20 mph Zones - Extend or Eliminate?

[bramling]

Narrower lanes, uneven surfaces, chicanes etc.

So in essence let’s make life unpleasant for everyone, and most disturbingly let’s increase danger for some - in particular cyclists. Not a very responsible attitude to road safety.

I’m not convinced this constant advocacy of 20 mph has any basis whatsoever other than to, for whatever reason, attempt to impose difficulty on people.

 

[signed]

rather traffic calming ensures that is a comfortable speed that people will tend to do naturally.

I would be rather inclined to say that with those you make non-compliance that much more dangerous, for everyone not only for the non-complying driver, especially on (motor)bikes and for pedestrians.

Modifying the street to force that is not what should be the first step in trying to solve the issue, penalties must be detterent enough and enforcement must me strict.

 

[Bletchleyite]

So in essence let’s make life unpleasant for everyone, and most disturbingly let’s increase danger for some - in particular cyclists. Not a very responsible attitude to road safety.

I’m not convinced this constant advocacy of 20 mph has any basis whatsoever other than to, for whatever reason, attempt to impose difficulty on people.

Once again as a cyclist I massively prefer 20mph, because I can ride with the motorised traffic as an equal, not in the gutter subservient to it. I prefer segregation of course, but where not possible 20mph is vastly preferable.

I thought I wouldn't prefer it, but I've now cycled in London extensively with it and am sure of my view.

I would be rather inclined to say that with those you make non-compliance that much more dangerous, for everyone not only for the non-complying driver, especially on (motor)bikes and for pedestrians.

I'm sorry but that's simply not true. I can't even think of a single way in which it could be.

Also note that most noncompliance is people driving 10-15mph over the limit (classically my Dad for instance always did 10 over whatever the limit was). Thus 20mph even if not complied with demonstrably reduces overall traffic speeds. In a 30, a lot of people will do 40, but they won't in a 20.

 

[bramling]

Once again as a cyclist I massively prefer 20mph, because I can ride with the motorised traffic as an equal, not in the gutter subservient to it. I prefer segregation of course, but where not possible 20mph is vastly preferable.

I’m not so much talking about 20 mph being an issues for cyclists (our views differ on that), however calming measures to enforce 20 mph are a massive problem.

The last thing cyclists need is measures which force them and others into illogical road positions. And as for uneven surfaces, for cyclists this is a total and utter liability - in the first instance as it comes, but also surface measures tend to deteriorate very quickly introducing quite lethal hazards such as hidden potholes. As I say, a total liability.

 

[Krokodil]

So in essence let’s make life unpleasant for everyone, and most disturbingly let’s increase danger for some - in particular cyclists. Not a very responsible attitude to road safety.

That's an absurd conclusion to draw. I don't even know where to begin with it.

The Dutch have some of the safest streets in the world, thanks largely to those traffic calming measures. By contrast the most dangerous residential streets you'll find are the ones which are straight, wide, and with few obstacles (such as we built in the 1960s/70s and which are common in North America). If a road is straight and wide (like a motorway) then people will drive at speed. Fine on a motorway because there shouldn't be any pedestrians. Not fine on a residential street.

 

[The Ham]

That's an absurd conclusion to draw. I don't even know where to begin with it.

The Dutch have some of the safest streets in the world, thanks largely to those traffic calming measures. By contrast the most dangerous residential streets you'll find are the ones which are straight, wide, and with few obstacles (such as we built in the 1960s/70s and which are common in North America). If a road is straight and wide (like a motorway) then people will drive at speed. Fine on a motorway because there shouldn't be any pedestrians. Not fine on a residential street.

It's also fine in the US, as there's also unlikely to be pedestrians.

This is too do with the fact that other than housing nothing else is allowed to be built/operated within their urban sprall and so if you need something from a shop it's likely to be miles away.

 

[Meerkat]

I find this implausible.

Can you link to an example journey on Google Maps where you think this might apply?

I didn’t say journey. There are loads of 30mph zones where 30 is perfectly safe and usually possible, particularly round here where the county council has an anti-car policy and seems To want to lower all speed limits.
20 is ridiculously slow unless It is a residential side street or high street with lots of parked cars and turnings. But 30 zones go way beyond those.

