an real risk on society by allowing it; horses _are_ allowed to do that, and you know what? They don't. 



> Or an electric wheelchair ?



I'd be terrified, those things would be chronically unsafe to be in at that kind of speed. I'd rather see legislation to limit their speeds below that.



> The speed limit law doesn't apply to them.
> 
> But the kinetic energy->damage & injury point does, as does the lack of control->risk
> 
> ...



You're getting rather obscure here I think. You've accepted that cyclists don't pose such a risk, but because you believe electric wheelchairs and horses might you believe cyclists should be required to stick to the speed limit? I just don't see how that follows at all. And as for comparing it with that campaign site, thats unworthy of you.


----------



## Cab (16 Oct 2007)

BentMikey said:


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




You'll note I referred to that, within the context of such things being vanishingly rare.


----------



## Cab (16 Oct 2007)

BentMikey said:


> Hahahaha, funny that! No-one wants speeding on their home streets.



And this is the bit that is often forgotten. You know the kind of thing, people complain about speeding near to home, then they get in their cars and whizz along someone elses suburban streets that are clearly okay at 35-40mph. Honestly, I think a blanket 20mph limit in urban areas would make a great deal of sense.


----------



## Cab (16 Oct 2007)

Elmer Fudd said:


> My personal opinion is that :-
> If you are batting down a road at, say, 25mph in a 30 zone, on a bike, it may hold a driver up, it may not, but the majority here seem to have a downer on vehicle drivers.
> 
> So, if the limit is dropped to a 20mph zone (which I agree with in highly congested areas, outside schools, shopping areas etc.), do you think it's right for cars to be doing 20mph while you whizz past at 25mph ?



This exposes a flaw in how you're looking at speed.

If I'm doing 25mph in a 30mph zone then realistically I'm holding no one up. They'd have to put on a spurt over the speed limit to get past safely, and you can nearly guarantee that I'll catch them at the lights. Note, I'm not someone who cruises at 25mph very often!

If I'm behind a car doing 20mph, then so be it. I'm not likely to 'whizz' past them (25mph isn't whizzing past someone, the comparative speed difference is 5mph, or walking speed), I'm more likely to wait behind them because there is no point overtaking.



> This brings to mind pot and kettle (the law applies to you, not me) and seems to me to be just a tad hypocritical.



Not really. The law _does_ apply to the motorist, and not the cyclist. Like the law about having reflectors on the pedals of new bicycles; do you want to impose that on motorists too?



> Imagine, kid on way to school, sees car going at 20mph, thinks " I can get to the ped island before car gets here, so runs across road, only to get taken out by a cyclist doing 25-26mph that he didn't see overtaking the car.



You mean, he didn't see the cyclist going marginally faster than the car, and the cyclist was breaking other road laws by cycling dangerously? And the kid went out into the road over a difference in road speed equivalent to ambling along? Its a pretty bizarre scenario you have come up with there.



> I'm sure the fact that you are technically (if not legally) breaking the law, will really enamour the cycling fraternity to motorists.



Or, in other words, because cycles will realistically be able to go marginally faster than cars (if cars aren't in their way), motorists will get the hump? Sorry, I rekon they need to get over it.



> BTW. I don't need a speed camera or sign to tell me to drive at 20mph, if I think 10mph is the safest speed to drive at, that's the speed I do (and yes, at 3am in the morning, when I'm on the M6 all alone I'll do 90mph, because it's safe and empty.



Legally not your decision to make. Really. For all sorts of reasons, you shouldn't do that.


----------



## andy_wrx (17 Oct 2007)

> *Cab*
> Honestly, I think a blanket 20mph limit in urban areas would make a great deal of sense.



So do I.

Except I think it should apply to everyone.

You seem to think cyclists should be exempt.


----------



## Cab (17 Oct 2007)

andy_wrx said:


> So do I.
> 
> Except I think it should apply to everyone.
> 
> You seem to think cyclists should be exempt.



I know that cyclists _are_ exempt, and I have explained one of the reasons why that makes sense. I could also add that cyclists can't accelerate to faster than 20mph as fast as cars, they can't maintain such speeds for as long, they don't carry registration details or spedometers so enforcement (or even volountarily obeying the law) is difficult if not impossible... Its just a silly requirement.


