20 mph Zones - Extend or Eliminate?

[RailWonderer]

This debate feeds into the idea Britain shuns personal responsibility. Lowering speeds should not be done to excuse personal responsibility. Pedestrians know where to cross and crossing a road outside a designated crossing is a personal risk you take. I've seen more people cross roads anywhere they feel like it in 20mph areas in Surrey because they know cars are going slower, so cars are slowing to even 5/10mph to let these idiots pass. All this system does is increase selfishness.

Another example, railways are much less fenced in Europe, because people know they shouldn't cross. Even if railways are property and roads are public access there is still a risk in crossing either, in fact more on roads than on railways, so why should railways need to be fenced but not roads? Britain is becoming a complaining sueing culture like the US and because councils are scared of lawyers and bad press they capitulate to idiots. This isn't even about 'road safety' as much as it is about treating people like toddlers. Why can't people accept personal responsibility anymore?

20mph is nannying.

 

[Oxfordblues]

I spoke to a local police officer recently and asked why they didn't enforce the 20mph speed limit on a busy road near where I live here in Oxford. He replied that in practice a motorist is deemed to be speeding only if they exceed 30mph on that road. The "20mph" limit is purely nominal, as to prosecute every motorist who drove at, say 23mph would involved thousands of summons a day and achieve nothing except alienate the majority of road-users. Most motorists appear to believe that the signs are advisory rather than compulsory and the police acquiesce with that view in order to maintain good relations.

 

[stuu]

This debate feeds into the idea Britain shuns personal responsibility. Lowering speeds should not be done to excuse personal responsibility. Pedestrians know where to cross and crossing a road outside a designated crossing is a personal risk you take. I've seen more people cross roads anywhere they feel like it in 20mph areas in Surrey because they know cars are going slower, so cars are slowing to even 5/10mph to let these idiots pass. All this system does is increase selfishness.

Another example, railways are much less fenced in Europe, because people know they shouldn't cross. Even if railways are property and roads are public access there is still a risk in crossing either, in fact more on roads than on railways, so why should railways need to be fenced but not roads? Britain is becoming a complaining sueing culture like the US and because councils are scared of lawyers and bad press they capitulate to idiots. This isn't even about 'road safety' as much as it is about treating people like toddlers. Why can't people accept personal responsibility anymore?

20mph is nannying.

Nonsense. There's loads of 30 km/h limits all across Europe, which is ~18mph.

The only personal responsibility people don't seem to accept is that there are limits to where and how fast they can drive their cars

 

[RailWonderer]

The only personal responsibility people don't seem to accept is that there are limits to where and how fast they can drive their cars

Not only. Pedestrians are just as much to blame in a lot of cases, maybe not legally but certainly mentally. Kids are taught to stop, look, listen and think, not cross before a bend where you cannot see cars coming and so on. Again it doesn't give motorists an excuse to break traffic laws but it's unfair to entirely blame one party just because they are in a vehicle.

 

[yorkie]

Not only. Pedestrians are just as much to blame in a lot of cases, maybe not legally but certainly mentally. Kids are taught to stop, look, listen and think, not cross before a bend where you cannot see cars coming and so on. Again it doesn't give motorists an excuse to break traffic laws but it's unfair to entirely blame one party just because they are in a vehicle.

If you are in charge of a vehicle you have a duty of care. Reduce speeds at bends, in urban areas etc.

 

[bramling]

If you are in charge of a vehicle you have a duty of care. Reduce speeds at bends, in urban areas etc.

Duty to stop with a distance which can be seen to be clear, absolutely.

However one cannot legislate for what happens if someone or something comes into the road at the last minute. On my local Facebook it’s always curious that every time a cat gets killed it’s due to a “speeding motorist”. Some amazing skills of telepathy in my locality it seems!

 

[yorkie]

If they are adapting their speed for the conditions and something genuinely unexpected happens, the speed was reasonable in the circumstances and there was no way to stop in time, that's different.

