20 mph Zones - Extend or Eliminate?

[bramling]

What should happen is that there should be infrastructure changes to encourage speeds to reduce.

Enforcement means that the road is badly designed and means that the designers have failed, however the problem is that there's often not the potential to make the changes required to ensure that the roads are designed well.

For example, the ideal is that you have roads with bends in then so traffic can't go fast, however if the road is a Roman Road there's not a lot you can do to add bends in and so you have to look at other measures.

Sometimes it's as simple as changing the limit, for example I'd there's a village centre which had a 30 limit, changing it to a 20 limit will mean that people do go a little slower, however in doubt so it make the village centre more attractive and so people want to visit it.

Sometimes you do just need to annoy the drivers. For example, a new development has delivered a link road built to modern standards with good quality crossing points yet people are stuck in their ways and are going through a village because that's what they've always done, then there's a need to add in traffic calming which delays them significantly if everyone were to continue to do so to change the habits.

Once done the village becomes a nicer place to walk through and live in as most of the through traffic (the vast majority of which never stops in the village) has been diverted to the new road (which whilst longer actually may not add much to the journey time).

As with most things there are a small minority who think that driving is a right (it's not, it's a privilege and one that has a lot of responsibilities which goes with it) and how dare anyone suggest that they should be at all inconvenienced (even if that means that it results in others seeing a significant benefit, maybe even retaining their lives).

Arguably we should have a LOT more enforcement of the rules of the roads, as that would probably mean that quite a lot of people would end up earning 12 points on their licence. As actually the risk of getting caught breaking the speed limit, driving whilst using your phone, driving in the middle lane when you don't need to be, driving whilst over the alcohol limit and so on its very low.

Drivers generally get away with far more than they should, however it would shatter a lot of "good drivers" illusions of their abilities if there was much more enforcement than there currently is.

Likewise, there would be a lot of drivers who wouldn't be able to pass their driving test if they had to redo it (even if it was only to the standard they had to pass and not the more onerous standard that is currently required), there would probably be quite a few who never had to do the theory test or hazard perception who would fail them. It's ultimately the real reason that few support the idea of retesting for drivers, even though it would likely result in much safer roads.

Is there much evidence that today’s driving tests are leading to better driving? Round here the general standard of driving is utterly abysmal, and has become noticeably worse over the last decade or two.

I know there may be a few other factors, in particular that modern cars seem to have so many built-in distractions, but nonetheless shouldn’t we have expected at least some level of improvement as increasing numbers of people who did supposedly easier tests fall by the wayside?

As far as calming measures go, round here it seems to be a case of “who shouts the loudest” gets the calming measures, rather than there being any strategy behind it. So what we have is a complete dog’s breakfast where there are some major roads which are pretty quiet, and a lot of traffic diverting into less suitable narrower residential roads which are far more hazardous. From experience I simply don’t trust the competence of the powers that be to get all this right, they certainly haven’t done so in many places I’m familiar. Plus we can add that fact that as a cyclist most of the measures that have been implemented significantly increase danger for one reason or another.

 

[Krokodil]

Is there much evidence that today’s driving tests are leading to better driving?

I'd point to lack of retesting as an issue. You pass at 17 and all you have to do is avoid getting caught seriously breaking the law until you're 70. Then you just self-declare that you're still fit and carry on.

At the very least proper eye tests should be required when licences are renewed. Theory and hazard perception tests too. I'd even go as far as to suggest redoing the full driving test every ten years too.

 

[Meerkat]

I'd point to lack of retesting as an issue. You pass at 17 and all you have to do is avoid getting caught seriously breaking the law until you're 70. Then you just self-declare that you're still fit and carry on.

At the very least proper eye tests should be required when licences are renewed. Theory and hazard perception tests too. I'd even go as far as to suggest redoing the full driving test every ten years too.

I’m afraid you are taking on the grey vote if you suggest that.
A really simple eyesight and reaction test would surely be very easy to set up though. A steering wheel and pedals in a fake car interior surrounded by screens. Could be put in the back of a big van and taken around like mobile health scanners are.