The UK has a similar thing in 20 Zones - the idea is that they aren't really enforced but rather traffic calming ensures that is a comfortable speed that people will tend to do naturally.

Except the UK doesn’t - they just throw up 20 signs and bring the whole speed limit system into contempt.

 

[bramling]

That's an absurd conclusion to draw. I don't even know where to begin with it.

The Dutch have some of the safest streets in the world, thanks largely to those traffic calming measures. By contrast the most dangerous residential streets you'll find are the ones which are straight, wide, and with few obstacles (such as we built in the 1960s/70s and which are common in North America). If a road is straight and wide (like a motorway) then people will drive at speed. Fine on a motorway because there shouldn't be any pedestrians. Not fine on a residential street.

So are you *seriously* trying to state that a road with measures such as chicanes (forcing vehicles into a head-on course) or uneven surfaces (very hazardous for cyclists) is safer than a straight wide road with good sight lines?

I could understand if you were going to argue that, making the assumption 20 mph is better (which is an opinion you are of course entitled to have, just as it’s equally valid for others to have the opinion that it isn’t) then enforce it by non-intrusive measures such as average speed cameras. But the fact that you seem to be advocating measures which are invasive, intrusive and potentially dangerous suggests that this has nothing to do with safety and everything to do with wanting to cause nuisance to people going about their lives.

So I’m afraid you’ll forgive me for starting to find the constant 20 mph advocation rather akin to a stuck record.

 

[AM9]

I didn’t say journey. There are loads of 30mph zones where 30 is perfectly safe and usually possible, particularly round here where the county council has an anti-car policy and seems To want to lower all speed limits.

But that is the point, motorists make journeys which inevitably take some time. They don't drive from A to B looking for stretches of road where they can 'sprint' up to a 30mph limit for a few hundred metres, thereby saving a few seconds.
Your assertion of 30mph zones where 30 is 'perfectly safe', - is it? It might be relatively safe if drivers obeyed the limit, but given that the average speed for many drivers on unobstructed 30mph limit roads is between 10 and 15 mph faster than the limit, and claim that the roads are 'perfectly safe' is way adrift from what actually exists. Of course it is 'perfectly safe' for drivers in their steel cells, but life for pedestrians and cyclists is somehwhat precarious at times.

 

[bramling]

But that is the point, motorists make journeys which inevitably take some time. They don't drive from A to B looking for stretches of road where they can 'sprint' up to a 30mph limit for a few hundred metres, thereby saving a few seconds.
Your assertion of 30mph zones where 30 is 'perfectly safe', - is it? It might be relatively safe if drivers obeyed the limit, but given that the average speed for many drivers on unobstructed 30mph limit roads is between 10 and 15 mph faster than the limit, and claim that the roads are 'perfectly safe' is way adrift from what actually exists. Of course it is 'perfectly safe' for drivers in their steel cells, but life for pedestrians and cyclists is somehwhat precarious at times.

Is it *really* the case that “many” drivers are routinely driving around at 40-45 mph on 30 mph roads?

There are certainly some who seem to just do 40 mph everywhere, however round here I’d say the majority of people generally do observe 30 mph, except perhaps at very quiet times of day.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Except the UK doesn’t - they just throw up 20 signs and bring the whole speed limit system into contempt.

20 Zones and 20 limits are two different things.

A 20 Zone is traffic calmed such that 20mph is a natural speed. It does not require repeater signs and is typically not enforced though can be - the traffic calming does the work in keeping speeds down.

A 20 limit is generally not traffic calmed or is minimally so, and as a result does require repeater signs (other than in Wales) and is more likely to be enforced.

20 Zones do exist in the UK, there are several in Milton Keynes, plus the centre of Tring (as two that spring to mind).

 

[The Ham]

Is it *really* the case that “many” drivers are routinely driving around at 40-45 mph on 30 mph roads?