Urban areas should prioritise pedestrians over cars and good urban/road design will encourage drivers to reduce their speeds naturally.

 

[Krokodil]

This debate feeds into the idea Britain shuns personal responsibility. Lowering speeds should not be done to excuse personal responsibility. Pedestrians know where to cross and crossing a road outside a designated crossing is a personal risk you take. I've seen more people cross roads anywhere they feel like it in 20mph areas in Surrey because they know cars are going slower, so cars are slowing to even 5/10mph to let these idiots pass. All this system does is increase selfishness.

You're sounding like an American. You know, when they blame the dead pedestrian for "jaywalking" rather than considering that there is no crossing for half a mile.

Another example, railways are much less fenced in Europe, because people know they shouldn't cross. Even if railways are property and roads are public access there is still a risk in crossing either, in fact more on roads than on railways, so why should railways need to be fenced but not roads? Britain is becoming a complaining sueing culture like the US and because councils are scared of lawyers and bad press they capitulate to idiots. This isn't even about 'road safety' as much as it is about treating people like toddlers. Why can't people accept personal responsibility anymore?

You're saying that by adopting European standards on road safety we are becoming an Americanised culture? That would be the same US that has extremely dangerous roads.

 

[Crithylum]

This debate feeds into the idea Britain shuns personal responsibility. Lowering speeds should not be done to excuse personal responsibility. Pedestrians know where to cross and crossing a road outside a designated crossing is a personal risk you take. I've seen more people cross roads anywhere they feel like it in 20mph areas in Surrey because they know cars are going slower, so cars are slowing to even 5/10mph to let these idiots pass. All this system does is increase selfishness.

So are you saying that it is a bad thing that pedestrians are no longer intimidated to enter publicly owned spaces?

Personally I appreciate being able to cross the road within the time that I can see is safe, without needing to take a lengthy diversion. I don’t think we should get into an argument about selfishness if you think a granny should walk a few hundred metres to cross her street when you are inconvenienced by having to wait a few seconds.

 

[PGAT]

Everyone's a pedestrian at some point. We should cater to make the lives of people more convenient than machines

 

[bramling]

So are you saying that it is a bad thing that pedestrians are no longer intimidated to enter publicly owned spaces?

Personally I appreciate being able to cross the road within the time that I can see is safe, without needing to take a lengthy diversion. I don’t think we should get into an argument about selfishness if you think a granny should walk a few hundred metres to cross her street when you are inconvenienced by having to wait a few seconds.

If we want to make it easier to cross roads, reducing the amount of traffic is the way to achieve that.

 

[RT4038]

Lowering speeds should not be done to excuse personal responsibility. Pedestrians know where to cross and crossing a road outside a designated crossing is a personal risk you take. I've seen more people cross roads anywhere they feel like it in 20mph areas in Surrey because they know cars are going slower, so cars are slowing to even 5/10mph to let these idiots pass. All this system does is increase selfishness.

By far most roads don't have designated crossings, and those that do generally don't have anything like enough of them, or they are situated for the convenience of motor vehicles rather than the desire lines of pedestrians. Perhaps it would be better, in built up areas, to designate all of the road as a crossing, unless it is marked otherwise?

 

[Crithylum]

If we want to make it easier to cross roads, reducing the amount of traffic is the way to achieve that.

I partially agree with this. However, psychologically I need a much larger gap to feel safe crossing a 30 than a 20 (larger time wise, not just distance), so the reduction in traffic required in a 20 is much less imo. Also even with low traffic flows, 30 mph roads just feel more dangerous than well designed 20s or even meh 20s where people do 25

I understand that this may not apply to some people, however, most people are not willing to cycle (and reduce car traffic if previously driving) on a road with cars going 30mph

’streets’ that have economic activity (and pedestrians) should be limited to 20, whereas ‘roads’ should retain higher speed limits if compatible with the safety features of said road

 

[Krokodil]

By far most roads don't have designated crossings, and those that do generally don't have anything like enough of them, or they are situated for the convenience of motor vehicles rather than the desire lines of pedestrians.

