20mph - latest thoughts?

[mjr]

I'm told Norwich city council is voting on more 20mph and there will be various people on BBC Norfolk (Freeview 719 in the Look East and Look North Hull areas, 95.1 and 104.4FM, 855 and 873 MW, DAB in East Norfolk and North Suffolk) between 7 and 9am tomorrow to talk about it. Are we broadly in favour of more 20mph zones? Am I right in thinking it's mostly to reduce casualties, reduce pollution and be fair to people living in older residential areas (as new ones are now often 20mph from the start)?

Casualty reduction seems obvious - make the largest vehicle bring less kinetic energy to the event. Wasn't it even in official campaigns a while ago, urging people to voluntarily to slow to 20mph to improve the chance of children surviving from 50-50 to 95-5? Damned if I can find the video now, though

Some studies have suggested a emissions reduction equivalent to taking about a third of the cars off the road: one is linked from http://www.20splenty.org/emission_reductions

Speed limits map (green=20, orange=30, red=40, purple=50, blue=60+): http://product.itoworld.com/map/124?lon=0.50578&lat=52.69312&zoom=11

 

[martint235]

Two things:

• I believe they should apply to all traffic including cycles. However whilst I'm currently not included in the law, I will continue to go quicker.
• They are increasingly ignored on my commute as I can see from cars either keeping up with me or pushing to get past me whilst I'm doing 25mph.

As with anything, only worth doing if you're going to enforce it. Surely a Gatso can pay for itself?

 

[mjr]

I'm in favour of speed cameras to deal with the fools. Most of the streets that I'm speaking of will be places like terraced streets with cars parked along one or both sides, reducing it to give-and-take single track, or with blind corners, where doing more the 20mph is foolish anyway, so it's only the determinedly anti-social or reckless who still do it.

I'm not keen on changing the law to apply them to cycles because I believe the existing laws banning wanton and furious cycling deals with the rare exceptions of unsafe speed adequately and it's a tiny tiny number of cases. Some streets where motorists should be below 20mph due to it being narrow or restricted visibility would be OK at 25mph on a narrower cycle with a higher eye level... but even that's going to be a tiny rare exceptional group that actually do it. Almost all will keep below the 20mph even then.

 

[wormo]

In Warrington the police have said that the 20mph speed areas are advisory only as some law needs to be amended but hasn't been. Complete waste of time because everyone ignores them.

 

[mjr]

In Warrington the police have said that the 20mph speed areas are advisory only as some law needs to be amended but hasn't been. Complete waste of time because everyone ignores them.

Maybe some Traffic Regulation Order wasn't made or contained a fundamental error. It wouldn't be the first time. I don't feel that occasional local council cockups undermines the concept of 20mph in general, though.

 

[Drago]

One council, I forget which, was in the news in Monday because they're abolishing theirs. Traffic surveys had shown less than a 1MPH drop in average speed over the previous 30MPH limit.

That being the case I'm all in favour only if they're rigourously enforced.

 

[wormo]

Maybe some Traffic Regulation Order wasn't made or contained a fundamental error. It wouldn't be the first time. I don't feel that occasional local council cockups undermines the concept of 20mph in general, though.

Probably didn't explain myself very well, fully in favour of them, and should be strictly enforced. Gets me annoyed that you see parents in cars with kids ignoring speed limit when its been introduced to help their kids.

 

[Spinney]

Probably didn't explain myself very well, fully in favour of them, and should be strictly enforced. Gets me annoyed that you see parents in cars with kids ignoring speed limit when its been introduced to help their kids.

Ah, but their kids are in the car, so won't be hit by other morons with the same attitude. But then we end up with the vicious circle that 'I drive my kids because the roads are too dangerous' when it's those same parents that drive like idiots ignoring the danger to other people.

 

[mjr]

One council, I forget which, was in the news in Monday because they're abolishing theirs. Traffic surveys had shown less than a 1MPH drop in average speed over the previous 30MPH limit.

That being the case I'm all in favour only if they're rigourously enforced.

The only thing I found in a quick search was something about Manchester, but that was in the Daily Mail which is not a reliable news source.

Edit: it seems from reports on other sites like http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-39231956 that the Faily Fail has overegged their pudding yet again and it's only that Manchester are pausing expansion of 20mph while they gather more results to evaluate them - they don't seem to be abolishing any yet.

I don't get the "only if they're rigourously enforced" condition - it's not like any other limits are strictly enforced and surely we've got to introduce the 20mph limits to have something that can be enforced?

 

[growingvegetables]

In favour.

And I aslo don't get the "only if it's rigourously enforced" bit - a bit of zero-tolerance enforcement would pay for itself many, many times over ...

 

[martint235]

I had a thought on the way home about cyclists obeying the rule and it's to do with inclusivity. I think where possible a law should apply to as many as practical and in a 20 zone there is no real need for a cyclist to be going quicker

 

[Drago]

The only thing I found in a quick search was something about Manchester, but that was in the Daily Mail which is not a reliable news source.

Edit: it seems from reports on other sites like http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-39231956 that the Faily Fail has overegged their pudding yet again and it's only that Manchester are pausing expansion of 20mph while they gather more results to evaluate them - they don't seem to be abolishing any yet.

I don't get the "only if they're rigourously enforced" condition - it's not like any other limits are strictly enforced and surely we've got to introduce the 20mph limits to have something that can be enforced?

All limits should be enforced, 20MPH ones especially so because of their introduction in the first place to protect pedestrians and cyclists. If it were up to me (sadly, it isn't) all motor vehicles would have GPS speed limiters which make compliance 100%.

 

[Dogtrousers]

The chances of me going at 20mph on a bike are pretty much nil, so it doesn't bother me whether it applies to bikes or not.

It pleases me that councils are introducing them, but only in my most optimistic moments do I think they'll actually make much difference to how people drive. Perhaps it will cause one or two to dip under 30.

 

[martint235]

The chances of me going at 20mph on a bike are pretty much nil, so it doesn't bother me whether it applies to bikes or not.

It pleases me that councils are introducing them, but only in my most optimistic moments do I think they'll actually make much difference to how people drive. Perhaps it will cause one or two to dip under 30.

It does have an effect on me. I do try to be helpful and will give motorists space but in a 20 when I'm doing 25 I will block them. Occasionally I get someone right behind me revving, and once I've been beeped (I don't think he'll do that again) but I think they do help cyclists to be more assertive. That said we could be assertive at 20

 

[smutchin]

there is no real need for a cyclist to be going quicker

But is that the same as a need to be going slower? As per the OP, the primary reasons for 20 zones are to reduce casualties and emissions, neither of which cyclists are currently responsible for in any meaningful number.

Given that there is no legal requirement for cyclists to use a speedometer, I suspect it would be unenforceable too.