Confusing Speed Limit Signs

[Blah Blah]

But accidents are up in 20mph zones, so the data doesn't support the theory. Only the data on consequences (namely serious injury and fatalities) supports the theory, and yes, that is a reason for doing something in areas where that is an issue (so accident black spots) but to take action on roads where no-one is ever injured is just overkill from the increasingly bureacratic nanny state we live in. Rural roads are some of the worst for serious injury from accidents/ collisions, and for obvious reasons. But it always comes back to us townies being treated like we can't be trusted to drive/ cycle/ cross the road in a reasonable manner. So we have to throw common sense out of the window, stick road signs and restrictions up everywhere, instead of tackling the real issue, which is changing the attitudes of those that use the road, and improving the driving skills of motorists.

[first mate]

I do rather agree, there are many who do not drive in a reasonable manner. Even at 30mph or 40mph there is always some idiot who thinks that is too slow too. I just wonder if a number of roaming,static checks with stiff, on-the-spot fines would make a difference?

I resent my safety, and that of others, being compromised by someone who feels they are such a marvellously safe driver/their time is so precious that the law does not apply in their case and they are entitled to bully the rest of us off the road.

[wulfhound]

But accidents are up in 20mph zones,

Because there are MORE 20MPH ZONES.

No cyclists have been killed on motorways in the past 12 months. Does that mean it's safe to cycle on the motorway..?

Ditto, nobody has ever been killed bungee jumping out of an airliner.

The key measure is _risk per unit exposure_. With more 20mph zones, total exposure is higher & so the total number of incidents in 20mph zones will go up. The correct measure is to look at before/after statistics for a given neighbourhood.

Rural roads are some of the worst for serious injury from accidents/ collisions, and for obvious reasons. But it always comes back to us townies being treated like we can't be trusted to drive/ cycle/ cross the road in a reasonable manner. So we have to throw common sense out of the window, stick road signs and restrictions up everywhere, instead of tackling the real issue, which is changing the attitudes of those that use the road, and improving the driving skills of motorists.

The problem is that even skilful motorists can't deal with other users being stupid. In a built-up, dense, urban area, the probability of encountering stupid is high. The philosophy behind 20mph is to design in a way that is somewhat forgiving of that stupidity. And it also recognises that the person driving is the one bringing the danger to the situation - even if they are safe and skilful.

Put it this way: if I'm driving and a drunk walks out in front of me without looking, whose fault is it? In the immediate - clearly the drunk's, 100%. Yet, indirectly, by choosing to drive at all, I've contributed to conditions that make it hazardous for him to be staggering about. By keeping speeds down, the severity of that kind of unavoidable accident is somewhat reduced. Public space in a big city needs to be at least somewhat forgiving of stupidity: to err is human, and all that.

Anyhow, the trip-average speed in London is far less than 20mph. Driving the clear bits at 30 instead of 20 saves virtually no time, as at most times of day you'll spend most of your journey in jams or at lights. At a steady 20, Waterloo Bridge to Goose Green is under 15 minutes.. it's not the speed limit that's the problem.

[intexasatthe moment]

Spot on wulfhound .

[Blah Blah]

But Wulfhound, there are many times of the day when there are no jams, like night for example. Most accidents do not happen at 4am in the morning and by your own admission, at peak times the average speed is below 20mpr, so no need for lower limits at all. Traffic already travels slower at busier times, and most accidents happen at slow speed, during manouvres. To force someone to crawl accross the borough in the dead of night at 20mpr, is just riduculous.

And to your 'drunk' analogy, I diasgree. No-one is to blame but the drunk. He has to take responsibility for the choice he made. The stupidity is found in the people who make these decisions in thinking we are all too stupid to behave in a reasonable manner.

[bobbsy]

Blah Blah, I agree with you. Completely.

I suspect a lot of the people supporting the 20mph limits are non drivers.

[wulfhound]

But Wulfhound, there are many times of the day when there are no jams, like night for example. Most accidents do not happen at 4am in the morning and by your own admission, at peak times the average speed is below 20mpr, so no need for lower limits at all.

Yes, need for lower limits - because it's crawl-sprint-crawl-sprint. Guess which bit kills and injures.

Traffic already travels slower at busier times, and most accidents happen at slow speed, during manouvres.

And most of those accidents are low severity, unless an HGV is involved. That's part of the reason for the seemingly high rate of bus/HGV vs cyclist fatalities in central London: the cars in zone 1 mostly aren't going fast enough to kill the relatively fit/healthy people that tend to be on bikes there. There are plenty of car vs bike collisions (ask any paramedic), but in the centre of town they're rarely fatal. In the suburbs where traffic speeds are higher, a lot more people get killed by cars.