Not forgetting signalled crossings where the sensor will wait quite some time for a clear road rather than changing the lights as soon as the button is pressed. Is it any wonder why people just cross anyway, without regard to the pedestrian signals?

If you make safe behaviour inconvenient, you encourage risky behaviour.

 

[RailWonderer]

So are you saying that it is a bad thing that pedestrians are no longer intimidated to enter publicly owned spaces?

Personally I appreciate being able to cross the road within the time that I can see is safe, without needing to take a lengthy diversion. I don’t think we should get into an argument about selfishness if you think a granny should walk a few hundred metres to cross her street when you are inconvenienced by having to wait a few seconds.

Yes, because it's a risk. Not all drivers will have quick reaction speeds and might only be able to see the granny when it's too late if there is a bend for example. Assuming a straight road with ideal visibility, it's less of a risk but the granny still must accept it if she can't walk a few hundred meters. As long as there is a car there is a risk to the elderly who are very fragile. 20mph could injure her enough for internal bleeding etc where a younger person would walk away with just a bad bruise. But normally in areas of elderly we have roadsigns indicating them, and motorists are meant to be extra careful and prepared to hit the brakes anyway.

Everyone's a pedestrian at some point. We should cater to make the lives of people more convenient than machines

You can do that without blanket 20mph. In Essex we have smart roads which are 40mph but reduce to 20mph during the morning and afternoon school run, and are area dependant. In urban areas more roads are becoming 20mph which is good but I don't agree with an outright 20mph as there is simply no need in some cases given the road in question. These things though are down to local councils.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Yes, because it's a risk. Not all drivers will have quick reaction speeds and might only be able to see the granny when it's too late if there is a bend for example.

I trust you don't drive.

If you do, I don't want to be anywhere near you on the road!

The most fundamental principle of driving is that you must always drive so you can stop safely in the distance you can see to be clear. Thus, it is a driver's responsibility not to hit objects in the road, including people crossing it, regardless of whether they should be there or not. If your reactions are slow, you must drive slower. If there's a blind bend, you must drive slower.

I think your post explains amply why drivers cannot be trusted and thus lower speed limits are necessary.

(And I'm a driver - one who's fed up of other drivers misusing the road!)

 

[Crithylum]

Yes, because it's a risk. Not all drivers will have quick reaction speeds and might only be able to see the granny when it's too late if there is a bend for example. Assuming a straight road with ideal visibility, it's less of a risk but the granny still must accept it if she can't walk a few hundred meters. As long as there is a car there is a risk to the elderly who are very fragile. 20mph could injure her enough for internal bleeding etc where a younger person would walk away with just a bad bruise. But normally in areas of elderly we have roadsigns indicating them, and motorists are meant to be extra careful and prepared to hit the brakes anyway.

If you are saying that 20mph would cause possibly serious injuries, then 30 is likely fatal. Also stopping distance is roughly double at 30 than 20. I reckon, on most streets, the visibility at the ’ideal’ crossing place isn’t double a randomly selected location on the street. There will always be people that cross in unwise places on 20mph roads, but this will also happen on 30 roads (even if at a reduced frequency), however the risks on a 30mph road are FAR higher

 

[RailWonderer]

I trust you don't drive.

If you do, I don't want to be anywhere near you on the road!

The most fundamental principle of driving is that you must always drive so you can stop safely in the distance you can see to be clear. Thus, it is a driver's responsibility not to hit objects in the road, including people crossing it, regardless of whether they should be there or not. If your reactions are slow, you must drive slower. If there's a blind bend, you must drive slower.

I think your post explains amply why drivers cannot be trusted and thus lower speed limits are necessary.

(And I'm a driver - one who's fed up of other drivers misusing the road!)

