20 mile an hour zones - what's the point ?

[TheArtfulDogger]

Don't get me wrong, the idea of limiting residential side streets to 20 miles an hour is great, but the councils attitude of sticking up a sign, painting 20 on the road and then not enforcing it just doesn't make sense

All day long you see cars, vans and the dreaded Chelsea tractors zipping around at speeds in excess of 30 let alone 20 and yet no enforcement of the zones by the council is made

if I am correct, as it is not a national speed limit, but set by the local authority, the police won't enforce it (I could be wrong here) so I raise the question "great idea but what's the point ?"

[Mick Mac]

I take your point about enforcement, but as someone with young children, I abide by the 20 mph speed limit, and hope others do too.

I'm much less likely to abide by the 70mph national speed limit on a motorway.

[the-e-dealer]

I too abide by the limit- Idiots behind may not want to but they are forced to!

A child jumped out in front of me on Crystal Palace Road, As I was doing less than 20 he was fine - bounced off the car. Car wasnt fine but the most important thing. If I was dong 30 he would be dead or injured.

Ofcourse the parents started all the we want compo crap but I said we are all very lucky he is ok. They dropped it.

Oh yeah they also wondered why I didn't bring him home. Windscreen was smashed and car undriveable!

[Penguin68]

The problem with the 20mph zones is that it is easy to forget where they are - there is no obvious consistency about where they start and end, and no street markings other than on entry; if you have stopped somewhere you don't always remember you are in such a zone. The French have a very useful habit of signing 'rapel' and the speed limit to remind you that you are in a limited zone - it is a shame we don't use that convention. And they do change - I can remember a long thread arguing whether Wood Vale was 20mph or not - I think it isn't now but it had been. But the parallel Underhill is (I think).

I entirely agree that they are a good safety measure - pedestrians will be hurt but not so often maimed and killed when struck at 20mph. I am always furious when I am flashed and hooted by some boy racer who wants to overtake me in the zones when I am doing 20mph.

But better signage and some sort of continuing reminder of the limits would help - the boy racers probably think I am doing 20 when they could legally be doing 30, and I can see that would upset them.

[henryb]

I agree the enforcement of these limits is appalling. If the police don?t have the resources can?t the enforcement be allowed by private companies or Traffic Wardens like it is for parking?

Its seems ridiculous parking restrictions are tightly enforced yet speeders, who are endangering others, are ignored.

[trizza]

henryb Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I agree the enforcement of these limits is

> appalling. If the police don?t have the resources

> can?t the enforcement be allowed by private

> companies or Traffic Wardens like it is for

> parking?

>

> Its seems ridiculous parking restrictions are

> tightly enforced yet speeders, who are endangering

> others, are ignored.

You really want to sub-contract the enforcement of criminal law to private companies? That's completely nuts.

Some people will always speed. Absent installing average speed cameras everywhere (which is not realistic), the best approach seems to be traffic calming / cameras in key areas.

[the-e-dealer]

HANDY TIP:!

20 mph zones are only allowed if some means of restraining the car are installed eg chicanes or humps because the old Bill wont enforce. So if you are in a humpy area it is likely to be a 20 Limit.(Or Harry's Hotel! :-) )

[henryb]

> You really want to sub-contract the enforcement of

> criminal law to private companies? That's

> completely nuts.

Private companies and individuals are allowed to enforce the law already. What I am saying is private companies would take a percentage of any fixed penalties to cover costs and a margin. It already happens for parking offences. It means offenders pay for enforcement rather than law abiding tax payers.

> Some people will always speed. Absent installing

> average speed cameras everywhere (which is not

> realistic), the best approach seems to be traffic

> calming / cameras in key areas.

Cameras are a good idea.

[Penguin68]

So if you are in a humpy area it is likely to be a 20 Limit.(Or Harry's Hotel! :-) )

Would that were so - but many 30mph roads also have humps - for instance Wood Vale (as mentioned). So it is true that a road without humps will certainly not be 20mph restriction, but not the cororally. And some bus routes are, and some aren't.

Road markings (20mpg in a circle) between the humps might help. If Southwark is serious about reducing local road speed limits it should be serious about working to make sure they are adhered to - if enforecment can't be managed then better advisement could. Perhaps they could experiemnt by inserting more road markings - if they did reduce speeds then they could offer the 'Southwark Scheme' into more general use.

Frankly what they do now (declare a speed limit, do nothing to enforce or support it) is simply pious - seems good but is of no real value. It puts into mind rows of councillors wringing their hands and weeping copiously while declaring 'there's nothing we can do, but we do mean so well!'.

[the-e-dealer]

I said area NOT Road. To me an area would be more than one road. Maybe I'm wrong. So if you can see several roads around you or as you drive you are likely to be in a 20PMH Zone.

[Earl Aelfheah]

Not more road markings please. I can't believe that people are incapable of keeping track of he speed limit already. The fact is that some people choose to ignore it, that's all.

[uncleglen]

People are incapable of keeping to the speed limit. And even if a speeding driver is caught (forensics showed he was doing 35-45mph) and seriously injured a sober pedestrian he was let off.