 

[stuu]

It is pretty mad that you never have to even show that you know any changes to rules and new signs etc from the second you pass your test until the day you are too old to drive.

There's definitely a case for a theory test, as a minimum, every 10 years

 

[AM9]

It is pretty mad that you never have to even show that you know any changes to rules and new signs etc from the second you pass your test until the day you are too old to drive.

There's definitely a case for a theory test, as a minimum, every 10 years

Ah, but many aenior drivers, (and quite a few middle aged as well) claim they are safer because they have years of experience, - which is actually just a device to assume some sort of superiority on the road. It's a travesty that the 40-60 year old drivers are probably the worst offenders, claiming that their important journeys give them some sort of priority yet the police seem blind to their arrogance and crucially their poor road manners. Hence they don't get that many prosecutions, less insurance loading and sorting that perpetuate bad driving.

 

[bramling]

Ah, but many aenior drivers, (and quite a few middle aged as well) claim they are safer because they have years of experience, - which is actually just a device to assume some sort of superiority on the road. It's a travesty that the 40-60 year old drivers are probably the worst offenders, claiming that their important journeys give them some sort of priority yet the police seem blind to their arrogance and crucially their poor road manners. Hence they don't get that many prosecutions, less insurance loading and sorting that perpetuate bad driving.

Whilst I do get what you mean about some people, there’s some serious generalisation here. So drivers seem to come in the same category as commuters, whom as a group you seem to dislike as well. Should we all just be staying at home?

 

[The Ham]

Whilst I do get what you mean about some people, there’s some serious generalisation here. So drivers seem to come in the same category as commuters, whom as a group you seem to dislike as well. Should we all just be staying at home?

I would suggest that the age bracket being talked about are those who didn't have to do the theory test (other than the lowest 5 years of that band), so it's not unreasonable to assume that they may think that they may not be as good as they think as they may not know as much as those who are a bit younger and had to learn more theory to pass their test.

As long as the determination for a test isn't based on age, (say every 10 years, so the youngest could be 27), then it's not something which can be argued that it's aimed at penalising pensioners. Whilst it may be that they are the ones which see the highest failure rate, the "need" for the assessment isn't linked to age.

Is there much evidence that today’s driving tests are leading to better driving? Round here the general standard of driving is utterly abysmal, and has become noticeably worse over the last decade or two.

It's probably hard to prove either way.

Accident rates nationally are fairly stable, even though the overall population is getting larger and older.

Therefore, road safety is improving. What's causing it is probably harder to pin down, as there's lots of potential factors which are contributing to that.

However having better assessments for driving is likely to be a factor, although how much of a factor is likely to be hard to pinpoint.

It would be interesting to do a test, where an area (for example Wales) did some sort of assessment for all drivers who passed their test 20 years ago or more, and then once they are all done move it to 10 years ago or more. Then review the accident data.

 

[Krokodil]

I’m afraid you are taking on the grey vote if you suggest that.

I don't intend to single out pensioners. Photocard licences get renewed every 10 years. The old-style paper ones at age 70. When either type gets renewed, make it conditional on some kind of testing. There will be a transition period where people who passed before 1998 but aren't yet 70 slip through the net but eventually it'll apply to everyone.

A really simple eyesight and reaction test would surely be very easy to set up though. A steering wheel and pedals in a fake car interior surrounded by screens. Could be put in the back of a big van and taken around like mobile health scanners are.

Would be better to install them in the existing theory test centres. As a supplement to or replacement for the hazard perception part.

I'm not blind to the issue of young drivers behaving recklessly. I'd ban under 21s from carrying other under 21s who aren't related to them (as they seem to encourage each other). Graduated licences too, just like for motorbikes.

 

[Meerkat]

Ah, but many aenior drivers, (and quite a few middle aged as well) claim they are safer because they have years of experience

Experience is massively important. so many incidents that add to the understanding and judgement.
I have definitely noticed that I am not as sharp since stopping driving to work every day

I don't intend to single out pensioners.