I'm thinking about drivers in my area who don't slow and a specific crossing with zero visiblity because of shrubs that block the view. Cars normally do 20-25ish there but you can't see them until the last second so regardless of the 20 rule it's still risky. It's an area almost nobody crosses due to its location (semi-rural near roundabout where everybody drives) so hasn't been an issue but could easily be.

Funnily enough it's drivers who beep and moan at pedestrians crossing outside of crossings. In Essex you are guaranteed to get screamed at and beeped at when you do. I personally don't like to disrespect road users and be the 'arse hole'. Maybe it's a different mentality in Essex though.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I'm thinking about drivers in my area who don't slow and a specific crossing with zero visiblity because of shrubs that block the view. Cars normally do 20-25ish there but you can't see them until the last second so regardless of the 20 rule it's still risky. It's an area almost nobody crosses due to its location (semi-rural near roundabout where everybody drives) so hasn't been an issue but could easily be.

Funnily enough it's drivers who beep and moan at pedestrians crossing outside of crossings. In Essex you are guaranteed to get screamed at and beeped at when you do. I personally don't like to disrespect road users and be the 'arse hole'. Maybe it's a different mentality in Essex though.

Beeping at someone who crosses in front of them is one thing (it's rude, but I can see why some drivers do it). It's just essential that drivers understand and accept that it is almost always their responsibility not to hit a pedestrian, with the only exception being where they stepped out directly in front and it was not possible to avoid a collision. Round a blind bend is no excuse, if you can't see round the bend you slow down.

 

[RailWonderer]

Beeping at someone who crosses in front of them is one thing (it's rude, but I can see why some drivers do it). It's just essential that drivers understand and accept that it is almost always their responsibility not to hit a pedestrian, with the only exception being where they stepped out directly in front and it was not possible to avoid a collision. Round a blind bend is no excuse, if you can't see round the bend you slow down.

Absolutely, and I just want to be clear I am not against 20mph limits, I'm just against an outright 20mph and that some smart speed roads are right for the area in question. When it comes to visibility and even quality of the road I'm not driving at the speed limit if I can't see crossings (and even if the road is too poorly paved to even go faster).

 

[Bikeman78]

Not forgetting signalled crossings where the sensor will wait quite some time for a clear road rather than changing the lights as soon as the button is pressed. Is it any wonder why people just cross anyway, without regard to the pedestrian signals?

If you make safe behaviour inconvenient, you encourage risky behaviour.

I have never understood why pelican crossings were changed to behave as described above. Back in the 80s and 90s they would stop the traffic immediately, if they hadn't been red for the previous 30 seconds or so. Nowadays, I nearly always cross before the lights change or cross further along the road when there is a gap in the traffic.

 

[AdamWW]

Absolutely, and I just want to be clear I am not against 20mph limits, I'm just against an outright 20mph and that some smart speed roads are right for the area in question.

Is there somewhere in the UK that does have an outright 20 mph limit?

I thought the closest we had was Wales where the default in built up areas is now 20 mph but roads can be 30 mph (or more) where appropriate (for some definition of appropriate).

 

[bspahh]

Is there somewhere in the UK that does have an outright 20 mph limit?

I thought the closest we had was Wales where the default in built up areas is now 20 mph but roads can be 30 mph (or more) where appropriate (for some definition of appropriate).

Ely in Cambridgeshire has had general 20mph limits for a couple of months. There are 30mph limits on a few roads. There are no new speed bumps, just road signs and 20mph road markings. I haven't seen any enforcement, but speeds are lower.

Ely is officially a city, but the population was 19000 in 2021. I moved here 25 years ago, when there was a letter to the local paper about Ely's "parking crisis", where you could no longer park in the High Street for as long as you wanted, but now had to use a free car park 200m away.

 

[AdamWW]

I have never understood why pelican crossings were changed to behave as described above. Back in the 80s and 90s they would stop the traffic immediately, if they hadn't been red for the previous 30 seconds or so.

