Shock - signs of sensible road policy in London.

Canny Jock

On the local London news this evening, talk of extending the use of 20mph zones. I'm a big fan!

My road is a 20 limit - it has a primary school, parked cars on both sides of the road meaning that it's single-file, and those annoying square speed bumps. There is no way people should be going faster than 20 down there, and this applies to a lot of residential roads. Maybe I'm being selfish 'cos I live on it and have young kids, but I'm happy to pootle along at 20 on similar roads (that may have something to do with driving an Impreza which has to take speed bumps at about 5mph anyway).

Also, talk of car-free days - I know this is probably unlikely and won't be widespread, but just think how good the commute would be without any cars on the road

cjcp

Yep, heard that too this moring. +1 for 20mph limits. My road has one, as do surrounding roads.

Howver, the trick is policing the limit. I've complained to the corner shop about the paper delivery van, which used to hammer it at 5am. That stopped. You can do the same with other company vehicles.

But it's the boy racers on scooters and cars which need to be cracked down on. Speed bumps are an option, but some residents aren't very keen because they think it will reduce the value of their property and/or create parking issues.

Canny Jock

True - I'm not a huge fan of speed cameras EXCEPT in built up areas, you rarely see them on residential roads though (not enough traffic to make them economically viable I guess :shock: )

I don't think the square bumps work very well - it just causes people to swerve all over the road but they can maintain their speed if they straddle them properly, and it does nothing to slow vans, 4x4's etc. The number of times I've had to move all the way to the left on the bike to avoid someone heading straight at me to straddle the middle bump (oo-er!)

I would be happy for them to replace the square ones in my street with proper hills which span the whole road.

Is the need to let ambulances go quickly really the reason the square ones exist? If so, how come they still use proper ones sometimes?

bails87

I've never understood the ambulance thing. If they're narrow enough for an ambulance to fly over at 60mph, then they're narrow enough for a 4x4, van, lorry or people carrier to fly over at 40mph (assuming a 30 limit). The cars that would cause the least damage to a ped/cyclist are the ones that get slowed down. Anything big and dangerous is unimpeded, so what's the point!?

iain_j

There's one road locally with those square speed bumps, all the motorists do is drive at the same speed but with their nearside wheels in the cycle lane. I've experienced it many times on that road as a cyclist and as a taxi passenger, not pleasant either way :?

Eau Rouge

Speed bumps are an awful idea. Their bad enough in a car, but having encountered a few styles of them on various roads I'm becoming convinced they are actually more of an anti-cycling measure than anything else.

A better idea is to get rid of the footpaths. There really is nothing as effective as expecting to find people wandering on the road to slow motorists down. While your at it, lose the road markings too, which really takes divers out of the " I'm in my lane I don't care about anyone else" mentality.

It's been done in a lot of town centres and works remarkably well there. I've seen the same thing in a few places on the continent. It took me a while to figure out why the drivers seemed nicer, but it was clearly the fact everyone was walking on the road as there was no footpath. The same drivers on a road with footpaths were back to driving like I was used to seeing.

oscarbudgie

20 mph is great idea - just think of all the scalps we'll get - and there's not a thing the cars can do!

salsarider79

They can just speed as usual, or the dangerous blind bend overtakes, the just comming up to roundabouts, the traffic ahead overtakes. Thats all they do on my commute home. I have to go down a road which is difficult for two cars to pass, yet people still go flying past me, only to have to stop a second later cos of traffic.... :evil:

asprilla

If there is a definate requirement, like a school then a 20 mph limit is justified but otherwise what's wrong with 30 mph?

As has been said, enforcement is the issue; I live on a 30 mph road with a school which has speed bumps and other traffic calming measures. Outside of school times I and 90% of other people drive at 30 mph along it and all is fine. The main only issue comes from the folks who treat it as a cut through and do more than 30 mph. Lowering the limit to 20 mph isn't going to stop them.

I'm in favour for better driver education and enforcement of regulation of knee jerk drops in speed limit.