But they will suffer most so they will oppose it, and they vote.

I'd ban under 21s from carrying other under 21s who aren't related to them (as they seem to encourage each other).

That punishes the young, restricting their access to work and leisure, particularly in country areas.
Not sure the ‘related to’ clause is practical.

 

[The Ham]

But they will suffer most so they will oppose it, and they vote.

Only if they fail the driving standards.

 

[Krokodil]

But they will suffer most so they will oppose it, and they vote.

Don't worry, according to the Daily Mail the nations OAPs will have frozen to death by then anyway - the ones most likely to be cross about this will also be cross about the Winter Fuel Allowance withdrawal and you can't lose the same vote twice. I recall that one German state is dishing out free Deutschlandtickets to OAPs who surrender their driving licences.

That punishes the young, restricting their access to work and leisure, particularly in country areas.

If "leisure" involves bombing down single carriageways at 90mph then I'm quite happy to restrict it. Tales of cars packed with teenage lads (or two lads in the front, girlfriends in the back) doing excessive speeds and killing an innocent third party (usually also killing the teenage passengers while the teenage driver gets off with a few scratches) are incredibly common. Teenage males are prone to taking risks, especially when trying to impress.

Not sure the ‘related to’ clause is practical.

The aim of that bit was to avoid issues where young parents can't carry their own child. I'm sure that there are other ways of doing it.

 

[Llanigraham]

I'd point to lack of retesting as an issue. You pass at 17 and all you have to do is avoid getting caught seriously breaking the law until you're 70. Then you just self-declare that you're still fit and carry on.

At the very least proper eye tests should be required when licences are renewed. Theory and hazard perception tests too. I'd even go as far as to suggest redoing the full driving test every ten years too.

Great idea, however have you considered the number of examiners and Test Centres that would be required?
There are already problems with long waiting lists in many areas due to lack of Examiners.

Ah, but many aenior drivers, (and quite a few middle aged as well) claim they are safer because they have years of experience, - which is actually just a device to assume some sort of superiority on the road. It's a travesty that the 40-60 year old drivers are probably the worst offenders, claiming that their important journeys give them some sort of priority yet the police seem blind to their arrogance and crucially their poor road manners. Hence they don't get that many prosecutions, less insurance loading and sorting that perpetuate bad driving.

Have you evidence of that? I fail to see it supported anywhere.

I don't intend to single out pensioners. Photocard licences get renewed every 10 years. The old-style paper ones at age 70. When either type gets renewed, make it conditional on some kind of testing. There will be a transition period where people who passed before 1998 but aren't yet 70 slip through the net but eventually it'll apply to everyone.

And who do you suggest does this testing?
And at whose cost?

Would be better to install them in the existing theory test centres. As a supplement to or replacement for the hazard perception part.

As stated above, there are already huge problems with delays at Driving Test Centres and this will do nothing but make it worse.


(And for the record, I'm a 71 year old who drives as a volunteer for Ambwlans Cymru, and has undertaken Defensive Driving Courses regularly)

 

[Foxhunter]

cough...

Not exactly sure where this idea is coming from that it is older drivers that are the problem.

Graph shows number of road collisions in 2022 by age range of drivers involved.


From https://www.gov.uk/government/stati...es-great-britain-older-drivers-factsheet-2020

UK Department for Transport Reported road casualties Great Britain: older drivers factsheet 2020, published May 2022.

This report shows that older drivers are more likely to be involved in a collision per mile driven, but also that they drive comparatively few miles. If I wanted to spend money to reduce accidents I'd look elsewhere first.

 

[PGAT]

cough...

Not exactly sure where this idea is coming from that it is older drivers that are the problem.

It certainly sounds plausible, afterall when you age cognitive skills generally decline and this can increase thinking distance, so I see where the thinking comes from

 

[Krokodil]

Great idea, however have you considered the number of examiners and Test Centres that would be required?
There are already problems with long waiting lists in many areas due to lack of Examiners.

Only practical tests would need examiners. Theory and hazard perception tests are computer-based.

