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 ?

[Chattymummyhere]

Another thing why is it always the motorists who get slapped with this and slapped with that? Road tax, do walkers have pavement tax to upkeep the pavements? Petrol is already so so high yet drop the speed limits and add double time to a trip eats more petrol. It would also take time away from those with family at home where a maybe 30min drive would then take an hour, meaning parents may miss time with their children or would have to leave work even earlyer to pick up their children resulting in employers having a hard time with parents then not wanting to hire parents.

Im not a driver anyway, my partner does but it make no difference to me apart from the fact he would then not get home till around 6:30pm at night after having to leave home to get to work at 6:30am, our child has dinner at 6pm, bath at 7pm then to bed.

[LynetteScavo]

Overall I think a 20 mile an hour speed limit would be good.

But there are a few main roads near me which can cope with 30mph.

I would like all roads near schools to have special restrictions. Especially high schools (why are teenagers so fond of pushing their friends into the road with out any regard for traffic???)

A 20 mph limit would make so many bloody speed bumpss less necessary.

[swallowthree]

There is quite a lot referenced here as well.

www.ctc.org.uk/DesktopDefault.aspx?TabID=5075

[sunshineandbooks]

I'm for it, though I think it would need some thought and possibly operate on a time slot basis.

The 30-mile-an-hour limit was set for a reason. Above this speed, few pedestrians survive. Below it, most do.

People tend to speed in proportion to the limit. Many people do 40 in a 30 zone and many people do 85 on a motorway, but few people do 85 in a 30 zone. Reducing the limit to 20 means those speeding will probably hover at about 25-30. The change in limit will probably do little to change the number of accidents that happen, but it could mean a huge increase in survival rates for those who are hit.

[MarginallyNarkyPuffin]

It's not just about reducing the number of accidents, it's about reducing the severity of the injuries to the pedestrian. Drop the limit 10mph and you'll find the survival rate goes up and the severity of the injuries goes down.

[Pendeen]

cat64

You have a valid argument and I very much agree however I would add to that, driver education and training is woeful in this country and a radical overhaul with much more effort on refresher courses and monitoring, possibly with a shortened test every so often (5 years / 10 years) would be far more effective in cutting accident rates.

How long is it since the various contributors on here have taken their driving test?

How many have advanced driver training?

Skid training (no that's notnecessarily speeding, your car can skid at 2mph on ice)?

How many submit themselves to regular assessment?

Etc, etc.

But, that's all far, far too difficult so let's concentrate on a number instead.

[Sirzy]

exactly Cat

20mph zones in some areas doesnt tackle the bigger problem of poor driving

[GrimmaTheNome]

Reducing max speed from 30 to 20 wouldn't increase journey times by 50%, pendeen, because in real streets you aren't going at a steady 30. (well, I hope not!)

I don't think all urban areas should have 20 limits - but there certainly should be more 20mph school zones. The ones in the US which operated all day every day were annoying - the one in our village is turned on by the lollipop lady so its on at exactly the right times, excellent.

[swallowthree]

Sirzy - you have gone quiet - are you reading the links ?

[Sirzy]

marginallynarky. Remove all cars from the roads that will stop all accidents!!

[Sirzy]

Sorry swallow, I didn't realise I had to report in and out with you when I leave the computer

and as I have said over and over its not just about the small areas where these limits are implemented. That doesn't come close to tackling the bigger problem. Something I read recently suggested that because of the 20mph limits some driver took different quicker routes therefore increasing the number of accidents on those roots. Or is that ok because there are less on the 20mph roads? Or should ALL roads be 20mph?

Poor drivers are poor drivers no matter what the speed limit!

[swallowthree]

Not realistic and not helpful.

[swallowthree]

No - you asked for evidence and I provided some.

[swallowthree]

Poor drivers driving slowly are less deadly and thats the point you seem to be missing.

[Meglet]

yanbu. I don't mind driving in 20mph areas. I'd happily whack up 20mph signs everywhere if I was in charge.

[MarginallyNarkyPuffin]

It's not about stopping accidents. It's about people surviving the accidents.

[whomovedmychocolate]

I actually agree with speed reduction speeds except how they are enforced round here. We used to have 60MPH roads going into 40, going into 30 when you reached the villages, you go downhill so it makes sense to slow people gradually towards the bottom.

However they have now wiped this away and it's 50 then 30 in the village. And people tend to stick at about 40 the whole way through.

Anyway, speed bumps, traffic calming, traffic lights etc. ensure I do not get about 15 miles per hour on the school run.

[Sirzy]

Then checked up on me like some sort of teacher!!

And one of the articles referenced in that link suggested that most accidents occur on rural roads. So like I said a 20mph limited in a few areas doesn't tackle the bigger issue

[MarginallyNarkyPuffin]

'Speed significantly increases the chance of being injured in a collision. Studies which compare injury severity with vehicle speed show that accidents at speeds above 20mph are more likely to result in severe injuries, rather than slight injuriesi. The risk of being fatally injured increases too, and a UK study of accidents found that at 20mph there was a 2.5% chance of being fatally injured, compared to a 20% chance at 30mphii. Similarly a study in Swedeniii concluded that the risk of fatality injury at 50km/h is twice as high as at 40km/h and five times as high as 30km/h2.'

here

[Sirzy]

Its not about being protective of speed. Nobody is saying speeding is fine what people are saying is that a 20mph limit on its own isn't going to make all roads safer. It may make roads in a few small areas safer but that doesn't tackle the bigger issue does it?

[sunshineandbooks]

I thought one of the main reasons for traffic jams was not slow moving traffic but excessive braking. Isn't it the same reason the variable speed limit was put on sections of the M25 - slowing traffic down means it is more likely to keep moving (possibly not the best example for my argument as anyone who regularly travels on it knows... ).

Anyway, if that's true, then reducing the speed limit could actually reduce journey times.

[Pendeen]

Grimma OK (slapped wrist for Pendeen for over-simplifying) :)

Although, to be fair, there are more than a few instances (driving from one side of a city to the other at night on deserted roads for example) where my 50% might be relevant.

I also agree with you and confess I am not against reducing the limit to 20 or even 10 if there is a good reason for a particular stretch of road but a wholesale reduction simply would not be reasonable