Also, slightly OT, few things annoy me more than councils spending £10k on flashing speed limit signs that everyone ignores.

Vegeeta

I think that those responsable for reducing the speed limit from 30 to 20 mph in some areas are fully aware that there are going to be people who continue to speed.

However, usually all but the most ignorant of drivers will usually only go about 10mph above the designated speed limit. So now, instead of going along the road at 40mph they will be going at 30mph. They'll still be 'speeding' but that'll be less dangerous.

We will always get the morons who shoot up residential roads at 50mph, there's little we can do to stop that right now. Maybe in future harsher punishments, more police patrols and essentially personallity tests on the driving exam, but for now anything's a help.


In this thread a few of you have complained about car users overtaking inappropriately and getting into your way/passing too close. The best way to deal with this is cycle at least an extra foot out into the road. It will force the drivers to wait until there is a more appropriate passing point and if they do then get too close you have somewhere to go rather than hitting the curb and falling off!

prj45

Get filling in here:

http://mts.tfl.gov.uk/default.aspx

the_village_idiot

what about times of the day when there are no school kids and fewer cars?

Aidy

I'm not convinced by 20mph limits.

As a driver, I'd far rather see people excercise common sense when driving.
Point of a 30mph limit is that it's a limit, not a minimum speed. I've yet to see a speed camera in a 20mph zone, but that's kinda besides the point.

Personally, I'll adjust my speed dependant on the conditions. If there's lots of other stuff about, or the road is narrow, or visibility is impaired, I'll slow down. I reckon we need better drivers, not more regulations.

Eau Rouge

Vegeeta wrote:

However, usually all but the most ignorant of drivers will usually only go about 10mph above the designated speed limit. So now, instead of going along the road at 40mph they will be going at 30mph. They'll still be 'speeding' but that'll be less dangerous.

Help me out here.
Today, on the residential side roads around where I live, the speed limit is, naturally, 30mph and has been for decades. If I drive down these roads at 27mph, nobody has any problem with that.
These roads are obvious candidates for a 20mph limit though, it's only a matter of time until it happens. If I then drive down the same roads as the same speed, 27mph, I'm "speeding". Am I driving more dangerously?

deptfordmarmoset

Eau Rouge wrote:

Vegeeta wrote:

However, usually all but the most ignorant of drivers will usually only go about 10mph above the designated speed limit. So now, instead of going along the road at 40mph they will be going at 30mph. They'll still be 'speeding' but that'll be less dangerous.

Help me out here.
Today, on the residential side roads around where I live, the speed limit is, naturally, 30mph and has been for decades. If I drive down these roads at 27mph, nobody has any problem with that.
These roads are obvious candidates for a 20mph limit though, it's only a matter of time until it happens. If I then drive down the same roads as the same speed, 27mph, I'm "speeding". Am I driving more dangerously?

Yes and no.
No more dangerously than you're driving now.
But more dangerously that you would be at 20 mph, when your emergency stopping distance would be shorter, your reaction time would be longer, and any impact would be lessened. This difference could mean that a child suddenly running out in front of you might get away with a few bruises instead of an extended spell in hospital.

Eau Rouge

I try and play Devil's Advocate on this, but I just can't make it work.

I don't like the very cherry-picked stats the 20's Plenty website uses, I don't like the lazy approach of reducing speed almost without any other consideration of *why* the number of pedestrians and children killed in the UK is as high as it should be. I do feel the same effort and money and campaigning would be better served in having people shown to be at fault for accidents given at least 3 points almost as routine (where I'm told currently that unless there is serious injury or large costs involved it's not in the public interest to prosecute) After all, if you don't have the accident in the first place, it doesn't really matter how fast your going, and if you *know* you will get points if you crash, you're going to drive more carefully regardless of the speed limit. It's a lot more likely to catch people than a 20mph limit too. It still seems madness to give someone 3 points for doing 35 in a 30 zone, but not bother to when they have an actual accident.

