20 mph limit for urban streets to cut road deaths

megilleland

On the Times website today:

"20 mph limit for urban streets to cut road deaths
Variable limits will be introduced on main roads near schools

The speed limit on thousands of residential roads will be reduced to 20mph under government moves designed to cut road deaths by a third over the next decade".

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/b ... 941769.ece

spen666

megilleland wrote:

On the Times website today:

"20 mph limit for urban streets to cut road deaths
Variable limits will be introduced on main roads near schools

The speed limit on thousands of residential roads will be reduced to 20mph under government moves designed to cut road deaths by a third over the next decade".

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/b ... 941769.ece

andyour point is?

Are you commenting on the good / poor standard of the journalist wrings?
Are you pro or against this proposal?

Or are you just posting random newspaper articles?

I'd respond, but am not sure what your point is

megilleland

Good idea - isn't it. I think all residential estates should be 20mph and turned into home zones. Where streets are 20mph cyclists should be allowed to cycle against the flow on one way streets.

spen666

megilleland wrote:

Good idea - isn't it. I think all residential estates should be 20mph and turned into home zones. Where streets are 20mph cyclists should be allowed to cycle against the flow on one way streets.

Absolute madness

cee

cars already ignore the existing 20mph speed limits round these parts, so unless it is properly policed, I don't see how it would make a difference.

I wouldn't want to see speed cameras everywhere :evil:

Eat My Dust

It would be a pointless exercise. Drivers pretty much ignore speed limits anyway. There's a 20mph limit close to where I live and I regularly get overtaken by cars doing 30+MPH.

Eat My Dust

Damn you beat me to it Cee!!!!

redddraggon

Eat My Dust wrote:

It would be a pointless exercise. Drivers pretty much ignore speed limits anyway. There's a 20mph limit close to where I live and I regularly get overtaken by cars doing 30+MPH.

A couple of weeks ago I was doing 37mph in a 30mph area, and some idiot still had to pass me, I made sure he got an appropriate hand signal. Apart from the "must pass cyclist" mentality I don't know why the idiots do it.

Tom Butcher

I'd like to see it introduced - people may exceed the limit but I think it might slow people down a bit more - maybe they'll do 25 in a 20 instead of 35 in a 30. Granted it'll probably need a bit of a cultural shift too.

cee

Tom Butcher wrote:

I'd like to see it introduced - people may exceed the limit but I think it might slow people down a bit more - maybe they'll do 25 in a 20 instead of 35 in a 30. Granted it'll probably need a bit of a cultural shift too.

Yeah maybe your right..... it might slow people down a bit more than usual....

Obviously some folks will scream around regardless, but as you point out, many others will tone it down a little.

eternal_headwind

Instead of (or as well as) slowing some cars down I would like to speed some cars up.

Bear with me on this one...

Supposing we had a no stopping zone outside of schools. It may be a small step to reversing the school run culture. There may be some practicalities to sort out. For example, what if you live next to a school? Will you need a residents parking
(and stopping) permit?
How far need the zone extend in order to break the habit? My guesstimate is about 37 miles

Those children will still need to get to school, and some may cycle.

peanut

if you can't be bothered to respond civilly or just flame , I suggest you don't bother posting at all. The OP was making a simple observation relevant to cyling and anyone with any commensense can see what it is except you seemingly

spen666 wrote:

]

andyour point is?

spen666

peanut wrote:

if you can't be bothered to respond civilly or just flame , I suggest you don't bother posting at all. The OP was making a simple observation relevant to cyling and anyone with any commensense can see what it is except you seemingly

spen666 wrote:

]

andyour point is?

Actually the opening poster made no point at all

They simply quoted an extract from a newspaper.

I had no idea whether they were in agreement with the piece, opposed to it, were commenting on the quality of the journalism or what.

Hence I asked what the point the OP was trying to make. You see unlike some people, I like to know what is being discussed before I plunge in.

redddraggon

spen666

Is there anywhere on this forum that states you must make a point?

You don't have to so confrontational every time a post comes up that you don't like the look of.

spen666

redddraggon wrote:

spen666

Is there anywhere on this forum that states you must make a point?

You don't have to so confrontational every time a post comes up that you don't like the look of.