----------



## BentMikey (17 Oct 2007)

That's excellent MrP!!!!


----------



## John Ponting (17 Oct 2007)

Elmer Fudd said:


> ... (and yes, at 3am in the morning, when I'm on the M6 all alone I'll do 90mph, because it's safe and empty.



Possibly not the best thing to say on here Elmer - it's almost as though you feel you can make decisions about, and take responsibility for, your own actions


----------



## Cab (17 Oct 2007)

John Ponting said:


> Possibly not the best thing to say on here Elmer - it's almost as though you feel you can make decisions about, and take responsibility for, your own actions




We all do that, to the extent that we have a legal right to. To argue that you're somehoe 'special' and you have the right to take action outside of the law, do illegal things... Do I really need to explain why thats not such a great attitude?


----------



## davidwalton (17 Oct 2007)

Rhythm Thief said:


> Well that would make, say, the journey to South Wales from the Midlands about three million times more dangerous than it is now for the vast majority of road users. Any more great ideas?



Don't knock ideas until tested or tried.

Well, we could continue the trend of increasing the road widths so more and more cars can get through, but that doesn't work either.

There has to be a turnabout with thinking on roads. Just adding and widening is no longer an option. The M25 is proof of that, as are a few other motorways and roads. Throwing money away is all that has been achieved as far as I can see. How many more millions is it going to take to still not improve the system?

The only thing you can do is recognise that roads have limits. As many are now full to flowing over, other measures are needed to help ensure safe passage for all.

Motor vehicle drivers generally do not help provide a safe place for other users, just themselves if lucky. So what do you do to ensure others can use the road?

David


----------



## bonj2 (17 Oct 2007)

> The father of a friend of my son is a cycle copper. Last week they staked out a bus lane leading to a major junction on a main road into Birmingham. They were there for an hour in the morning rush hour, and ticketed 42 drivers for using the bus lane to cut the queues.
> 
> The competent drivers were cheering, clapping and thanking the police.
> 
> He also stopped a guy for speeding past the primary school while on his phone. The guy asked him not to do him, as he already had 6 points. He's got 9 now.



it's amazing how many drivers keep out of bus lanes all the time that are only actually peak time bus lanes. A lot of the bus lanes round here have signs saying 'Mon-Fri 6:30-9:30 / 16:30-18:30' or something yet people still queue in the other main lane.


----------



## magnatom (17 Oct 2007)

bonj said:


> it's amazing how many drivers keep out of bus lanes all the time that are only actually peak time bus lanes. A lot of the bus lanes round here have signs saying 'Mon-Fri 6:30-9:30 / 16:30-18:30' or something yet people still queue in the other main lane.



You don't expect people to read signs do you?  We have some lanes like that down our way. I love it when driving the car as you can fly past queuing traffic in much the same way as being on the bike .


----------



## Cab (17 Oct 2007)

Ahh, yes, bus lanes. That cyclists share. Or in Cambridge the 'only parking here for five minutes, I'll be in and out in a juffy' lanes, otherwise known as the 'filtering to turn left oh who'd have thought there would be bicycles here' lanes.

Such a good idea in practice, so badly enforced though.


----------



## John Ponting (17 Oct 2007)

Cab said:


> We all do that, to the extent that we have a legal right to. To argue that you're somehoe 'special' and you have the right to take action outside of the law, do illegal things... Do I really need to explain why thats not such a great attitude?



I personally don't need you to preach to me about behaviour. I was responding to Elmer.


----------



## Cab (17 Oct 2007)

John Ponting said:


> I personally don't need you to preach to me about behaviour. I was responding to Elmer.



If you've got something private to say to someone and you don't want people responding to it, say it by PM.

If you don't want people to tell you that breaking the law by speeding is wrong, don't back it up by responding to someone saying they're a speeder talking about personal responsibility being all important.

In truth, personal responsibility is _very_ important, which is why anyone condoning speeding is likely to be taken to task on these boards.