There are certainly some who seem to just do 40 mph everywhere, however round here I’d say the majority of people generally do observe 30 mph, except perhaps at very quiet times of day.

From my experience of undertaking speed surveys and having sight of speed data from automatic traffic counters, it's fairly rare to see cars traveling at anything more than 38mph in a 30. Yes it does happen, but it isn't something which is routine.

The one time I recall it happening was I was following a car which did 40 in the 60 limit, did 40 in the 40 limit and then appeared to do 40 in the 30 limit.

 

[Krokodil]

So are you *seriously* trying to state that a road with measures such as chicanes (forcing vehicles into a head-on course) or uneven surfaces (very hazardous for cyclists) is safer than a straight wide road with good sight lines?

Of course I am. People don't go around with their eyes glued to the speedo, the speed at which they drive is largely influenced by the road conditions. If your residential streets are dead-straight and generous in width then people may do up to 40, regardless of the signage. Give people some hazards to look out for and they will slow down to look out for hazards. Think about it, if a chicane forces you into a head-on course woth oncoming traffic then you'll drive more cautiously in anticipation that you may need to stop.

Uneven surfaces include brick paving and speed bumps. Brick paving causes vibration in wheeled vehicles which encourages you to slow down. This is why the Dutch use it in areas where vehicles (whether two wheels or four) might encounter pedestrians. I'm sire that I don't need to tell you how speed bumps work, though British councils aren't consistently good with their implementation. The Dutch raise their pedestrian crossings to pavement height, rather than dropping the kerb to carriageway height. So naturally you slow down when approaching pedestrian crossings. They also raise the entrance to side roads to remind motorists that they are crossing the pedestrian footpath and should give way. The latest Highway Code update did give priority to pedestrians waiting to cross but our infrastructure doesn't press this home.

For those who think that signage and enforcement are the answer - rather than engineering - I should remind you of the Hierarchy of Controls, used when controlling H&S risks in the workplace (ordered here from most effective to least effective):
1. Elimination
2. Substitution
3. Engineering controls
4. Administrative controls
5. PPE

In the context of the hazards posed by cars in residential areas, examples of controls in each category are:
1. Pedestrianisation
2. Encouraging alternative forms of transport
3. Traffic calming measures
4. Signage and enforcement (note that this is considered the second least effective control)
5. Hi-vis clothing and helmets

 

[CaramellDansen]

20 is ridiculously slow

As someone who has only ever been the victim of cars (both in the passive sense of cities being ruined to accommodate for them, illnesses caused by their pollution and being struck by them), I cannot imagine the GALL to be so spoiled to think 20 miles per hour is slow. Humans have not travelled over that speed for most of their existence. If a few hundred metres of 20 is really such an agonising pain to your life, try getting hit by a car doing 30 while walking. That will change your perspective really fast. Ask me how I know.

Get a real problem, and think about the greater good instead of protecting the childish "faster, faster!!!" impatience that curses seemingly all car drivers.

 

[Bletchleyite]

From my experience of undertaking speed surveys and having sight of speed data from automatic traffic counters, it's fairly rare to see cars traveling at anything more than 38mph in a 30. Yes it does happen, but it isn't something which is routine.

The one time I recall it happening was I was following a car which did 40 in the 60 limit, did 40 in the 40 limit and then appeared to do 40 in the 30 limit.

That fits with people doing 10 over as indicated - if the speedo points to 40, on most cars you'll actually be doing about 37-38.

As someone who has only ever been the victim of cars (both in the passive sense of cities being ruined to accommodate for them, illnesses caused by their pollution and being struck by them), I cannot imagine the GALL to be so spoiled to think 20 miles per hour is slow. Humans have not travelled over that speed for most of their existence. If a few hundred metres of 20 is really such an agonising pain to your life, try getting hit by a car doing 30 while walking. That will change your perspective really fast. Ask me how I know.

I've been hit by a car doing 65. That was a lot less fun.

Do you never, ever benefit from cars? Do you never get a lift? Never take a taxi? Never have someone you love arrive by car to visit you?

Cars have downsides but I struggle with this kind of strong anti-car view as almost nobody doesn't benefit from their use even if they don't drive.