[eddie]

CONTROVERSIAL 20mph speed limits designed to cut road casualties are not working, official figures show.

Deaths and injuries in 20mph zones are UP a quarter in a year ? while on 30mph roads they are DOWN.

A report from the Department for Transport shows there were 2,262 fatalities and injuries in 2011 on 20mph roads in built-up areas ? 24 per cent more than in 2010 when 1,827 were recorded.

That compares to a one per cent reduction in casualties on 30mph roads in built-up areas.

Experts say motorists don?t concentrate and become frustrated in 20mph zones ? and pedestrians are lulled into a false sense of security.

In Portsmouth, a blanket 20mph limit on built-up roads was introduced five years ago.

The number killed or seriously injured in the city rocketed from 79 in 2007 to 143 last year.

More councils are setting 20mph areas under powers introduced by Lib Dem Transport Minister Norman Baker. Road safety campaigner Claire Armstrong of Safe Speed called for a halt to lower zones.

She said: ?A 20mph limit does not make the road safer. Thirty is absolutely adequate.?

The number of people killed or seriously injured overall on all roads in Britain increased by two per cent last year ? the first yearly rise since 1994.

Read more: http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/4481938/Official-Casualties-soaring-in-20mph-zones.html#ixzz24TVdwLw4

[the-e-dealer]

Correlation does not prove causation.

[njc97]

TAD - because maybe the drivers do 30 mph in the 20 zones rather than 40 if they were 30 limits?

Eddie - the stats there are rubbish. Even if the number of roads that had 30 mph and 20 mph limits had stayed the same, you might expect 20 mph roads to have more accidents than 30 mph roads (as dangerous roads are more likely to be re-classified by councils).

[henryb]

> Deaths and injuries in 20mph zones are UP a

> quarter in a year ? while on 30mph roads they are

> DOWN.

That is a meaningless statistic if you don't take into account how many more 20mph zones were introduced that year. A rate per mile would more meaningful. What would also be useful to know is in how many of those cases where someone was injured in a 20 zone ? was the car actually travelling below 20?

It is very well documented that pedestrians fair a lot better in low speed impact collisions and slower traffic means less accidents. What does seem to be the case is un-enforced 20 zones don't seem to reduce speeders. Which is what we are talking about.

[the-e-dealer]

And we dont know how high the accident rate would have risen if the 20mph zone wasnt introduced.

Its as stupid as saying the increase in purchases of sun cream causes the sun to come out. (Well ok not in Britain!)

[henryb]

Yep The Sun article is weak even for The Sun.

[simonethebeaver]

Aren't Marmora, Therapia, Mundania 20mph? (Not that the golf club types notice.) No humps or chicanes in sight.

[the-e-dealer]

They are going in speedtables i believe

[johnie]

A very good article on this subject here:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio/player/b01lv7yn

Radio 4's "More or less" statistics discussion.

listen from 13:38 onwards.

[the-e-dealer]

Look, I was glad I was in a 20MPH ZONE AS mY SPEED WAS consequently VERY LOW WHEN THE CHILD JUMPED OUT HE was fine.

Sorry for caps technical difficlties!

[Burbage]

TheArtfulDogger Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> if I am correct, as it is not a national speed

> limit, but set by the local authority, the police

> won't enforce it (I could be wrong here) so I

> raise the question "great idea but what's the

> point ?"

It's a good question, and the supposed answer, as others have noted, is that because they usually require traffic calming measures to be put in they do reduce speeds a bit, some of the time, in some places, at least until drivers get used to them.

It's too early to tell if they work, though. For a start, they only exist in places where casualties are rare, so you'd need many years of data to get any sort of useful picture. Moreover, in residential streets, most incidents involve cars which are turning or parking or flinging doors open at cyclists, which aren't much to do with speed limits.

You also need to be careful what numbers you were looking at, as it's rarely raw data. For example, the reductions in casualties over the last decade are all very nice, but you need to do some digging to find that the biggest reduction has been among car occupants, while the numbers for pedestrians or cyclists have stayed static and increased, respectively. Good news for some, indubitably. But not for everyone.

The main problem is that it's cheaper, and politically much easier, to put out a bit of paint and signwork than to put in speed cameras or police patrols that might upset drivers or burden the Met. In the same way it's politically easier to focus on residential streets rather than on busy shopping areas where the casualties mostly happen but where traders and TfL will oppose anything that might hamper the convenience of drivers.

20mph zones are something, and they might be an improvement on nothing. We can't tell either way, yet, and I'm not sure we'll ever be able to. However, as a political fudge to appease safety campaigners, they're certainly impressive, and that may very well be the point.

[Earl Aelfheah]

The associated speed bumps do tend to lead to 'accelerate, break, accelerate, break' type driving which can't aid concentration / observation. They certainly do nothing for the environment.

[henryb]

rahrahrah Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> The associated speed bumps do tend to lead to

> 'accelerate, break, accelerate, break' type

> driving which can't aid concentration /

> observation. They certainly do nothing for the

> environment.

I agree - they are not an ideal measure by any standard... but while there isn't the political will to enforce speed limits in residential roads it seems the only thing that can be done.