It just not enough though. The fact remains that injuries and the chance of death or both significantly lower, especially in those accidents the driver couldn't reasonably avoid, like a child running out into the road. It also partly sends the message that the roads, especially residential ones, are not a sacred right of way for people to drive on as they wish. It might also get more people to not take their van the half-mile to the shop to buy some milk.

So as much as I dislike speed limits as a road safety tool, I just can't have too much of a problem with this idea.

spursn17

20mph..........


...................how long before cyclists start getting nicked for speeding?

il_principe

bails87 wrote:

I've never understood the ambulance thing. If they're narrow enough for an ambulance to fly over at 60mph, then they're narrow enough for a 4x4, van, lorry or people carrier to fly over at 40mph (assuming a 30 limit). The cars that would cause the least damage to a ped/cyclist are the ones that get slowed down. Anything big and dangerous is unimpeded, so what's the point!?

Having been in an ambo recently (with a broken bone and in pain) I am now totally against speed bumps, fecking hurt. They really are a daft idea - and the ones that impede all vehicles impeded emergency ones - that seems particularly stupid.

20mph limits though, yes please. I'd like to see private vehicles all but banned from central London - at least at weekends or selected weekdays, but that'll never happen.

Wallace1492

It's simple. It is far too easy to get and keep a driving license.
The poor quality of driving ability in this country means that there is a high injury/death rate. People are just not careful enough.

Also the boy racer culture is another huge factor in this. While there will be some of it abroad, it is nowhere near the level it is here.

I do agree with 20 limits in built up area's, where there is likely to be pedestrain/cycle traffic. But I am also in favour of increased limits where there will be no conflicts - e.g. Motorways and some dual carriageways.

I would like to see the driving test being more rigourous, and shorter bans being enforced for careless driving.

Mike Healey

Aidy wrote:

]I'm not convinced by 20mph limits.

Then read http://www.bmj.com/cgi/reprint/339/dec10_3/b4469

As a driver, I'd far rather see people excercise common sense when driving.

Wouldn't we all - so why do councils install speed bumps?

Point of a 30mph limit is that it's a limit, not a minimum speed

.

And drivers treat it like that?

Personally, I'll adjust my speed dependant on the conditions. If there's lots of other stuff about, or the road is narrow, or visibility is impaired, I'll slow down. I reckon we need better drivers, not more regulations.

Agreed, but holding our breathisn't a reasonable alternative to 20 limits and, where feasible and effective, speed bumps

Mike Healey

spursn17 wrote:

20mph..........


...................how long before cyclists start getting nicked for speeding?

Only motor vehicles are subject to speed limit laws

il_principe

Mike Healey wrote:

spursn17 wrote:

20mph..........


...................how long before cyclists start getting nicked for speeding?

Only motor vehicles are subject to speed limit laws

~Depends where you are. I've seen (and heard of) cyclists getting pulled by the Police in Richmond Park. The limit there is 20mph and most roadies break it all the time - actually so do a lot of cars. I've taken to turning off my speedo if I see the cops.

Roastie

the_village_idiot wrote:

what about times of the day when there are no school kids and fewer cars?

Exactly when drivers should be paying attention. Accidents don't happen when you expect them to.

magicrhodes

Eau Rouge wrote:

Vegeeta wrote:

However, usually all but the most ignorant of drivers will usually only go about 10mph above the designated speed limit. So now, instead of going along the road at 40mph they will be going at 30mph. They'll still be 'speeding' but that'll be less dangerous.

Help me out here.
Today, on the residential side roads around where I live, the speed limit is, naturally, 30mph and has been for decades. If I drive down these roads at 27mph, nobody has any problem with that.
These roads are obvious candidates for a 20mph limit though, it's only a matter of time until it happens. If I then drive down the same roads as the same speed, 27mph, I'm "speeding". Am I driving more dangerously?