 

[Krokodil]

Cars have downsides but I struggle with this kind of strong anti-car view as almost nobody doesn't benefit from their use even if they don't drive.

He only pointed out that 20mph isn't an unreasonable ask. It's not like he said "I was hit once so they should all be banned"

 

[8A Rail]

Get a real problem, and think about the greater good instead of protecting the childish "faster, faster!!!" impatience that curses seemingly all car drivers.

Such a blanket coverage by saying 'ALL'. Just like many many things in life, the majority of the people adhered to rules, regulations, speed limits , guidelines etc when in reality it is the minority that don't wish to conform.

20 mph limits are fine for various built up residential (and school) areas as that is understandable and you hard pressed most of time to go faster anyway, but outside that, common sense should prevail and speed limits should be appropriate road and traffic. Anything else, then it will cause issues that affect many people's lives, simply just got to find the right balance but a blanket 20mph is not the right way to go about it.

(I was victim of a head on collision (total impact was about 70mph), I walked out intact and in one piece but you know what, the car was stolen and driven by the thief, on the wrong side of the road and ultimately did not care about others, how do you account for that when it comes to speed limits - you simply don't)?

 

[CaramellDansen]

Do you never, ever benefit from cars? Do you never get a lift? Never take a taxi? Never have someone you love arrive by car to visit you?

"If you've ever experienced a car, you aren't allowed to criticise it."
Is that the point? If we get even slight benefits (depending on how you frame it) from something, then all of its downsides should be discarded and dissenters silenced?
The damage to social cohesion, the worsening of the health crisis, the destruction of cities to make way for roads, the deaths due to these vehicles, the increased costs for those having to own and maintain and operate their own transit instead of public transport, the utter destruction of all forms of public transport as far as possible to ensure people are forced to participate in the car scam... all of these issues and a million more, all nullified because I got a taxi once?

Cast your mind back to the southern United States of America in the 18th century:
Do you never, ever benefit from slaves? Yeah it's terrible for the slaves and people with empathy and it caused untold suffering... but there were benefits, weren't there? I'm just using your logic. Use better logic.

He only pointed out that 20mph isn't an unreasonable ask. It's not like he said "I was hit once so they should all be banned"

Precisely. Everyone benefits when there are fewer cars, though! I'm saying people should be given a choice to do anything but be forced into the most dangerous, most harmful, most socially destructive and most costly form of transit.
Additionally, I'm saying design roads for speeds, not signs. If it's impossible to speed because of the road layout, people won't.

Also, if you don't like the 20mph speed limit in towns and cities...
Go around the town or city.
Walk.
Cycle.
Get the train.
Get the bus.
Do anything but drive!

If your driving pleasure requires death, how can you justify to yourself to keep doing it?
If 10mph less saves lives, how can you justify not doing it? Just head out slightly earlier, or get faster and safer transit... like trains!
Choo choo!

Such a blanket coverage by saying 'ALL'. Just like many many things in life, the majority of the people adhered to rules, regulations, speed limits , guidelines etc when in reality it is the minority that don't wish to conform.

Such a blanket statement. Just because a minority are involved in harm, the rest should be completely absolved of guilt. Turn criticisms of systems and machines into personal issues, committed by those people over there...
Never yourself, of course. There's always a scapegoat so you can say "cars are always good and I'm good for driving them... (please don't look up the statistics proving the environmental, physical and social harm they cause compared to doing literally anything else)"
It's always someone else, and that someone else is just one or a few people, so all dissent against the thing you like is null and void. Don't criticise my vroom vroom. Does that sound about right?

(I was victim of a head on collision (total impact was about 70mph), I walked out intact and in one piece but you know what, the car was stolen and driven by the thief, on the wrong side of the road and ultimately did not care about others, how do you account for that when it comes to speed limits - you simply don't)?

Would this impact have happened had everyone not be forced into car ownership? If society did literally anything else but cars, wouldn't you have avoided any kind of harm at all? Think outside the box. To put a slight twist on a quite famous quote: "The assumption that what currently exists must necessarily exist is the acid that corrodes all critical thinking."