----------



## Elmer Fudd (17 Oct 2007)

Gone Fishing !!!


----------



## col (17 Oct 2007)

> The father of a friend of my son is a cycle copper. Last week they staked out a bus lane leading to a major junction on a main road into Birmingham. They were there for an hour in the morning rush hour, and ticketed 42 drivers for using the bus lane to cut the queues.
> 
> The competent drivers were cheering, clapping and thanking the police.
> 
> He also stopped a guy for speeding past the primary school while on his phone. The guy asked him not to do him, as he already had 6 points. He's got 9 now.




Nice one,more more


----------



## andy_wrx (17 Oct 2007)

Cab said:


> If you've got something private to say to someone and you don't want people responding to it, say it by PM.
> 
> If you don't want people to tell you that breaking the law by speeding is wrong, don't back it up by responding to someone saying they're a speeder talking about personal responsibility being all important.
> 
> In truth, personal responsibility is _very_ important, which is why anyone condoning speeding is likely to be taken to task on these boards.




Oh dear.

That (last statement) is _exactly_ what John was doing, you've completely misunderstood it and flamed him. Well done.

I understand what you meant John !


----------



## col (17 Oct 2007)

andy_wrx said:


> Oh dear.
> 
> That (last statement) is _exactly_ what John was doing, you've completely misunderstood it and flamed him. Well done.
> 
> I understand what you meant John !





Oops,


----------



## domtyler (17 Oct 2007)

Cab said:


> Ahh, yes, bus lanes. That cyclists share. Or in Cambridge the 'only parking here for five minutes, I'll be in and out in a juffy' lanes, otherwise known as the 'filtering to turn left oh who'd have thought there would be bicycles here' lanes.
> 
> Such a good idea in practice, so badly enforced though.



Come to London, they are enforced and work brilliantly.


----------



## Tetedelacourse (17 Oct 2007)

magnatom said:


> 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.



It's possible Magna (but not backed up by fact), and kind of supports what I was getting at; that on the surface these things are prescriptively reported on, i.e. reducing the speed limit will result in fewer accidents. When in actual fact it's not necessarily as clear cut as that. More the case that someone _thinks_ it's a good idea.


----------



## Tetedelacourse (17 Oct 2007)

Cab said:


> Your point?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



My point being that you accused me of missing the point in your usual arrogant style. I didn't. In fact your OP asked for thoughts on the article you linked. I gave some and you accuse me of missing the point. Take that stick out of your arse.

As for different sets of people, shifting the goal posts. Did I say "change the culture of hardened speeders"? NOPE. You did. So you disagreed first, as is your nature it seems, and then agreed by forcing a set of Cabulous conditions on it. Good for you!


----------



## Cab (17 Oct 2007)

Tetedelacourse said:


> My point being that you accused me of missing the point in your usual arrogant style.



I'll miss a lot more too if you take that tone.

(further cut unread, I'll see you again in this thread if you quit the insults)


----------



## Tetedelacourse (17 Oct 2007)

Cab said:


> I'll miss a lot more too if you take that tone.
> 
> (further cut unread, I'll see you again in this thread if you quit the insults)



Cab you are one of the most antagonistic posters on this forum. Take a good look at yourself.


----------



## John Ponting (17 Oct 2007)

Cab said:


> If you've got something private to say to someone and you don't want people responding to it, say it by PM.
> 
> If you don't want people to tell you that breaking the law by speeding is wrong, don't back it up by responding to someone saying they're a speeder talking about personal responsibility being all important.
> 
> In truth, personal responsibility is _very_ important, which is why anyone condoning speeding is likely to be taken to task on these boards.




Once again you have ignored what was written, made up the quote you wanted to see and then responded to it in your bombastic, arrogant and condescending manner.

Read my comments to Elmer and respond to what I actually said if you feel you really must or just ignore this post. Whatever.


----------



## Cab (17 Oct 2007)

Tetedelacourse said:


> Cab you are one of the most antagonistic posters on this forum. Take a good look at yourself.



Oh give it a rest. I responed fairly and reasonably to what you said, you didn't like it so you called me arrogant as a get out. You could either engage in a real discussion or just get insulting, you chose the latter. And now I'm the antagonistic one?


