Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

speed limit to 20

137 replies

swallowthree · 17/10/2011 19:47

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 ?

OP posts:
Original poster
swallowthree · 17/10/2011 22:14

Almost finding common ground with Pendeen. Perhaps roads in residential areas and roads which are common routes to school should be 20 or under. There could be exceptions but the onus should be on making the case for the exceptions rather than the opposite.

OP posts:
notlettingthefearshow · 17/10/2011 22:21

Cars and busy roads are dangerous. There's no replacement for having safe crossings and keeping a close eye on children.

Fourthdimensionallizard · 18/10/2011 12:44

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

lassylass · 18/10/2011 13:52

YABU OP.

Save the 20's for places where drivers have to be particularly careful, such as outside schools. If you start using it everywhere people will just ignore it.

20 is too slow. The nation shouldn't be forced to grind down a gear to save a few extra lives, when a bit of green cross code education will achieve the same result.

GrimmaTheNome · 18/10/2011 14:19

I'm inclined to think that focussing on particular areas is more likely to achieve good results than huge 20 zones. However, IME there is a problem in crowded urban settings of it being just too easy not to notice a speed limit sign. A different road surface might help maybe? (prohibitively expensive for widespread introduction, but could be done gradually - as with semi-pedestrianised areas. maybe!)

octopusinabox · 18/10/2011 14:32

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Pendeen · 18/10/2011 14:50

Very good point octopusinabox...

".. the speed limits act as a useful guilde of the potential hazards ahead "

I fully agree with this approach.

Careful and appropriate use of the 20mph zones will be more likely to achieve a wider acceptance of these lower limits because they will be perceived as having had some rational reasoning behind them rather than a blanket and unworkable imposition across an urban area which is one of the principal reasons the 30mph limit is broken by drivers.

Whatmeworry · 18/10/2011 15:20

How many lives is it worth saving vs the increased journey times of millions of people?

If it is that every life is sacred, then the only answer is 0 mph (or maybe 4 mph plus a man with a red flag walking in front).

If it is agreed that there is a trade off, well then, how shall we make it? Why not 10mph (even more lives saved) or 35mph (very marginal increase in deaths for a far bigger increase in time to destination).

And is it blanket? - in some cities, 20mph is the default speed owing to traffic, and a mile is a,long trip - but in country towns where no other cars are on the roads even 30mph is daft and teh trip to Asda or whatever is 10 miles.

Original poster
swallowthree · 18/10/2011 20:13

I live in a country town and 30 mph is too fast along the main roads which are all either shopping areas or residential and mostly walking routes to schools. But I concede that when you get out of town into the areas lined by fields etc - then 40 plus is fine. Whatweworry - your calculations are a bit hard to stomach given that they refer to lives and not rows of beans or something. A few minutes on everyone's journey is a small price to pay for saving even one life.

OP posts:
Erebus · 18/10/2011 21:16

Thing is, most modern cars aren't designed to travel at 20 or below all the time.

Maybe the 'Under 20!' advocates on here are the ones who grind up and down the house-free road that runs alongside but not through our estate as they're in the wrong gear and are having to constantly change gear- a reason why in fact 20 can be less economical than 30!

I am all for carefully judged differentiation of maximum speed limits, and of them varying according to the time of day. It is just my belief that an awful lot of the pro-reduction camp on here probably aren't aware of how often they drive through a sparsely populated village at the legal 40, then through the next, identical village which, inexplicably, has a limit of 30, but still doing 40!

And I think that with a blanket 20 in place, we will all notice how much longer it'd take us to get to work, taking away from family time and maybe forcing us to drive DCs to school as we no longer have time to walk them!

CherylWillBounceBack · 18/10/2011 21:43

I would support wholeheartedly a move to reduce the speed limits in towns, especially around schools, narrow streets etc. However, the most important thing is to always use common sense and drive/ride to the conditions.