And who do you suggest does this testing?

DVSA staff. If recruiting examiners is difficult then offer a more competitive salary and that can be reflected in the fee to the end user.

And at whose cost?

The licence holder (or their employer if they want to pay for it for staff who drive for work). Driving is a privilege, not a right. A friend of mine is a retired bus driver, when he retired he paid for a day with an instructor to assess his competence. A few years later he hung up his keys for good as he recognised that he no longer felt as safe. That's the responsible thing to do but many carry on until they have a collision.

As stated above, there are already huge problems with delays at Driving Test Centres and this will do nothing but make it worse.

A simulator test doesn‘t need a professional examiner.

How many near-misses and fender-benders did this woman have before she killed someone?

Woman, 96, admits causing death of pensioner in horror crash on pavement

June Mills 'applied too much accelerator' while driving her Vauxhall Corsa

www.lancs.live

 

[Ediswan]

A simulator test doesn‘t need a professional examiner.

As they don't currently exist, it is hard to say for sure what the requirements would be.

 

[The Ham]

Only practical tests would need examiners. Theory and hazard perception tests are computer-based.

You could probably assume that those who passed a hazard perception test (assuming there's not still issues with identifying issues too early) and the theory test could probably not have their driving assessed.

However if you're aiming that you may do random checks on people who are passing their other assessments.

 

[Meerkat]

Only if they fail the driving standards.

Which they know they are more likely to - it’s clearly aimed mainly at the older drivers.

If "leisure" involves bombing down single carriageways at 90mph then I'm quite happy to restrict it. Tales of cars packed with teenage lads (or two lads in the front, girlfriends in the back) doing excessive speeds and killing an innocent third party (usually also killing the teenage passengers while the teenage driver gets off with a few scratches) are incredibly common. Teenage males are prone to taking risks, especially when trying to impress.

It really isn’t incredibly common, and is ever more restricted by insurance without a black box being incredibly expensive for that age group. It’s even more ageist than the concentration on elderly drivers.

The aim of that bit was to avoid issues where young parents can't carry their own child.

It would be too much defining related ……unmarried couples etc
it would really limit how young people got to work and education via lifts, stop young parents taking their kids out etc etc. It would cause outrage out in the country where there is little option.

 

[Krokodil]

It really isn’t incredibly common

It's far too common.

 

[PeterC]

It's far too common.

They are the cases that hit the headlines when it goes wrong. Of course mum is always quoted as saying that the problem is down to the speed limit which little Johnny was exceeding by 20 or more mph. Nothing to do with the cocktail of drink and drugs that he had been enjoying on his night out.

 

[jon81uk]

Only practical tests would need examiners. Theory and hazard perception tests are computer-based.

Still needs a venue and invigilator.

 

[Krokodil]

Still needs a venue and invigilator.

Who don't need any specialised skills beyond those used by someone working in a shop or a pub. So not likely to be affected by any shortages.

 

[JamesT]

Who don't need any specialised skills beyond those used by someone working in a shop or a pub. So not likely to be affected by any shortages.

They may not need specialised skills, but there has been a general shortage of all type of workers. Unemployment is at historically low levels, unless you have a magic wand to make the economically inactive become available for work there isn't a ready workforce.

 

[The Ham]

Which they know they are more likely to - it’s clearly aimed mainly at the older drivers.

As I've said a driver agreed 27 would be assessed too, and if they don't meet the standard they would suffer the same consequences - therefore the age of driver is irrelevant. What is relevant is their driving ability.

In 2016 there was18% of the UK population were pensioners, by 2042 this will rise to 24%
As such poor driving standards of those over 65 will become a larger problem (especially given none of them would have ever taken a theory test, let alone a hazard perception test).

Whilst it could cause issues, it could change the way (positively) people behave. For example, there would be greater concern for the provision of buses. Likewise, for those who lost access to their car it would likely mean that they lead a more active lifestyle as they wouldn't be able to just jump in the car, v and so would likely walk more and even if they opted for an e-bike they would still cycle a little.