To force someone to crawl accross the borough in the dead of night at 20mpr, is just riduculous.

Quite how getting from one end of the borough to the other in 15-20 minutes is crawling, I fail to see.

And to your 'drunk' analogy, I diasgree. No-one is to blame but the drunk. He has to take responsibility for the choice he made. The stupidity is found in the people who make these decisions in thinking we are all too stupid to behave in a reasonable manner.

At a population level, it's painfully clear that we are indeed "all too stupid". Or rather, that everybody makes mistakes sometimes. That's not exactly limited to the roads - evidence of people having made bad life choices of one sort or another is everywhere. Let me give another example: I decide to trim my front hedge with a power trimmer. Could have used secaturs but it would have taken a bit longer, plus I'm lazy. A plugged-in iphone zombie walks straight in to me while texting, with predictable results. Whose fault - theirs for general Darwin-award-grade idiocy, or mine for bringing hazardous gear out in public?

The people who make the decisions have to trade off between convenience for drivers, and whether or not the public realm should be forgiving of peoples' mistakes. In a dense, built up area like the London Borough of Southwark, 20mph is a sensible balance to strike. Somewhere with longer distances - rural Norfolk, say - it wouldn't be; nor on roads like the A102(M) where there simply aren't any vulnerable users to worry about.

[henryb]

According this report for TFL 20mph zones lead to a reduction in all casualties of 42%. The largest effect was on 0-15 age group. I am a driver and totally support them.

http://www.tfl.gov.uk/cdn/static/cms/documents/20-mph-zones-and-road-safety-in-london.pdf

[Blah Blah]

We'll have to agree to disagree Wulfhound.

Henry, that would make sense as it is residential roads that primarily have been made 20mpr. What we are discussing here though is main roads being reduced to 20mpr.

[bawdy-nan]

Blah Blah, I drive, use buses, trains and tubes, cycle and walk, as do most people who drive.

I absolutely support 20 mph roads in an urban and suburban setting, in fact anywhere where there are pavements (although, of course, in the few instances where you can expect pedestrians and cars on the same track I would also want to see a limit). The only places I could imagine an increased speed being ok would be in those places were roads are already segregated and usually have 40 mph limits at the moment. I'm not sure where these "main roads" are that don't involve pedestrians.

The overwhelming reason for this would be the reduction in harm to anyone hit by a car. The risk of pedestrian death or serious injury rises sharply between 20mph and 30mph (at least according to ROSPA http://www.rospa.com/about/currentcampaigns/publichealth/info/rs4-casestudy-20-mph-zones.pdf).

I can see your argument about night time use but imagine that variable road speeds might be tricky to enforce.

[Blah Blah]

The vast majority of drivers never hit anything, but we never seem to consider that. I stand by my earlier points that emphasis is in the wrong place. Unless something is done to imrpove the standards of driving by those drivers who fall short, no amount of speed limit tinkering is going to address the real cause of the problem.

[rodneybewes]

I drive quite a bit and I'm going with the 20mph too. It felt frustrating at first when there is no other traffic but it's worth it for the benefits and to be honest I used to find having to put on my seatbelt to be a pain too when they first made that compulsory; now I don't care. Actually, I have started to feel more relaxed driving at 20.

[rodneybewes]

Blah Blah Wrote:

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

> The vast majority of drivers never hit anything,

> but we never seem to consider that. I stand by my

> earlier points that emphasis is in the wrong

> place. Unless something is done to imrpove the

> standards of driving by those drivers who fall

> short, no amount of speed limit tinkering is going

> to address the real cause of the problem.

Well, they should probably do both but I'm betting it's a lot cheaper to get effective results lowering the limit than to embark on a programme of training the nation on better driving skills. Particularly in South London!

I'd love it if everyone could be a good driver as you say but in reality they are not, and aren't going to be without the big stick hanging over them of penalty points and fines.

[bawdy-nan]

Blahblah there's been some research done by tfl looking at the impact on numbers of collisions and severity of outcomes in London, examining data once 20mph limits have been introduced and the results are overwhelmingly supportive of the idea that 20mph reduces quantity of collissions and diminishes the severity of the impact.

I've cut and pasted some of the info below but you can see the full report and references here: http://www.tfl.gov.uk/cdn/static/cms/documents/research-summary-no2-20mph-zones.pdf

Casualties

The impact on casualties due to the

introduction of 20 mph zones in London

can be summarised as follows;

● Allowing for background changes in

KSI casualty frequencies, the

installation of 20 mph zones has

reduced the frequency of road user

casualties within the zones by about

45% and reduced the frequency of

fatal or serious (KSI) casualties by

about 57%.

