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!

hitting someone at 20 or 30mph won’t make any difference to their survival rate

If people don't park on the pavements, pedestrians may have somewhere to walk which isn't in the road. If they have to walk in the road, there is obviously a higher chance of hitting them.

I'd deal with pavement parking before I started imposing 20 limits.

We have a few roads near us which have 20 limits and it's actually a pain if people stick to them and pedestrians are waiting to cross the road. Dawdle dawdle dawdle. Do 30 and you'll be past and I can cross the road! I really don't think that they are a good idea.

There are a load of these in Lewisham. They are observed by approx 1 in 20 drivers based on my journeys around there. In the neighbouring borough, many objectively more dangerous roads are 30s and some of the truly risky country lanes are 50 or 60.

A law that is obeyed by so few people is a stupid law.

I think they're the idiots not sticking to it. I lost my cousin when he was 10 to a speeding car so hate when people speed. 20mph is sensible in residential areas. Where I am it is full of kids, a park across the road. Wish it was 20 - not that some idiots stick to 30 - they race along the roads - if a kid ran across the road they would be killed.

*If people don't park on the pavements, pedestrians may have somewhere to walk which isn't in the road. If they have to walk in the road, there is obviously a higher chance of hitting them.

I'd deal with pavement parking before I started imposing 20 limits.*

Absolutely this. It's a real problem and causes more accidents than a 20 mph speed limit.

MrsTerry so hitting someone at 20 or 30mph won’t make any difference to their survival rate? Is this what your stating when you say it does nothing at all?

It's much more complicated than that. Of course someone hitting someone at 30 is worse than 20. But there about about a hundred other factors to this:

Relative speed
Attention
Complacency
False sense of safety
Compliance
Policing
Adherence to the law
Other psychological factors
How the law is communicated
How the law is applied
The idea that the law should be fair and proportionate
and on and on.

Population based measures need to be examined on a population scale. Not case by case. All the tragic cases where someone was killed or hurt at 30/40 mph are true. But on a population scale, applying 20 mph to roads that are 30 mph roads as far as drivers are concerned is counterproductive. Much better to keep 20 mph to certain zones and times (schools normally) and police the shit out of that. People are more likely to comply that way.

Yes agree with that Terry

Glad I'm not the only one then!

Buses also go faster, as for motorbikes........

Seriously, All to deter cars on the roads. Never mind disabled people who need cars to get them to places, elderly etc, especially when public transport is not good.

Its not that I'm in a hurry to get anywhere most times, its just a road whwre theres vitually nothing around, plus the looks you get from twunts speeding, and the tailgating.

And if theres supposed to be traffic enforcement then they should all be fined/points on their licenses. As I type , a motorbikes just whizzed past (we have a 20 mph ) here. and cars think its a grand prix circuit.

I was driving recently in a 20mph zone. I had my cruise control set to 20mph.

The police in the car behind me I could tell were doing their head in at going so slow.

Dd missed a 20mph sign and got done for doing 27 in a 20

Anything that deters cars is good or at least getting people thinking about alternative forms of transport

Why would doing 20mph in a 20mph zone make you think of alternative transport

It's much more complicated than that. Of course someone hitting someone at 30 is worse than 20.

It was you that said it wasn’t

You established that lowering the speed limit doesn’t change the rate of crashes which means it doesn’t increase the number of crashes

At a lower speed there is a higher chance of survival if hit by a driver

I disagree with your stance that reducing the speed limit to 20mph doesn’t save lives

Wasn't widespread 20mph zones all over London one of Boris's bright ideas, some years ago? Like many things, was it imposed because it made him look good, rather than anyone thinking it through?

I was recently driving at 20mph, as the signs said, in a bus lane (it was allowed at that time). I was overtaken, by a bus. The irony! And whenever I doggedly followed the speed limit, I was tailgated, flashed at, overtaken dangerously, and remembering my driving instructor telling me (on the same roads, before the 20mph speed limit came in) it's dangerous to drive too slow.

