Am I the only idiot that sticks to the 20 MPH limit?

[QuiQuaiQuod]

Get cars up my chuff revving, cars speeding past, yet theyre never caught. I go just 1 over and I'd prob get stopped!

But apparently the highway code ISN'T law so why do some people take notice of it and is that why most people do NOT?

and most areas where I live are 20 mph now- its ridiculus and prob causes more emissions!

it's much easier to maintain 30 than 20 without having to keep looking at your speedo due to the way car engines were designed.

Most used gadget on my car is the limiter. In fact my only grumble is that it needs to be explicitly set every journey, and I have yet to be given a valid explanation for such behaviour.

I drove a hire car last year that had an auto limiter that read road signs and used GPS to set the limit.

5 people everyday are killed in the uk and speed is a factor in a very high percentage of these deaths

To those of you that believe it’s fine to break the law and speed - if you kill a human due to your speeding will you be able to look their relatives in the eye and tell them your speeding wasn’t a contributing factor in their relatives death?

The council are supposed to engineer the road so that 20 doesn't seem slow by narrowing, adding bends, humps etc. The police generally don't enforce. Councils are pretty negligent to put in 20 limits without the engineering - it just ends up with dangerous overtaking.
Of course if people could just obey the law we wouldn't have to put up with irritating traffic calming measures!

It’s 20mph round here. I was edging out of a side road at about 5mph as there was a transit van parked on the corner obstructing my view.

Car came down the road doing way more than 20 and slammed into me as I pulled out taking my car around the corner and bounced off my door and went into two parked cars.

Accident was my fault even though she was clearly speeding and possibly had her mobile in her hand and she didn’t even brake.

Still see her speeding around and it really infuriates me as it’s cost me so much time and money and she has learnt nothing (and went for personal injury).

I think it is more dangerous in some ways to constantly have to keep looking at the speedometer.

Probably better to learn to drive then.

Actually if it was as simple as 'it's all the people doing 30 in a 20 killing people' they would say that. But it's more complicated. It could be drivers not paying as much attention, people feeling safer and therefore behaving in more risky ways, more people allowing dogs, children etc. out with less supervision, people driving closer.

SUVs are more likely to be at fault in an RTA because of a false sense of safety. ABS braking systems make people drive closer because of the same.

Don't base law on what you wish people would do it what you think they ought to do. base it on what they actually do.

Want to reduce car use? More pedestrianised areas and better public transport. Incentivise lack of car use. What to reduce speed in dangerous areas? Keep it to those areas and do actual traffic calming and time the speeds around schools etc. Variable speed limits work really well on motorways because people see the point. Around schools would be the same.

I don't stick to 20mph unless outside a school or another legitimate reason. Utterly ridiculous. I don't really believe we should have speed limits at all

I am going to go out on a limb here, and guess that you won't say that in court.

I like the 20 mph - it saves lives. End of story. Some tossers always decide to ignore and either speed past or tailgate. I wish the police would prosecute more drivers for speeding

The 20 signs in circles on rectangular signs are not the law.

As anyone who drives should know. What with having to know the Highway code and all ...

@DGRossetti

😂

The council are supposed to engineer the road so that 20 doesn't seem slow by narrowing, adding bends, humps etc.

Oh they are ... but it's easier to slap the signs up first.

Load of speed humps along the 20mph roads in Birmingham, certainly.

After my crash I got a bit obsessive and tried emergency stops on the same road at 20mph (when no other cars were around) and it was perfectly possible to stop in time.

I like the 20 mph - it saves lives. End of story.

Except that it doesn't.

Well I didn't know that till recently. I assumed the circle inside the rectangle meant it was mandatory but they are advisory

I like the 20 mph

I've learned to like it, since it's happening anyway. No matter what all the better understanding posters on here think.

ROSPA's position on 20mph zones is that they are safer - I quote

20mph zones are very effective at preventing injuries and RoSPA would like to see their wider use in residential areas.

20mph zones significantly decrease the risk of being injured in a collision and their greater use, especially in residential areas, would help to reduce the number of traffic injuries in the UK.

After my crash I got a bit obsessive and tried emergency stops on the same road at 20mph (when no other cars were around) and it was perfectly possible to stop in time.

Except that doing an emergency stop when you know you are going to do one is entirely different to doing one when you don't. Stopping distances have to take in reaction time as well as stopping time. People are less attentive at lower speeds.

I'm not actually arguing for people's right to break the law. I'm arguing for using engineering, psychology and other sciences to inform law. So that we get the most effect on safety/the environment for the least money, curtailment of our wants, and infringement of our freedoms.

Except that it doesn't.

Proof of this?

Well I didn't know that till recently. I assumed the circle inside the rectangle meant it was mandatory but they are advisory

Hang on .. if it's in a circle, then it's mandatory - regardless of the shape of the metal sign ...

here's a compulsory one :

Why do you need to drive at 30mph or 40mph?

Dg I've recently been on a speed awareness course and the policeman running it used that as an example of an advisory sign

Proof of this?

"Overall findings – The evidence available to date shows no significant change in the short term in collisions and casualties, in the majority of the case studies (including the aggregated set of residential case studies)."

assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/757307/20mph-headline-report.pdf

If a government report will do you.

I'm not actually arguing for people's right to break the law. I'm arguing for using engineering, psychology and other sciences to inform law. So that we get the most effect on safety/the environment for the least money, curtailment of our wants, and infringement of our freedoms.

I'm afraid you're far too late to the party. England (can't speak for other parts of the UK) wouldn't know evidence based policy if it hit you in the face. You'd need an entire overhaul of the education system for a start, plus years for it to start to work it's way into society so when people are presented with evidence they are able to look at it and understand it.

Far easier to offload all of that to the tabloids to tell us what is good and bad, really, isn't it ? And even if it isn't, it's what we've done.

Why do you need to drive at 30mph or 40mph?

I read somewhere and don't have the link so it may be apocryphal, that the average speed driven in London (I think in rush hour) is 9 mph. Most of the time in cities we aren't driving 40. Most people (without limits) would drive to the engineering limits of the road. So we should control and police heavily in areas that need it and leave the rest alone more so that people get the message.

I'm afraid you're far too late to the party. England (can't speak for other parts of the UK) wouldn't know evidence based policy if it hit you in the face.

I know