There's also a chance that they would interact with more people, as there's a fair chance that they would talk to people on the bus or whilst waiting at the bus stop. This would likely mean more incidental conversations, as they "bump into" friends and other people they know as they go about their lives.

Other implications would be more people about and so more likely to notice bad behaviour, which in turn would discourage people from behaving badly in the first place.

Yes there's risks too, but chances are these risks would happen anyway, just later on in life when the individual is less likely to adapt so easily to the change and so the outcomes would likely be worse.

 

[Ghostbus]

Eliminate.

Once you have reached the point that to a perfectly safe driver, something aimed at safety doesn't just feel ridiculous it is actually absurd, you have taken a wrong turn.

The economy could very well crash if someone could wave a magic wand and force 100% compliance with 20 zones. It would certainly entirely change the economics of my employment and my employer's business model.

If you don't care, you probably will when you realize that the product I home deliver for free is required by pretty much every parent, and the cost of providing a store in every town, would be insane. You would soon feel the cost, one way or another.

Hardly any of the 20 zones are necessary, and I'd say in the places where it is justified due to the manifest risks, you're better off pedestirianising, restricting access, changing parking provision, or if all else fails, having an even lower limit, strictly enforced by technology. 100% conviction rate.

So far, I've been fined 100% of the times I have breached a bus only gate. Which is once. Because I was too distracted by an apparent crash ahead to care if there was some non-safety related reason why I couldn't take that clear safe route rather than obstruct what I suspected would be an ambulance arriving any minute in the lane behind me.

Thankfully, it was just a routine peak time fender bender, and Johnny Law had nothing better to do than send 5 traffic/terror cars, all guns blazing. I didn't bother appealing the fine, because such things are irrelevant to safety campaigners and council officers alike it seems.

The 30 limit suffices, especially if people remember what they were taught in their driving lessons. This isn't an allowance, it is a limit. If, for whatever reason, circumstances arise where driving at close to 30 in a 30 zone is unsafe, and you do it anyway, you are breaking the law.

I now consider myself a safe speeder, well able to avoid the current league detection/enforcement measures. I don't want to speed, and typically don't for the higher limits. But I will absolutely not delay my journey when I know it's not necessary. My record is spotless. And I drive enough to know this isn't luck.

It's always the other party (driver, pedestrian, animal) who has created a potentially unsafe situation, that I have then safely reacted to, even when I was speeding. More usually, because I was driving at a speed that was safe for the circumstances.

I most recently had to emergency stop to ensure I didn't run over a Tween who had run out between parked cars without looking. You can probably guess what was occupying her attention. I was deliberately doing 10, even though it was a 20 zone, one of the first I guess.

I was driving according to the manifest risk. It was a school holiday, it was a narrow one lane street, it was fully lined both sides with parked cars. I was on full alert, using every available sight line, hence why I saw her coming before she had even hit the gap, so I was already breaking before she emerged into my path, unable unable stop herself until she was right between my headlights. Needless to say, she was quite shocked. I had stopped well clear, five feet at least.

Why is it even a 20? It's probably never safe to drive that speed on that road. A death would be a statistical inevitability. The people who see 20 and do 20 are the issue. They are the people whose compliance and general common sense will only lower as the level of safety theatre increases.

The other justifications are irrelevant to me. I don't pay for my fuel or maintenance, and thus far, neither the government or environmental lobby has thought it wise to compel my employer to make sure they do things like monitor my speed to keep those environmental costs down.

Probably because the savings to their bottom line would be minimal compared to the obscene profit he is allowed to make on his product, mostly from middle or lower income families. Even under a Labour government apparently.

 

[signed]

Even under a Labour government apparently.

The goal of the left as a whole in European countries have been to put 30kph zones everywhere, for some absurd reasons.

It's not a new phenomenon, in France you can basically guess the political side of a city's mayor just by looking how big is the 30kph zone

 

[Bletchleyite]

The economy could very well crash if someone could wave a magic wand and force 100% compliance with 20 zones. It would certainly entirely change the economics of my employment and my employer's business model.