FFS

All I did was ask what the point the poster was making was. This is campaign. Its hardly going to be a successful campaign if it isn't clear if OP was for or against the 20mph zone, if that is what they were campaigning about
As I have said before, I seek to unsderstand what is being said before responding. If I don't understand, then I will ask what the point the poster was making is

Grow up and stop being so bloody precious. The OP had no problem with being asked what his point about that quote he posted was. Seems like the confrontational one here is you. The OP answered my question and the matter moved on

OffTheBackAdam

How would it cut road deaths?
Why do they occur on these streets?
These are the questions to answer.
Is it because people are crossing the street without looking? Kids running out playing chicken? Kids playing football in the street?
We got it drilled into us at infant school, "Bertie Beacon" came round, always cross on a pedestrian crossing, look left, look right, look left again and if all's clear, cross the road keeping looking both ways.
Tufty Club anyone?
As for the suggestion about cyclists being able to legally use a one-way street in the wrong direction, are you completely stupid or just winding us up?
It's hard enough to get sodding pedestrians to look for a bike, calculate its speed correctly and cross safely as it is, without them walking up to a road with a "Look Left" sign, looking left, seeing nothing and then stepping out!

megilleland

As for the suggestion about cyclists being able to legally use a one-way street in the wrong direction, are you completely stupid or just winding us up?

No, in Hereford we are working towards actually doing this. This was reported in the latest community newsletter JABA:
http://www.jaba.org.uk/

"Agreement in principle for St Owen Street contra-flow access to the town centre is won, but it won't look like King Street (with cycle lane) or force bicycles to travel between pavement and parked cars. The idea is to allow cycling on an informal basis, provided vehicle speeds can be lowered, for instance becoming a 20mph zone".

meanwhile

spen666 wrote:

peanut wrote:

if you can't be bothered to respond civilly or just flame , I suggest you don't bother posting at all. The OP was making a simple observation relevant to cyling and anyone with any commensense can see what it is except you seemingly

spen666 wrote:

]

andyour point is?

Actually the opening poster made no point at all

They simply quoted an extract from a newspaper.

Yes, this is called "Providing people with useful and relevant information."

I had no idea whether they were in agreement with the piece, opposed to it, were commenting on the quality of the journalism or what.

This isn't a debating club or a forum for literary criticism...

Hence I asked what the point the OP was trying to make. You see unlike some people, I like to know what is being discussed before I plunge in.

..But if it was, you'd score poorly. The "what" of the thread is clear - is that this legislation has been proposed. It's bizarre that you feel that you need to know what the OP's attitude is before joining in, to the extent of being uncivil.

megilleland

[quote megilleland wrote:
Good idea - isn't it. I think all residential estates should be 20mph and turned into home zones. Where streets are 20mph cyclists should be allowed to cycle against the flow on one way streets.

Absolute madness[/quote]

[quote As for the suggestion about cyclists being able to legally use a one-way street in the wrong direction, are you completely stupid or just winding us up? [/quote]

extract from Surveyor Magazine 5 June 2008

Borough finds new way to promote cycling
Cyclists will be allowed to ride the wrong way down six one-way streets in a trial of informal cycle contraflow in Kensington & Chelsea. The rationale is to get round the conventional approach which the council's Deputy Leader, Daniel Moylan, said 'involved a huge amount of engineering interventions on the highway, which confused road-users and could be abused by motorcyclists.'

Moylan had wanted to put up an English version of the Dutch sign, 'No entry except for cyclists', but said 'the Department for Transport, despite the pleas of many highways authorities and bicycling organisations, flatly refuses to allow this. Instead, therefore, we shall be using a combination of other, permitted signs, to offer new freedoms to those using bicycles.'

story also covered here in Bikeradar:
http://www.bikeradar.com/news/article/l ... lows-16826

borisvanhalen

i commute through a largely 20mph area each day, but even when i ride along at 25+mph i'm still being overtaken by cars

they're not just pootling past but doing close to 40... i think its a 'can't sit behind a cyclist' thing
:evil:

number9

Is it because people are crossing the street without looking? Kids running out playing chicken? Kids playing football in the street?

No.

And this is quite distasteful victim-blaming.

Almost every single RTA involves driver error. They are speeding, on a mobnile, distracted, putting on make-up, eating, day dreaming, drunk or on drugs.

20mph zones reduce accidents and reduce injuries, Google Hull 20mph for the astounding benefits of such schemes.

Beeblebrox

Would possibly encourage some drivers to keep out of town centres - which can only be a good thing. There are nowadays, generally, enough bypasses to avoid a town centre if you wish.

So yeah! Just so long they don't decide to speed limit bikes (aside from enforcing reasonable and responsible cycling)

chuckcork

Actually i'd suggest:

Speed limits are more or less voluntary. Until rigid enforcement is in place, or it becomes socially unacceptable to speed, or road traffic caming devices are in place that will destroy a car tagged as travelling too fast, governments can implement whatever speed limits they like and they will be pretty much ignored. A crash might happen but that isn't what people contemplate when their being morons, and a godo trial lawyer will easily argue lack of independent evidence.