----------



## bonj2 (17 Oct 2007)

This argument's getting a bit silly. Am I right in presuming John's original reply to Elmer on page 10 about taking responsibility for your own actions was meant with sarcasm, which wasn't understood?


----------



## Cab (17 Oct 2007)

John Ponting said:


> Once again you have ignored what was written, made up the quote you wanted to see and then responded to it in your bombastic, arrogant and condescending manner.
> 
> Read my comments to Elmer and respond to what I actually said if you feel you really must or just ignore this post. Whatever.



Ahh, yes, your comment to Elmer. Where he said he does 90 on the motorway and you said:



> Possibly not the best thing to say on here Elmer - it's almost as though you feel you can make decisions about, and take responsibility for, your own actions



So... You're telling him what, not to say that kind of thing here because we don't condone people making their own decisions and taking responsibility? When he's just said that he's a speeder, a law breaker, you suggested that he shouldn't say that here not because he's breaking the law but because we don't condone people taking responsibility? You're right, I hope, in that most of us wouldn't condone someone taking personal responsibility to the point where they ignore the law.

If I've interpreted what you've said wrongly... What did you _mean_? I can't see any other obvious interpretation of what you said.


----------



## col (17 Oct 2007)

No comment


----------



## John Ponting (17 Oct 2007)

bonj said:


> This argument's getting a bit silly. Am I right in presuming John's original reply to Elmer on page 10 about taking responsibility for your own actions was meant with sarcasm, which wasn't understood?



thanks bonj.


----------



## Cab (17 Oct 2007)

John Ponting said:


> thanks bonj.



Ohhh... Sorry, that didn't seem at all obvious to me.


----------



## John Ponting (17 Oct 2007)

Cab said:


> Ohhh... Sorry, that didn't seem at all obvious to me.



shall we both agree to start again?


----------



## GrahamG (17 Oct 2007)

I was going to post, but I really just don't want to get involved so here's my tuppence worth and please don't reply 

I think that one key element to this is a misunderstanding over where such measures are likely to apply - 'urban' is a bit vague really and hence all the commotion. The areas where is would apply are either inner-city residential or city/town centre (encompassing a mixture of uses), where there are few 'major' roads. There seems to be this bizarre assumption that it would cover entire urban regions including all arterial routes when this really isn't the case. 

It's no different to the old road user charging debate/online petition - the 'facts' as stated by that petition which read like they had been lifted from a tabloid headline were a complete fallacy (there never have been any 'proposals' from government regarding this issue). In this case, it's '20mph on all urban roads' with the implication/misinterpretation as mentioned above. 

The reality, as demonstrated in Portsmouth, is that there is a good old application of common sense resulting in workable, sensible, schemes. Why? Because anything else wouldn't make it past all the councillors we elect.


----------



## Cab (17 Oct 2007)

John Ponting said:


> shall we both agree to start again?



Fair do's. Maybe you were just too subtle for me 

*offers virtual pint*


----------



## John Ponting (17 Oct 2007)

Cab said:


> Fair do's. Maybe you were just too subtle for me
> 
> *offers virtual pint*



chin chin.


----------



## bonj2 (17 Oct 2007)

Cab said:


> So... You're telling him what, not to say that kind of thing here because we don't condone people making their own decisions and taking responsibility?


You don't appear to condone it when it involves breaking the law, by definition, even if it still is responsible behaviour. Therefore it appears that whether you condone it or not is a function of whether or not it is against the law, not of whether or not it is taking adequate responsibility.



Cab said:


> When he's just said that he's a speeder, a law breaker, you suggested that he shouldn't say that here not because he's breaking the law but because we don't condone people taking responsibility? You're right, I hope, in that most of us wouldn't condone someone taking personal responsibility to the point where they ignore the law.


You appear to believe that 'obeying the law' and 'taking responsibility for your actions' are synonymous, that they amount to exactly the same thing. Some other people feel differently. I believe all John was doing was warning / reminding Elmer that the concentration of people who believe the former is higher on this forum than among the general population. Which is true, but make of that what you will.