I'm sorry, but that's rubbish. In my experience of driving in north Wales, almost everyone is fully complying with it. I was astonished, but it seems most people actually accept it there.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 18 Sep 2024 ==

My record is spotless. And I drive enough to know this isn't luck.

This is quite a dangerous attitude in my view. You may be a better than average driver but things can still go wrong.

 

[AM9]

Eliminate.

Once you have reached the point that to a perfectly safe driver, something aimed at safety doesn't just feel ridiculous it is actually absurd, you have taken a wrong turn.

The economy could very well crash if someone could wave a magic wand and force 100% compliance with 20 zones. It would certainly entirely change the economics of my employment and my employer's business model.

If you don't care, you probably will when you realize that the product I home deliver for free is required by pretty much every parent, and the cost of providing a store in every town, would be insane. You would soon feel the cost, one way or another.

Hardly any of the 20 zones are necessary, and I'd say in the places where it is justified due to the manifest risks, you're better off pedestirianising, restricting access, changing parking provision, or if all else fails, having an even lower limit, strictly enforced by technology. 100% conviction rate.

So far, I've been fined 100% of the times I have breached a bus only gate. Which is once. Because I was too distracted by an apparent crash ahead to care if there was some non-safety related reason why I couldn't take that clear safe route rather than obstruct what I suspected would be an ambulance arriving any minute in the lane behind me.

Thankfully, it was just a routine peak time fender bender, and Johnny Law had nothing better to do than send 5 traffic/terror cars, all guns blazing. I didn't bother appealing the fine, because such things are irrelevant to safety campaigners and council officers alike it seems.

The 30 limit suffices, especially if people remember what they were taught in their driving lessons. This isn't an allowance, it is a limit. If, for whatever reason, circumstances arise where driving at close to 30 in a 30 zone is unsafe, and you do it anyway, you are breaking the law.

I now consider myself a safe speeder, well able to avoid the current league detection/enforcement measures. I don't want to speed, and typically don't for the higher limits. But I will absolutely not delay my journey when I know it's not necessary. My record is spotless. And I drive enough to know this isn't luck.

It's always the other party (driver, pedestrian, animal) who has created a potentially unsafe situation, that I have then safely reacted to, even when I was speeding. More usually, because I was driving at a speed that was safe for the circumstances.

I most recently had to emergency stop to ensure I didn't run over a Tween who had run out between parked cars without looking. You can probably guess what was occupying her attention. I was deliberately doing 10, even though it was a 20 zone, one of the first I guess.

I was driving according to the manifest risk. It was a school holiday, it was a narrow one lane street, it was fully lined both sides with parked cars. I was on full alert, using every available sight line, hence why I saw her coming before she had even hit the gap, so I was already breaking before she emerged into my path, unable unable stop herself until she was right between my headlights. Needless to say, she was quite shocked. I had stopped well clear, five feet at least.

Why is it even a 20? It's probably never safe to drive that speed on that road. A death would be a statistical inevitability. The people who see 20 and do 20 are the issue. They are the people whose compliance and general common sense will only lower as the level of safety theatre increases.

The other justifications are irrelevant to me. I don't pay for my fuel or maintenance, and thus far, neither the government or environmental lobby has thought it wise to compel my employer to make sure they do things like monitor my speed to keep those environmental costs down.

Probably because the savings to their bottom line would be minimal compared to the obscene profit he is allowed to make on his product, mostly from middle or lower income families. Even under a Labour government apparently.

Ah, one of those perfect drivers, managed to avoid any convictions and knows better than everybody else what the speed limit is. Strange how the insurance companies are reporting less incidents on the road resulting in less claims. There's even speculation that premiums will drop for those on default 20mph areas. Of course insurers don't know anything, - only perfect drivers do so only their views arerelevant.

 

[Llanigraham]

Eliminate.

Once you have reached the point that to a perfectly safe driver, something aimed at safety doesn't just feel ridiculous it is actually absurd, you have taken a wrong turn.