I stick to it but I do find it hard - I have a good feel for when the car is doing 30 so it's fairly easy to keep to a 30 limit, but keeping to a 20 increases my mental load while driving because I'm always having to check.

That may change though as 20 limits become more common.

Oliversmumsarmy - apparently that's one of the effects of lowering the speed limit. I guess if roads are too slow and congested people choose to walk or cycle.

I disagree with your stance that reducing the speed limit to 20mph doesn’t save lives

But that assumes that everyone within that zone will stick to the limit. Of course being hit at 20 is "safer" than being hit at 30. But lots of people don't stick to the 20mph limit for various reasons - either it's a road that's been changed to 20 for no apparent reason, or they just don't much care.

20mph zones also tend to have more foot traffic - children, dog walkers, cyclists - meaning a crash is more likely just because it's busier.

An arbitrary speed limit of 20mph won't automatically make a road safer - there needs to be other factors at play too.

Driving at 20 mph is quite difficult if there is no apparent reason (e.g. school road) and it feels like a 30 mph road.

I'd probably do 25 mph (as per my speedometer), which in reality is probably about 21-22 mph. Any slower and I'd be aware I'm probably pissing off the driver behind.

I was driving recently in a 20mph zone. I had my cruise control set to 20mph.

Cruise control or limiter ?

Despite cruise control being the feature I specifically wanted most when I ordered our car I hardly use it, whereas I use the limiter from start to finish.

If we know deaths increase in 20 zones but the local government keeps doing it, I will be more dubious about their other decisions

But why do deaths increase in a 20 zone? Supposedly because some drivers are not sticking to it and attempting to overtake the cars that are? Which is entirely the speeders fault.

Any slower and I'd be aware I'm probably pissing off the driver behind.

So what? They can get pissed off, the one going at the speed limit is in the right.

it's dangerous to drive too slow. It's not dangerous to go at the speed limit, regardless if it's "slow", the danger is the anger of the arseholes behind you!!

Definitely cruise control. Would now never consider a car that didn't have it. Makes driving so much easier.

Dd has a speed limiter and it is shit.
It never works. Slight pressure on the accelerator and it turns itself off.

Oliversmumsarmy - apparently that's one of the effects of lowering the speed limit. I guess if roads are too slow and congested people choose to walk or cycle

But if you live that close to your destination then you would probably walk anyway if you don't plan on carrying a lot but for most people we are driving miles to get somewhere else. No good getting out of your car and walking through the 20 mph zone if you have a further 20 miles to go or you have a load of stuff to carry

Even if you wanted to leave your car and walk there are no parking spaces so you are forced to drive.

Always amazes me when people say use public transport.

I would have to drive to the train station or bus stop and when I get there the station car park is always full or there is double yellow lines around the bus stop.

If people want you to get out of your car and walk you have to give them somewhere to park the car in the first place and not assume everyone comes from within a mile radius of the area or works in an office so will only be carrying a light briefcase or handbag

Definitely cruise control. Would now never consider a car that didn't have it. Makes driving so much easier.

Horses for courses ... having driven a lot in the US, I loved CC, but only really get to use it on long motorway drags. I wouldn't mind but it's adaptive and supposed to follow the car in front. But there's no point in engaging it in town.

Speed limiter is much better. And it works fine - it will cancel if you really boot the gas, but I've never needed to do that. Maybe I'm not driving right ?

I can speed in dd's car as her speed limiter just turns itself off it you put your foot a little heavier on the accelerator.

Always use my cruise control. I have arthritis in my knees so it is easier.

I do a lot of long journeys on motorways and not having to put any pressure on the accelerator is so relaxing.
Although I spend most of my time on motorways flicking the cruise control up and down as every gantry now seems to display a different speed limit

Also when I was going through the 20mph zone I knew I was doing dead on 20mph so the police behind me couldn't catch me out.

Although I spend most of my time on motorways flicking the cruise control up and down as every gantry now seems to display a different speed limit

The Ford S-Max I had last year changed automatically