Would people drive drunk, drive while tired, text while driving, be distracted by driving, doing all of these things and more that make the roads so dangerous... if pretty much all other options hadn't been taken away from them??
You stop car crashes, car theft, car speeding... by reorganising society so people have literally any other choice. Sure, that's slightly "off topic", but signs don't stop people. There's only one solution; where people are, have fewer cars going slower.

Also, if the road is designed to make 70mph impossible... you don't need a speed limit. Design roads to speeds, not signs.

 

[Bletchleyite]

"If you've ever experienced a car, you aren't allowed to criticise it."
Is that the point?

Yes. If you benefit from the use of cars yet are so vehemently against them, you're taking a hypocritical view, and hypocritical views carry very little weight.

It's fine to say you benefit from cars but would like roads to be safer by way of lower speed limits and the likes, but you seem to be simply anti-car, which I find to be a very strange line from someone who has benefitted from cars. If you eschew all use of cars fair enough but it seems like you don't

Additionally, I'm saying design roads for speeds, not signs. If it's impossible to speed because of the road layout, people won't.

That's the idea of a 20 Zone. The reason these don't predominate is that signage is cheaper than redesigning layouts and adding traffic calming, so you can gain more safety for less money by using signage and occasional enforcement, as you can convert more roads to 20 that way.

 

[Krokodil]

Such a blanket coverage by saying 'ALL'

The word "seemingly" is important. It seemingly is always raining in this country, except that if you step back and count how many times it wasn't raining, you realise that your perception is worse than the reality.

but you know what, the car was stolen and driven by the thief, on the wrong side of the road and ultimately did not care about others, how do you account for that when it comes to speed limits - you simply don't)?

This is why engineering solutions are more effective than sign posts and speed cameras. If the road layout makes it impossible to speed then people won't speed.

That's the idea of a 20 Zone. The reason these don't predominate is that signage is cheaper than redesigning layouts and adding traffic calming, so you can gain more safety for less money by using signage and occasional enforcement, as you can convert more roads to 20 that way.

Typical of the UK to do things on the cheap. It's a bit like putting some blue signs up and maybe some white paint: "that'll satisfy the cycle lane targets... I wonder why no one is using it?"

 

[CaramellDansen]

Yes. If you benefit from the use of cars yet are so vehemently against them, you're taking a hypocritical view, and hypocritical views carry very little weight.

BAHAHAHAHAHA
In what way am I hypocritical? I believe cars are harmful, and I want that harm to stop, so I want fewer cars. Where's the hypocrisy?

We're in a society where car ownership is a "choice"... in the same way choosing not to pay the Mob's protection fee is a "choice".
If I have no choice to be near a car or interact with a car, not only is it not hypocritical to criticise cars, it makes a helluva lot of sense.
If we weren't forced into cars, most of these issues would go away. If the trams weren't ripped up, if Beeching never happened, if transit privatisation never happened, if the amount of money that went into car infrastructure also went into public transit... Then guess what? There would be fewer deaths and I wouldn't have to criticise cars as much! It's the OPPOSITE of hypocritical.

Nice try, though.

That's the idea of a 20 Zone. The reason these don't predominate is that signage is cheaper than redesigning layouts and adding traffic calming, so you can gain more safety for less money by using signage and occasional enforcement, as you can convert more roads to 20 that way.

Ah, it all goes back to money. The poor die so the rich can prosper. What a wretched society we live in.
Another lovely quote: "The machinery of capitalism oiled with the blood of the workers."

It's a bit like putting some blue signs up and maybe some white paint: "that'll satisfy the cycle lane targets... I wonder why no one is using it?"

Ah, good old bicycle gutters. So dangerous and vile... but at least we don't have to spend money on those freaks who won't participate in the automotive racket! I believe they call that "social murder". Car owners rejoice!

 

[bramling]

BAHAHAHAHAHA
In what way am I hypocritical? I believe cars are harmful, and I want that harm to stop, so I want fewer cars.