The economy could very well crash if someone could wave a magic wand and force 100% compliance with 20 zones. It would certainly entirely change the economics of my employment and my employer's business model.

If you don't care, you probably will when you realize that the product I home deliver for free is required by pretty much every parent, and the cost of providing a store in every town, would be insane. You would soon feel the cost, one way or another.

Hardly any of the 20 zones are necessary, and I'd say in the places where it is justified due to the manifest risks, you're better off pedestirianising, restricting access, changing parking provision, or if all else fails, having an even lower limit, strictly enforced by technology. 100% conviction rate.

So far, I've been fined 100% of the times I have breached a bus only gate. Which is once. Because I was too distracted by an apparent crash ahead to care if there was some non-safety related reason why I couldn't take that clear safe route rather than obstruct what I suspected would be an ambulance arriving any minute in the lane behind me.

Thankfully, it was just a routine peak time fender bender, and Johnny Law had nothing better to do than send 5 traffic/terror cars, all guns blazing. I didn't bother appealing the fine, because such things are irrelevant to safety campaigners and council officers alike it seems.

The 30 limit suffices, especially if people remember what they were taught in their driving lessons. This isn't an allowance, it is a limit. If, for whatever reason, circumstances arise where driving at close to 30 in a 30 zone is unsafe, and you do it anyway, you are breaking the law.

I now consider myself a safe speeder, well able to avoid the current league detection/enforcement measures. I don't want to speed, and typically don't for the higher limits. But I will absolutely not delay my journey when I know it's not necessary. My record is spotless. And I drive enough to know this isn't luck.

It's always the other party (driver, pedestrian, animal) who has created a potentially unsafe situation, that I have then safely reacted to, even when I was speeding. More usually, because I was driving at a speed that was safe for the circumstances.

I most recently had to emergency stop to ensure I didn't run over a Tween who had run out between parked cars without looking. You can probably guess what was occupying her attention. I was deliberately doing 10, even though it was a 20 zone, one of the first I guess.

I was driving according to the manifest risk. It was a school holiday, it was a narrow one lane street, it was fully lined both sides with parked cars. I was on full alert, using every available sight line, hence why I saw her coming before she had even hit the gap, so I was already breaking before she emerged into my path, unable unable stop herself until she was right between my headlights. Needless to say, she was quite shocked. I had stopped well clear, five feet at least.

Why is it even a 20? It's probably never safe to drive that speed on that road. A death would be a statistical inevitability. The people who see 20 and do 20 are the issue. They are the people whose compliance and general common sense will only lower as the level of safety theatre increases.

The other justifications are irrelevant to me. I don't pay for my fuel or maintenance, and thus far, neither the government or environmental lobby has thought it wise to compel my employer to make sure they do things like monitor my speed to keep those environmental costs down.

Probably because the savings to their bottom line would be minimal compared to the obscene profit he is allowed to make on his product, mostly from middle or lower income families. Even under a Labour government apparently.

As a professional driver, trained by both the Police and Ambulance services, reading that missive strikes me with horror!
There are just so many incorrect statements.

 

[Krokodil]

perfectly safe driver

There is no such thing. Train drivers undergo rigorous selection and training. They are monitored and assessed far more than anyone on the road is. Yet mistakes still happen and TPWS intervenes. Because they are human.

The economy could very well crash if someone could wave a magic wand and force 100% compliance with 20 zones.

Bristol saved tens millions when they cut the speed limit because collisions have many economic consequences.

you're better off pedestirianising, restricting access, changing parking provision,

You'll hear no argument on that from me. "Eliminate the hazard" is at the top of the hierarchy of hazard controls, after all.

or if all else fails, having an even lower limit, strictly enforced by technology. 100% conviction rate.

This however is the wrong approach. "Administrative controls" (i.e. rules, signage, enforcement) comes near the bottom of the hierarchy of hazard controls. You don't want people driving along staring at the speedo. "Engineering controls" is a better approach. If the lanes are narrow, the surface rough and littered with obstacles then people slow down regardless of the posted speed limit.

In the attached photo, which 20 limit is respected?