You have forgotten the golden rules of road safety as applied by Break

Driving above speed limit dangerous; driving below speed limit safe... (irrespective of how you are driving when driving below limit, how far below limit e.g. 35 on 60 rated road)

Unfortunately slow is regarded as safe whereas alert and aware is far safer...

asprilla

magicrhodes wrote:

You have forgotten the golden rules of road safety as applied by Break

Driving above speed limit dangerous; driving below speed limit safe... (irrespective of how you are driving when driving below limit, how far below limit e.g. 35 on 60 rated road)

Unfortunately slow is regarded as safe whereas alert and aware is far safer...

Yup, speed doesn't kill, but inappropriate speed is frequently a contributing factor.

biondino

Aidy wrote:

I'm not convinced by 20mph limits.

As a driver, I'd far rather see people excercise common sense when driving.
Point of a 30mph limit is that it's a limit, not a minimum speed. I've yet to see a speed camera in a 20mph zone, but that's kinda besides the point.

Personally, I'll adjust my speed dependant on the conditions. If there's lots of other stuff about, or the road is narrow, or visibility is impaired, I'll slow down. I reckon we need better drivers, not more regulations.

Agreed. 20mph zones have their place and should be used - schools are the obvious example - but they're seldom necessary beyond that. I really have a fundamental issue with the idea that the best way of traffic management is making it so unpleasant that you just refuse to drive, when 95% of people either can't or won't give up their car no matter what happens. Which equals miserable, slow, gridlocked roads.

Eau Rouge

Asprilla wrote:

magicrhodes wrote:

You have forgotten the golden rules of road safety as applied by Break

Driving above speed limit dangerous; driving below speed limit safe... (irrespective of how you are driving when driving below limit, how far below limit e.g. 35 on 60 rated road)

Unfortunately slow is regarded as safe whereas alert and aware is far safer...

Yup, speed doesn't kill, but inappropriate speed is frequently a contributing factor.

Inappropriate speed has nothing to do with speed limits, of course.

asprilla

Depends if you subscribe to the 85th percentile theory of speed limits or not. The theory goes that for any road / conditions you will have a spread of speeds at which different drivers travel.

The 85th percentile being the speed at which 85% of drivers are travelling slower than that speed. Studies in a number of countries have shown that the least number of accidents happen when the speed limit is set at between the 85th and 90th percentiles for the road. Consequently reducing speeds may reduce the chance of someone being seriously injured in a collision, but it increases the chances of a collision happening.

In appropriate speed doesn't only mean going too fast, and nor does it mean driving to the speed limit; it means driving at speeds appropriate to the conditions. Most drivers tend to look at speed limits as advisory anyway and drive at a speed they feel is appropriate.

secretsam

cjcp wrote:

But it's the boy racers on scooters and cars which need to be cracked down on. Speed bumps are an option, but some residents aren't very keen because they think it will reduce the value of their property and/or create parking issues.

<<Froths at mouth like Daily Mail columnist>>

I find a nice bit of chicken wire works well for Scooter Scum, as for chavtastic BoomBoomBoom MaxPower tw@ts, the old army surplus Bren gun is just the job.

Seriously, as someone who got 3 points for doing 37 on an urban dual carriageway, on a bright sunny day in a non-residential area, these little f&ckers doing 50 in a 30 down near my house - where there are 2 primary schools on the same road - should be given community service cleaning up dog muck with their tongues or something. And they should have their cars taken away and crushed before their eyes. :evil: :evil: :evil:

The Chingford Skinhead

Asprilla wrote:

Yup, speed doesn't kill, but inappropriate speed is frequently a contributing factor.

Except of course that speed - appropriate or not - does kill, whether the driver was at fault or not. The faster the vehicle the greater the chance of any collision causing death.

The Chingford Skinhead

Asprilla wrote:

I'm in favour for better driver education and enforcement of regulation of knee jerk drops in speed limit.

Also, slightly OT, few things annoy me more than councils spending £10k on flashing speed limit signs that everyone ignores.

How can you be in favour of better driver education and yet oppose flashing speed limit signs which are supposed to educate drivers to slow down rather than just issue a fine after the event?
(Sorry A - saw and wanted to comment on this post first but only realised it was you and that I'd already just commented on one of your posts - nothing personal - honest guv...)