You are of course quite entitled to hold that opinion. However many people value the benefits that car access brings them. It seems that a majority of people are prepared to trade-off the negatives associated with cars for these benefits.

 

[Krokodil]

It seems that a majority of people are prepared to trade-off the negatives associated with cars for these benefits.

Often the people who bear the brunt of the negatives are not the ones who reap the benefits.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Often the people who bear the brunt of the negatives are not the ones who reap the benefits.

With cars that's not really true, because pretty much everyone benefits from the use of cars. Even if they don't own one, at some point they're likely to get a lift in one, or take a taxi, or have someone they love visit them using one. And if you widen that to powered road vehicles, everyone gains some benefit from them - for instance, there's almost no product you can buy that has not had a powered vehicle take some part in its production or delivery.

That's not to say the cost:benefit of that can't be improved (20mph limits are one way to do so, the transition to electric vehicles is another). But modern society would be much poorer without personal transport. OK, cars are sometimes used in inappropriate places or for journeys that would be better made by another mode (primarily in urban areas), but that doesn't mean cars are bad.

 

[bramling]

Often the people who bear the brunt of the negatives are not the ones who reap the benefits.

So who do you feel bears the brunt of these negatives?

 

[The Ham]

That fits with people doing 10 over as indicated - if the speedo points to 40, on most cars you'll actually be doing about 37-38.

Even speeds of 37-38 aren't that common either, certainly not zero, but of a similar number who are (by choice) going at speeds of around 23mph or maybe lower. Obviously speeds vary by road and are site specific depending on various factors.

It's also worth noting that those observations (when undertaking speed surveys) are recording free flow conditions (i.e. I wasn't counting the 10 cars behind the tractor or whatever vehicle was potentially holding other drivers up).

 

[CaramellDansen]

It seems that a majority of people are prepared to trade-off the negatives associated with cars for these benefits.

The people who have to bear the brunt are usually those in over-exploited "third world" nations and the very poor of "first world" countries.

With cars that's not really true, because pretty much everyone benefits from the use of cars

Not if you're poor
or disabled
or old
or many other reasons.
Don't lie.

It's funny how the discussion is always "muh benefits of cars" but completely ignoring (among many things) the coerced nature of car ownership, the environmental damages and, of course, pedestrian fatalities.
All of these things and more are swept under the rug because society (note: only after being redesigned for cars and having most public transit destroyed) brings benefits to car owners... almost as if they designed it that way, or something.
If you have to do so much work to ignore so many of the issues with such a large (and fatal) part of society, you're either delusional or malicious. Which are you?

 

[Krokodil]

With cars that's not really true, because pretty much everyone benefits from the use of cars.

I wouldn't be so sure. The people I've got in mind are those living in an inner-city flat. Primary school right next to a congested road etc. They can't afford a car, and the fact that other people (often from wealthier areas such as the suburbs) are driving into the city in such numbers slows down their buses, creates noise, and results in poor air quality (the latter has finally been recognised as an issue and steps being taken by many cities to deal with it). How much productivity is lost to congestion? How much potentially productive land is lost to parking?

I struggle to see how car ownership benefits anyone beyond the occupants of the car.

 

[AM9]

With cars that's not really true, because pretty much everyone benefits from the use of cars. Even if they don't own one, at some point they're likely to get a lift in one, or take a taxi, or have someone they love visit them using one. And if you widen that to powered road vehicles, everyone gains some benefit from them - for instance, there's almost no product you can buy that has not had a powered vehicle take some part in its production or delivery.

That's not to say the cost:benefit of that can't be improved (20mph limits are one way to do so, the transition to electric vehicles is another). But modern society would be much poorer without personal transport. OK, cars are sometimes used in inappropriate places or for journeys that would be better made by another mode (primarily in urban areas), but that doesn't mean cars are bad.

I think that the term 'cars' in this context was referring to private vehicles, i.e. not including delivery vans, or Taxis which effectively function as commercial and public* transport vehicles respectively.
* as in members of the public and not employees.

 

[Krokodil]

So who do you feel bears the brunt of these negatives?

Ella Adoo-Kissi-Debrah being one example.