● There were statistically significant

reductions in the KSI casualty

frequency for most classes of road

user within the 20 mph zones.

● The KSI casualty frequency for

children also fell significantly --

by 60%.

● The severity ratio (the ratio of KSI

casualties to all casualties) fell from

0.16 to 0.12 following zone

installation ? indicating a reduced

severity.

● The average annual reduction in fatal

and serious (KSI) casualties per 20

mph zone suggests an annual saving

of about 66 KSI casualties across all

of London?s current 20 mph zones.

Using DfT figures this is equivalent to

a current annual saving of at least

?8.8 million, at 2001 prices.

[Charles Notice]

What would happen to these figures if people became more aware and took responsibility for their own actions. Be more aware of their surroundings and not be engrossed with talking on the telephone, drinking takeaway coffee and generally ignoring all what is going on around them.

Pavements are for pedestrians when you need to cross the road use designated crossing points. Following the instructions. When at zebra crossings wait until all traffic has stopped.

If you need to cross apart from the above use the old tried and tested method "look left , look right and left again" if clear cross.

Roads always have been for moving machines going at what ever speed. On london roads that is not fast. Care is needed

Perhaps bringing back a man walking in front of traffic with a red flag is what we could all work towards.

All it needs is for people to take responsibility for their own actions , however I do think we are asking for the impossible.

Why put forward in depth reasons when all that is needed is the above.

[rodneybewes]

Charles Notice Wrote:

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

> What would happen to these figures if people

> became more aware and took responsibility for

> their own actions. Be more aware of their

> surroundings and not be engrossed with talking on

> the telephone, drinking takeaway coffee and

> generally ignoring all what is going on around

> them.

>

> Pavements are for pedestrians when you need to

> cross the road use designated crossing points.

> Following the instructions. When at zebra

> crossings wait until all traffic has stopped.

>

> If you need to cross apart from the above use the

> old tried and tested method "look left , look

> right and left again" if clear cross.

>

> Roads always have been for moving machines going

> at what ever speed. On london roads that is not

> fast. Care is needed

>

> Perhaps bringing back a man walking in front of

> traffic with a red flag is what we could all work

> towards.

>

> All it needs is for people to take responsibility

> for their own actions , however I do think we are

> asking for the impossible.

>

> Why put forward in depth reasons when all that is

> needed is the above.

Because in practice that doesn't happen? And in this imperfect world it won't? Your making it sound incredibly simple doesn't mean that it isn't in fact very complicated to achieve that.

Good work with the red flag bit as a comparison, try to make the reduction in the speed limit sound absurd. You nearly had me too.

[bobbsy]

Touche!

[StraferJack]

"The vast majority of drivers never hit anything, but we never seem to consider that."

Is that not the same logic the gun lobby in America use?

Doesn't stop the regular carnage, whereas in countries with gun control.....

[mako]

A shockingly bad idea, muddled through and currently more dangerous than before.

cars arent suited to drive at 20mph for long periods and it will result in drivers looking more at their speedo trying to stick to the limit, rather than concentrating on the road and what is going on. Unless cameras are on all roads drivers will find routes without cameras and drive faster to make up for lost time. The impact of the rarerity of the 20 limit that protects schools etc will go. Its bad for emmissions and sound polution. as for the 'it may save a life'-how far do you take it? Banning cars would result in no road deaths but that doesnt make it a good a idea. hardly any mention has been made of the other impacts. Previously you could drive 50% faster. journey times must be longer, industry lost and stress and frustration will be increased.

[NunheadRising]

In my opinion 30 mile an hour is fine for some of the main routes but the more suburban roads should be 20. As you can tell I'm over the boarder in Nunhead and we've had a 20mile an hour limit down our road for a few years with no effect. We have the 343 and 424 both coming down Ivydale Road continually doing over 30 especially in the evening when they thunder down the road making the houses shake in their wake. Despite bringing it to the drivers attention all you get is a load of abuse. The bus drivers have an untouchable attitude and no member of the council seems bothered either.

[bobbsy]

A blanket 20mph limit will also entice more people to duck and dive through the smaller residential streets rather than use the larger roads that were designed for heavier traffic. The speed limit on my road has been 20 for ages, plus it has numerous speed bumps, but as it is a handy shortcut to avoid lordship lane, the majority of cars roar along at 30-40mph.

also, the navigation apps, when updated to the new limits, will start directing drivers off the main roads when calculating fastest journey time.

how has that made things safer?

[StraferJack]

" the majority of cars roar along at 30-40mph. "

I'm willing to bet that isn't true - tha majority???

[bobbsy]

The majority when I am on the road or looking out the window.

[StraferJack]

I'm still calling it not true

as in, you are mistaken (not lying)

[Charles Notice]

What road is this?