Out of town I think there should be no speed limit per se. Any person deemed responsible enough to drive on the roads should be intelligent enough to judge what speed is safe on the open road at any given time. On a national speed limit road (60mph) road which I use every day it is perfectly safe to go at well over 120mph at certain times. The visibility is excellent, we are all aware of where the junctions are and the traffic load is light. At other times, 10mph might be too fast on it. People should be given the responsibility to make their own decisions.

Original poster
swallowthree · 18/10/2011 22:16

Perfectly safe to go well over 120 mph at times ??? You are having a laugh.

OP posts:
MrBloomsNursery · 18/10/2011 22:18

Lets bring back horse and carriages!!!

octopusinabox · 18/10/2011 22:41

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Whatmeworry · 18/10/2011 23:19

Whatweworry - your calculations are a bit hard to stomach given that they refer to lives and not rows of beans or something

Well then if every life is sacred then 0 mph is the only speed to argue for! In which case why are you OK with the number of deaths at 20 but not at 10 mph? Why not 15? Or 25?

You are clearly trading off some deaths against other benefits, would you care to explain how you can't stomach it?

Whatmeworry · 18/10/2011 23:30

Perfectly safe to go well over 120 mph at times ??? You are having a laugh

Do you drive, OP?

youngermother1 · 18/10/2011 23:32

20mph would not have a minimal difference, would increase journey times by 33%. would also increase air pollution as cars less efficient at that 20 than 30. also what about night drivers, when no kids around?

proper driving, with attention to conditions and time of day much more effective, variable limits (ie 20 around schools at morning and afternoon times) might work

Feminine · 18/10/2011 23:34

The fact remains that driving slower in built up areas reduces death.

Why is that such a hard concept for some of you?

Why are some of you so obstinate?

Plus, reaction times are much more effective ...speeding at 20 in a 10 and then breaking will do at lot to save someones life.

Breaking at 40 ...not so much :(

I don't have any problem adjusting my speed, I live in a very rural area -nearest shops are 15 miles away.

I drive at 65 on the freeway to get my groceries , I enter my town on a country road at 55....it goes down to 45...30 and then the much disputed 20

I cope just fine, so does my car! Grin

Tierdmummy · 18/10/2011 23:37

20 mph ?? my car would break down lol It is already 20 round here where it needs to be soo dnt really see thr problem

Tierdmummy · 18/10/2011 23:37

the rather

Whatmeworry · 18/10/2011 23:41

The fact remains that driving slower in built up areas reduces death

So does banning all cars from travelling, in fact it prevents even more deaths.

So why is 20mph the "right" amount of deaths? What are you trading this off against?

Feminine · 18/10/2011 23:56

I don't understand you whatme

It is totally unrealistic to ban cars , so we do what we can to drive safely Confused right...?

Very few deaths occur at 20...injuries yes.

The driver has more time to react and apply the break.

Do you drive?

What speed do you propose for built up areas? ...please bear in mind that children are funny things, and tend to jump out randomly Grin

Sirzy · 19/10/2011 07:41

But they do in rural areas to yet people are happy to have higher limits there? Or are childrens lives in built up areas more important?

Variable 20mph zones outside schools at start and end of the school day makes a lot of sense but otherwise it just seem a daft idea

Whatmeworry · 19/10/2011 08:00

It is totally unrealistic to ban cars , so we do what we can to drive safely

Yes but why 20 mph in that case? Why not 10? Far safer, I'm sure you will agree.

You seem to realise that there is a tradeoff, but until you make that explicit then the moral argument "we could always save another life" trumps it.

Incidentally the only attempt at trialling this, in Portsmouth, resulted in the number of deaths going from 19 to 20 per annum - hardly a ringing endorsement.

lassylass · 19/10/2011 08:38

"The fact remains that driving slower in built up areas reduces death.

Why is that such a hard concept for some of you?"

Saving one more life is a poor rationale for slowing the country down to a crawl. The current fatality rate on our roads is very low considering the size of the population. Life involves risk. Stay at home and lock your kids in the basement if you want 100% safety.

TBH I often find that people who drive at or below the speed limit are the most dangerous drivers, as they have no confidence on the road. We need compulsary retesting, increasing in frequency as we get older. Getting and keeping a driving licence is too easy.