----------



## Cab (17 Oct 2007)

bonj said:


> You appear to believe that 'obeying the law' and 'taking responsibility for your actions' are synonymous, that they amount to exactly the same thing. Some other people feel differently. I believe all John was doing was warning / reminding Elmer that the concentration of people who believe the former is higher on this forum than among the general population. Which is true, but make of that what you will.



John and I are pretty much okay with this now I think, misunderstanding, way more my fault for not spotting his sarcasm than anything else. 

As for believing that taking respinsibility is the same as obeying the law... No. But it is clear that the law defines the parameters in which we make decisions as to what is or is not responsible behaviour. Don't you agree?


----------



## bonj2 (17 Oct 2007)

Cab said:


> John and I are pretty much okay with this now I think, misunderstanding, way more my fault for not spotting his sarcasm than anything else.
> 
> As for believing that taking respinsibility is the same as obeying the law... No. But it is clear that the law defines the parameters in which we make decisions as to what is or is not responsible behaviour. *Don't you agree?*



Erm....no. But let's not fall out about it.


----------



## Tetedelacourse (17 Oct 2007)

Cab said:


> Oh give it a rest. I responed fairly and reasonably to what you said, you didn't like it so you called me arrogant as a get out. You could either engage in a real discussion or just get insulting, you chose the latter. And *now I'm the antagonistic one?[/*QUOTE]
> 
> yip.
> 
> ...


----------



## andy_wrx (18 Oct 2007)

I agree : Cab has fallen-out with, insulted or patronised _at least_ you (Tete), me, John Ponting and Elmer in the course of this thread.

Clearly the sort of person it's impossible to have a dialogue with.


----------



## bonj2 (18 Oct 2007)

just have a snog and make up all of you.

as regards the initial point I think GrahamG's hit the nail on the head. It is another case of people blowing things out of all proportion and getting hysterical over what they've interpreted it as rather than what's actually going to happen.


----------



## Cab (18 Oct 2007)

andy_wrx said:


> I agree : Cab has fallen-out with, insulted or patronised _at least_ you (Tete), me, John Ponting and Elmer in the course of this thread.
> 
> Clearly the sort of person it's impossible to have a dialogue with.



Or, in other words, you didn't have a reasoned response. 

Look, I'm bored with this, if you're after a personal argument with me then take it to PM. I shan't be responding to you in this thread again.


----------



## col (18 Oct 2007)

What about me?you didnt leave me the lickings of a dog


----------



## vbc (18 Oct 2007)

Who stole my post?


----------



## orbiter (18 Oct 2007)

vbc said:


> Who stole my post?



vbc (and Cab),

Having just returned from a holiday in Belgium where 20 mph is standard in towns and cyclists and cars seem to get on very well I'd just love to see it in Britain. I've not had time to read all the vast numbers of postings, but thought I might put the thread back on topic as it works for lots of people, so why not us? We're not that different!

Pete


----------



## Tetedelacourse (19 Oct 2007)

I spent a few days in Bruges this year and cycling was in the ascendency over cars in the city centre. Quite a sight for me, as cyclists are relatively few and far between in the Edinburgh area. It looked great.

On the continent though, cycling is much more integrated into city plans, and is much more widely accepted than in the UK I think it's fair to say. I think the culture and attitude to cycling here is _very_ different from elsewhere in Europe.

Not wishing to go back over old ground, but I just wonder what the incidence of RTAs is like in say Bruges, compared to a similar sized city in the UK. Anyone know?


----------



## HLaB (19 Oct 2007)

The Scottish Exeutive (now Transport Scotland) as an experiment made the village of Caldercruix a blanket 20mph zone. I've no idea if it works, whenever i'm there, there is little or no traffic to observe the limit and the trial has been going on a long time now.


----------



## Tetedelacourse (19 Oct 2007)

HLaB said:


> The Scottish Exeutive (now Transport Scotland) as an experiment made the village of Caldercruix a blanket 20mph zone. I've no idea if it works, whenever i'm there, there is little or no traffic to observe the limit and the trial has been going on a long time now.




The Scottish Executive is now Transport Scotland?!


----------

