speed limit to 20

[swallowthree]

To agree with people who want to reduce the speed limit to 20 in built up areas. Given the number of lives it could save, I think its a no brainer - isn't it ? Who could possibly object and why ?

I also like the idea of no speed limits at all but higher penalties for hitting other road users. Most people would, as Sorzy said, adapt and adujust their driving responsibly, and would probably naturally go at low speeds in high risk areas. Those that wouldn't are the same one as those who ignore limits as much as they ignore common sense.

pandeen

Sorry, I am not sure what your point is?

I would also be happy it be 10 in built up areas...children playing ,schools etc...

I have no desire to speed.

Many kids still run out in front of me , at 15 I have time to react and stop safely.

The limit is 20 but I routinely go less.

In a built up area speed is the main culprit.

Was OP suggesting we adopt it on motorways then

I thought it was a given she was talking about areas where pedestrians were likely to come in to contact with a car?

so Pandeen and Sirzy - would you object to a national speed limit of 20mph in built up areas ?

sorry Pendeen

Yes as I don't think it would make the slightest bit of difference. If anyone can provide any concrete evidence to suggest differently I would like to see it.

Teaching drivers to better react to the conditions on the roads, together with more crossings and education in road safety for children would be much more effective IMO

IIRC, the issue with lowering a speed limit from 30 to 20 is that in any potential collision, you have to factor in drivers' reaction time before they can slow the car down. If you are travelling at 30mph, and have to react to a situation, you will only be able to slow the car to say 20mph, whereas if you are doing 20mph and need to react, you will, in the same time, be able to reduce speed to say 10mph, hence being safer. There are tables published somewhere that outline all of this, but I don't have them to hand.

It's true that people who want to speed will try to do so regardless, but if all other traffic is travelling at 20mph, it's a lot harder for them. They also take the risk of prosecution, penalty points, higher insurance premiums etc. I think there is also something to be said for lower speed limits altering the social norm - in the same way that 30 years ago children didn't wear seatbelts in the back of cars, now we take it for granted.

It's not just a matter of reducing deaths, but also reducing serious injuries, and not just to pedestrians, but also to other drivers. There are lots of other measures that can be implemented to help reduce speed, such as road markings, use of traffic islands etc.

What do you mean by a built up area?

There is a big difference between a houseing estate and a bigger road that runs outside these estates, but still have houses along them, alebit further back from the road.

I grew up in Holland, and our street was a woonerf - basically what the link says, a residential area where traffic has to go at walking pace.

I would support the introduction of these in residential areas, not I'd want to differentiate between 'residential' and 'built-up', as they do in Holland and in Germany too.

There is a big difference in lethality between being hit at 30mph and 20mph.

swallowthree

The impact on drivers would not be minimal if the effect would be to increase journey times by 50%.

Don't forget you are advocating urban speed limits be reduced to 20 which is all roads with street lighting (less that 200 yds apart) i.e. a huge number of roads.

But set that aside for the moment, and the fact you aren't convinced by the views expressed so far (although I can't see why).

Surely the debate should be around road safety it it's broadest sense not simply concentrating on a number?

As already expressed on here, the idea that driving at a speed above a defined number is speeding is open to interpretation depending upon what one's definition of a safe speed is and to suggest, as you have, that all urban (or "built up areas" as you call them) should have a limit far below what is currently accepted as safe is - in my view - not at all reasonable.

I agree with the concept of variable limits for, schools at certain times, or lower limits in specific areas for specific reasons, but a wholesale reduction in speed limits affecting a huge number of roads just does not make any sense at all.

Who has even come close to suggesting driving double to speed limit is fine? You appear to be missing the point people are making and then go on to show why the number on display makes very little difference to the idiots out there!

Right exactly, lowering it to what looks like unreasonable limits ,helps even if some lead foots can't help themselves!

Speeding at 20 in a 10 would be much better for the poor pedestrian.

Feminine at your brother and father, he should have lost his license for that!

I think there are many drivers who think they should be able to drive at whatever bloody speed they choose.

After all they are great drivers ,they know how to handle it!

There is loads of evidence in support of this - see ROSPA website and Twenty's Plenty etc. Where is your evidence against ? Teaching road safety to children is ongoing but many are not capable of consistently following it until they are at least eight. And how does that help when out of control cars mount the pavement - something I have seen in my walking to school route more than once. Lots of things will help and all of them need to happen - including this.

I do choose what speed I drive. I never go over the limit but I regulary adjust down dependant on conditions.

Changing a figure isn't some sort of magical solution to dangerous roads. Far from it!

Sorry pointy it was 86 , not much difference ...but still ...

Any unbiased evidence? Links to it please!

www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downloads/20-mph-zones-and-road-safety-in-london.pdf

sirzy I do agree with your last post but

I think it helps though.

Would you disagree?