Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
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.
That's the basis of a 20 Zone, which are better than 20 limits but rather more expensive to do, though it seems some MK estates are already "to spec" for this so signs around the outside of the estate are all that needs adding. These generally don't have any enforcement and are based around the idea of 20 being a natural speed through various traffic calming measures.
Most modern cars are fitted with some sort of limiter that avoids staring at the speedo - I use mine extensively. It's particularly good as a "driver reminder appliance" on smart motorways, but it's also good for ensuring I stick to 20s and 30s while being able to keep my eyes fully on the road for the hazards that resulted in it being a 20 or 30.
Neither of those is particularly good to be honest. Needs some speed bumps/cushions and chicanes (ideally natural chicanes by controlling where parking is permitted).
Neither of those is particularly good to be honest. Needs some speed bumps/cushions and chicanes (ideally natural chicanes by controlling where parking is permitted).
To be fair I didn't spend much time looking for a decent example. But the principle is that if you build roads like a motorway (and suburban streets in the US are often incredibly wide) then people will drive like they're motorways. This is why modern British suburbs are laid out like spaghetti, rather than the straight grids of some postwar developments.
To be fair I didn't spend much time looking for a decent example. But the principle is that if you build roads like a motorway (and suburban streets in the US are often incredibly wide) then people will drive like they're motorways. This is why modern British suburbs are laid out like spaghetti, rather than the straight grids of some postwar developments.
Indeed so, and Milton Keynes' early estates with straight roads (widely regarded as the ones to avoid when looking for housing) do have a far higher level of antisocial car use than those with more modern winding ones.
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.
Such as? All I can think of is a blowout at the worst possible time. Are these things dangerous enough to justify a blanket 20 regardless of the road in question, when presumably these events would be far more dangerous on faster roads?
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Of course there is. I am an example. Never had an accident or an incident that was my fault, and never had one that wasn't either. I make sure my driving is safe for everyone, up to and including anticipating what the other driver might do if they aren't a perfectly safe driver. And like I said, I drive enough to know this isn't luck.
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.
And yet there is absolutely nothing comparable to TWPS in cars, not mandatory anyway, let alone public transport motor vehicles. Why is that?
Inappropriate speed (as distinct from and in addition to mere speeding) is a factor in most fatal road accidents. Yet we imperfect humans are still trusted to drive motor vehicles safely in most scenarios, with sub national limits applied sparingly and with easy to identify justifications.
It's not simply the number of lives that explains this. Petrol tankers, 100 seater school buses and cars driven unsafely (but within the abritray 20 limit) are all currently allowed to share the same road space with Wales.
Nothing has changed about the risk profiles of 30 roads that I can see, that wouldn't also apply to other limits. But there's no moves to ratchet those down or apply them in a blanket fashion that is divorced from real, actual, design factors.
if anything, it is the existing 20 roads that have only got more dangerous, as cars have got larger, more numerous, and education among drivers, children and parents has been neglected, to the point that 20 is seen as an allowance. That is bad practice at 70, careless at 40, risky at 30, and absolutely fatal at 20.
Bristol tax payers haven't been subjected to the extra costs incurred by employers like mine. I doubt the extra costs are even being passed onto Welsh people in full. Wholesale adoption in England would be the tipping point. Assuming a magic wand was waved to ensure 100% compliance.
Bristol tax payers haven't been subjected to the extra costs incurred by employers like mine. I doubt the extra costs are even being passed onto Welsh people in full. Wholesale adoption in England would be the tipping point. Assuming a magic wand was waved to ensure 100% compliance.
Given the average distances travelled by car per person is 7,000 miles a year (about 30 miles a day, assuming some days with low/no travel).
If you could average the speed limit and only ever drive on 30mph limit speed limit roads would be an hour a day, whilst at 20 you'd need an extra 30 minutes.
However, given that when driving you'll have to slow down for junctions, stop at traffic lights, etc. the average speed is going to be much lower than 30mph but lowering the limit to 20mph isn't going to reduce the average speed by 10mph.
If it reduces it from 22mph to 17mph that's a fall from 82 minutes to 105 minutes.
To illustrate this, my last local journey (all on 30mph limit roads, other than a fairly short section of 40 limit, but for most of that I'm accelerating from stop as I've gone the main road) took me 4 minutes to travel 2km, that's an average speed of 30kph (19mph). There wasn't any significant congestion (waited for a few cars at each roundabout), nor did I have to stop at any traffic lights. With 20 limits it would be slower, but not much slower.