Witness the speed limit in Richmond Park is 20mph, well within the range of a fit road cyclist, and how many times would you get overtaken in a lap of the park doing 25mph on your treadly, and how often in a say month of laps do you see the parks police out and about with speed cameras?

As for cyclists going the wrong way down one way streets, why shouldn't they now anyway? After all I've nearly been cleaned up by motorists doing exactly that (I choose to lose the game of "Chicken") and the motorists have had no penalty applied to their dangerous driving. Why should cyclists have any fear of prosecution themselves, as long as they are sensible about it?

STEFANOS4784

How about banning cars, i know theres alot of people who'll say "can't cope without" we managed a couple o hundred years ago though. I know times change but it's time they changed for the better, to many fat cats looking for huge commercial profits.

Cunobelin

I don't see the point in reducing deaths!

Now I have your attention........

What I mean is that I don't see preventing deaths as the prime reason for all of this as unnecessary.

I would prefer to see us being able to say that I want a 20 mph zone because it is quieter, more pleasant and I can cross the road more easily, and sit in my garden.

If we want our street at 20 mph - it is my street, I live here and if it takes a driver a few more seconds to traverse my area then TOUGH!


Having to justify this all the time in terms of "road deaths", safety etc is distasteful - it is simply nicer for us locals and that is all the justification it needs

pneumatic

In France, when they have just resurfaced a road, instead of putting up a "max speed 20mph: loose chippings" sign which everyone would obviously ignore (even if it was in French), they deploy a random piece of road mending machinery to "escort" the traffic at a mindnumbingly low speed through the roadworks for as long as it takes the road to set.

Our village recently went to 20mph throughout (except outside the school but don't start me on that!) and I regard it as my public duty, whenever in my car, to act like the random piece of road mending machinery and escort visitors to my village through it at 19mph. As my village is a rat run to a larger place, it is possible to amass quite an impressive line of carriages behind the locomotive and to feel horribly smug in the process.

Ah! guilty pleasures!

chuckcork

pneumatic wrote:

In France, when they have just resurfaced a road, instead of putting up a "max speed 20mph: loose chippings" sign which everyone would obviously ignore (even if it was in French), they deploy a random piece of road mending machinery to "escort" the traffic at a mindnumbingly low speed through the roadworks for as long as it takes the road to set.

Our village recently went to 20mph throughout (except outside the school but don't start me on that!) and I regard it as my public duty, whenever in my car, to act like the random piece of road mending machinery and escort visitors to my village through it at 19mph. As my village is a rat run to a larger place, it is possible to amass quite an impressive line of carriages behind the locomotive and to feel horribly smug in the process.

Ah! guilty pleasures!

Irony is if you did it on a bike they would try and force you out of the way, and berate you for being selfish and "slow"

bad company

20 limits are ok on 'side streets' but they seem to be being introduced on High Streets.

Sawston near Cambridge is a good example. Drivers must stick to 20 on the main road but turn into one of the residential side streets and it is legal to to 30. :roll:

Ambermile

Cunobelin wrote:

I would prefer to see us being able to say that I want a 20 mph zone because it is quieter, more pleasant and I can cross the road more easily, and sit in my garden.

If we want our street at 20 mph - it is my street, I live here and if it takes a driver a few more seconds to traverse my area then TOUGH!


Having to justify this all the time in terms of "road deaths", safety etc is distasteful - it is simply nicer for us locals and that is all the justification it needs

But surely, when you bought the house there was no 20 mph limit so why complain about its lack? You were fully aware of the local conditions and now you want to change them?

There is a local campaign in the next village for a bypass. Has been for years and recently there have been a lot of new houses built there. Almost as soon as the "SOLD" signs went down the "Bypass Us Now" signs went up. Call me cynical, but that smacks of profiteering...

Arthur

Pete Owens

Ambermile wrote:

But surely, when you bought the house there was no 20 mph limit so why complain about its lack? You were fully aware of the local conditions and now you want to change them?

But that could be as an argumement used to oppose absolutely any improvenment occuring anywhere ever.

Pete Owens

bad company wrote:

20 limits are ok on 'side streets' but they seem to be being introduced on High Streets

Quite right too.

High Streets with lots of people going about their business on foot are exactly the sort of places where 20mph (or slower) limits are most needed.