There is one I often use that does change instantly unless it's recently been used. Unfortunately although stand-alone, a few years ago it had the flashing yellow "aspect" removed so that using it now causes traffic to stop for a lot longer than it needs to and I feel a bit bad using it unless I have to. The advantage is that I know if I wait a bit for a gap and there isn't one, it will let me cross straight away when I do press the button.

Everyone's a pedestrian at some point.

You would think that but as I think I said above, the way some drivers behave I do wonder. I suspect that some people just don't ever stray far from their car.

By far most roads don't have designated crossings, and those that do generally don't have anything like enough of them, or they are situated for the convenience of motor vehicles rather than the desire lines of pedestrians. Perhaps it would be better, in built up areas, to designate all of the road as a crossing, unless it is marked otherwise?

Virtual zebra crossing at side roads would be a start (i.e. a requirement to stop for pedestrians crossing rather than it being just a highway code "should").

There's also the question of what's a crossing.

What do you call it when there are dropped kerbs on both sides and tactile paving indicating a crossing, but no road markings or signs to let drivers know that it's there?

 

[Tetchytyke]

Yes, because it's a risk. Not all drivers will have quick reaction speeds and might only be able to see the granny when it's too late if there is a bend for example.

I sincerely hope you are not a driver. The whole point is that you drive to the conditions and you drive at a speed that means you can stop within your line of sight. If you can't see that there isn't a granny in the road and safely slow down and stop then you're driving too fast.

I don’t think we should get into an argument about selfishness if you think a granny should walk a few hundred metres to cross her street when you are inconvenienced by having to wait a few seconds.

The average car journey is 8 miles, and this average is skewed upwards by long distance journeys- 59% of all car journeys are under 5 miles.

5 miles at 20mph takes 15 minutes, 5 miles at 30mph takes 10 minutes. I can spend more than 5 minutes looking for my car keys. And in reality the time difference is less than that, as you don't travel at a constant speed in any urban area.

I don't* get the rage about 20mph areas.

(*that's not quite true, I do get that it's stoked up by culture war rage-bait peddlers)

 

[AM9]

I have never understood why pelican crossings were changed to behave as described above. Back in the 80s and 90s they would stop the traffic immediately, if they hadn't been red for the previous 30 seconds or so. Nowadays, I nearly always cross before the lights change or cross further along the road when there is a gap in the traffic.

Wasn't that part of a 'be kinder to motorist's campaign that the Conservatives had about 10 years ago? Allegedly people were pressing the button to stop the traffic which was inconvenient to busy drivers.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Wasn't that part of a 'be kinder to motorist's campaign that the Conservatives had about 10 years ago? Allegedly people were pressing the button to stop the traffic which was inconvenient to busy drivers.

TBH I won't press it if I can see a suitable gap in the traffic. Campaign or no, the option that gets the most people where they are going the quickest is the one I'm happy taking.

 

[AdamWW]

Wasn't that part of a 'be kinder to motorist's campaign that the Conservatives had about 10 years ago? Allegedly people were pressing the button to stop the traffic which was inconvenient to busy drivers.

Hardworking busy drivers, surely?

 

[AM9]

There is one I often use that does change instantly unless it's recently been used. Unfortunately although stand-alone, a few years ago it had the flashing yellow "aspect" removed so that using it now causes traffic to stop for a lot longer than it needs to and I feel a bit bad using it unless I have to. The advantage is that I know if I wait a bit for a gap and there isn't one, it will let me cross straight away when I do press the button.

Wasn't that a result of a safety competition where children would make suggestions to improve safety. The winning entry eas that holding the traffic whillst the flashing pedestrian light flashed would prevent some drivers pressurising those still crossing the road.

Hardworking busy drivers, surely?

Surely hard-working taxpaying busy drivers. aka, typical self empowered drivers.

 

[bramling]

Wasn't that part of a 'be kinder to motorist's campaign that the Conservatives had about 10 years ago? Allegedly people were pressing the button to stop the traffic which was inconvenient to busy drivers.

I thought they were always like that?