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 ?

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

Yup, perfectly safe - at times. Completely illegal too, no question (though I could say in Germany, it would be totally legal). As I said, which you ignored, at other times 10mph would be too much on the road.

The prescribed speed limits are law, but they don't mean anything exceeding that is unsafe. I know my capabilities, i know my car/motorbikes capabilities, and I know that road. When that road is empty, the visibility is great and the environment conditions superb, 120mph+ is absolutely fine for me. When there are other road users doing 40mph, including those uncomfortable with driving quickly, I don't harass them or tailgate, I just overtake when it is safe.

And of course, it's my fault if I am caught speeding - whether or not I think it's safe, I would have broken the law - it's a fair cop.

Like I said, anyone with a licence should be capable of rational decision making. If not, they shouldn't have a licence.

could someone explain why a slower driver lacking in confidence (presumably you mean hesitant at junctions and slower on open roads) is dangerous

Because they typically make driving decisions that compromise other drivers who want to use the road normally, not themselves.

we already have 20 mph in our city, but the police wont enforce it for some reason. So the council as tit for tat have decided they wont maintain speed cameras. Result is - no fixed speed cams, no enforcement of speed on roads under 30 mph. Shrugs

so does that mean learner drivers should not be on the road either as other drivers can't cope with less able drivers being on the road

Why do you think they have to have "L" plates by law? It's so other drives can take counter measures.

What type of decisions do you mean? I still can't see what the problem is if you're driving at a safe distance behind

The easiest way to describe it is to say its like finding yourself behind a learner driver in an unmarked car.

The roads are there for us all to share whatever your ability or speed

I think the fact that you can't see the problems and think anyone should be on the roads regardless of ability to drive and speed travelled tells me all I need to know TBH.

I think better road safety training for children is needed, and certainly less arrogance when it comes to cars.

In my area there are quite a few kids, and they regularly wander in front of my car, grinning, staring at me and blatantly dawdling. They also meander around on (push)bikes/scooters etc in the same way, and zip across in front of me in such a way that I wouldn't be able to stop in time if I wasn't crawling along anticipating their actions. Why are they so arrogant and unaware of how dangerous it is to piss about in front of cars, whatever speed they are going at?

Agree, loveglove. One time I was driving along and came across a boy I knew with a girl I didn't (both about 6yo I think) playing in the road. When they saw me coming the boy moved off the road and the girl did a handstand in the middle of it!

whatme I did have a long post typed out,then promptly lost it!

What would you like to see happen then please (with regard to speed)

Some of your posts insinuate that you still can't see any reason to mark some roads 10 or 20

Again, just because some drivers choose to do what they want around schools etc...does not mean others don't take note and slow down right?

And ...I would like to check that op was not suggesting a 20 for all roads? as that would be crazy!

loveglove kids mess about because they are kids.

They all have very good safety instruction here, but childhood gets the better of them, and they dart out or how you very aptly put it "piss about"

I know what speed I like to be doing, when a childish whim takes them! :)

whatme I did have a long post typed out,then promptly lost it!

I know that one :)

What would I do? IMO the Portsmouth "everything 20" trial 2009-201o didn't work (deaths went up by 1 from 19 to 20). What was interesting is what really did work there instead in the previous few years, which was traffic calming and 20 zones around known hot spots - a sort of 80/20 approach.

As to the 10/20/30 mph limit, my point is that the argument "reducing speed reduces deaths" on its own doesn't work, because then you may as well keep on reducing speed to zero - but we know that won't work as it screws up a whole lot of other things.

IMO what is not factored in to the "everything 20" movement is the impact of increasing every single journey in a 30 zone in the country by 50%.

That is going to be billions of hours lost a year, they all cost money, and that cost is not "free", it's an inevitable reduction in tax takes that fund social services, hospitals etc (by definition as they consume 80% of the national budget) so there is a real knock on on other services that save lives.

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 ?

Well if it's about saving lives then surely the sensible thing to do is to reduce the speed limit to 0 mph. That way noone dies needlessly from getting run over.

Those who are arguing for a 20mph mustn't care about all those people who could die/get injured from a speeding car at 20mph.

Who could possibly object eh? Won't someone please think of the children.

whatme I have been in the US for 6+ years ,so I have to admit that what works here...may not elsewhere?

I suppose I need to get back to the UK ... not just cos I've had enough here:)

Thanks for explaining further...I am going to ponder, till I do the school run back home!

Thanks for the comments - interesting to find out all sides to this. Some have made me think this through a bit more but others are quite disturbing. I hope the person who thinks 120mph is acceptable in some conditions gets caught - for their own sake and for the sake of everyone else on the roads. To say the Portsmouth everything 20 "didn't work" is massively overstating the case on evidence that has little statistical significance. Far more relevant is numerous worldwide research showing consistently that reducing speed limits reduces fatalities and serious injuries. Closer to home, a reduction to 20 on 25% of roads in Hull lead to a 90% reduction in serious injuries and fatalities from road accidents over three years - to name but one example, there are many more. Hope some of the committed speeders will think about this a bit more. No one has the right to speed and saving a couple of minutes on a journey really isn't as important as saving lives.

In other words you are dismissing the one and only existing complete study as it disagrees with your preconceived opinions.

Re the 120 mph, have you ever heard the word "Autobahn?"

It's bad driving that kills, not speed. People driving too slowly, like octo, cause accidents as other drivers become angry and frustrated and go on to take unnecessary risks. For example, overtaking when there is insufficient time, simply to get ahead of the inconsiderate driver holding everyone up.

20mph is fine outside schools etc first thing and say, 3 til 4pm. There is no reason to restrict speed outside schools 24 hours a day

No. It's speed. Drive badly and hit a pedestrian at 20mph they're likely to survive. Hit the person at 30mph and their odds decrease dramatically.

I think it's time to give up as the OP clearly is not interested in all the rational arguments against her position but sticks doggedly to the view that the number 20 is the panacea.

I suspect the government will not agree with her.

Incidentally, I have been driven at speeds ranging from 70mph to over 130mph on a journey from Frankfurt to Munich - and back again - in perfect safety.

There is nothing magical about our 70mph limit either and the government seem to agree with this!

i don't think it's too much to stick to 20 in built up areas and it's true that speeding kills. a little boy died round here and his parents have been lobbying for 20mph around the area for years. it's not happened :(

i think sometime we have to accept the accidents are just that; accidents.

but making people stick to lower limits in some areas would also help.

where i go to college, boys drive up and down the back roads at about 50mph it's absolute madness but no-one is interested in policing them

On the autobahn there aren't pedestrians. To go at 90/100 on the motorway is a lot safer than going at 40 in a built up area.

No. It's speed. Drive badly and hit a pedestrian at 20mph they're likely to survive. Hit the person at 30mph and their odds decrease dramatically

....and at 10mph its better still, and at 0 mph its perfect, so why not that speed then?

The reason is the tradeoffs, which none of you seem willing to think about.

Yes. Life is a balance of risks. So on most residential streets reducing the limit to 20mph is worthwhile. On A roads it isn't.

I did concede on some areas Pendeen - like maybe not always 20 and maybe not all built up areas. But there are loads of studies showing how benefits of reduced speed - thats whats being ignored. I'm sure the government will be more influenced by their buddies with their nose in the trough than by hard evidence. But going round in circles with some of you people now really - I think I'd get more from reading more widely around the subject and I think some of you should try some other influences than Top Gear and the Daily Mail. Thats me out of here.