Even with the current speed limits, it's not much slower to cycle there than drive.
Delivery drivers would see their average fall by even less (as they spend a lot more time stopped or turning around - to the extent that when studied often cycle deliveries where there's several deliveries in a local area come out faster) and so the overall impact is reduced.
From my experience of driving through Bristol lately if I managed 20 mph in many areas I'd be speeding as my average speed was much less than that, due to the congestion. It is also noticeable that around the Tramway Centre and the BRI air quality has improved.
As a volunteer with Ambiwlans Cymru I drive many miles around the country and certainly have found that the 20 limit is now kept by the majority of drivers, and I have not found my journeys have been extended by any great degree. It is also noticeable how many English councils are now setting the same limits with no timing problems.
Also worth noting that some of the Ambiwlans drivers I know say that response times have improved because people are paying more attention and get out of the way quicker.
Cars have rubber tyres so can stop short of an obstruction (and in theory should be driving at a speed at which they can react to that obstruction). Even so, many collisions happen, the fatality count remains a four figure sum.
Given the average distances travelled by car per person is 7,000 miles a year (about 30 miles a day, assuming some days with low/no travel).
If you could average the speed limit and only ever drive on 30mph limit speed limit roads would be an hour a day, whilst at 20 you'd need an extra 30 minutes.
However, given that when driving you'll have to slow down for junctions, stop at traffic lights, etc. the average speed is going to be much lower than 30mph but lowering the limit to 20mph isn't going to reduce the average speed by 10mph.
If it reduces it from 22mph to 17mph that's a fall from 82 minutes to 105 minutes.
To illustrate this, my last local journey (all on 30mph limit roads, other than a fairly short section of 40 limit, but for most of that I'm accelerating from stop as I've gone the main road) took me 4 minutes to travel 2km, that's an average speed of 30kph (19mph). There wasn't any significant congestion (waited for a few cars at each roundabout), nor did I have to stop at any traffic lights. With 20 limits it would be slower, but not much slower.
Even with the current speed limits, it's not much slower to cycle there than drive.
Delivery drivers would see their average fall by even less (as they spend a lot more time stopped or turning around - to the extent that when studied often cycle deliveries where there's several deliveries in a local area come out faster) and so the overall impact is reduced.
I'd guesstimate my wheels are in motion for 4/5ths of the working day, and 1/3 of that is on 30 roads. The afternoon school run is as congested as my day gets, and that's hardly a chew on. Clear roads is my norm, due to the nature of the business (off peak working hours home delivery) and the general geography.
Even in our densely urban city areas, the change from long stretches of 30 urban arterial road road with only occasional school time only 20 limits, to a default 20, is going to have a noticeable impact.
I will have to speed, safely, or I will probably quit my job, if I don't lose it due to becoming unecomic to have an in house delivery team. For those who have no other skill, expect more suicides from the sheer frustration of spending hours every day on a performative act of safety theatre. Or indeed, more deaths from distracted driving, as drivers take the opportunity of the world going so slow while there are no hazards and the road is clear, they think they can drive and do other things that will make their working day go faster.
As far as I'm aware they pay all the required taxes and insurances to cover those costs to the wider economy. It certainly isn't a big enough firm to be getting away with the sorts of things Amazon do to avoid their fare share.
i'm saying the good people of Bristol are offered the same service for the same price as anyone else, even though it seems highlly likely that we are incurring additional costs per mile/package to deliver to Bristol residents, due to the decisions of Bristol council. These Bristol specific costs are currently absorbed by everyone else we serve. But if those costs applied everywhere, naturally that will change.
I'd guesstimate my wheels are in motion for 4/5ths of the working day, and 1/3 of that is on 30 roads. The afternoon school run is as congested as my day gets, and that's hardly a chew on. Clear roads is my norm, due to the nature of the business (off peak working hours home delivery) and the general geography.
Even in our densely urban city areas, the change from long stretches of 30 urban arterial road road with only occasional school time only 20 limits, to a default 20, is going to have a noticeable impact.
Can you provide actual evidence of that, or is it just your biased opinion? From my experience of driving in Bristol, Cardiff, Manchester, Liverpool and Birmingham that is not the case.
I will have to speed, safely, or I will probably quit my job, if I don't lose it due to becoming unecomic to have an in house delivery team. For those who have no other skill, expect more suicides from the sheer frustration of spending hours every day on a performative act of safety theatre. Or indeed, more deaths from distracted driving, as drivers take the opportunity of the world going so slow while there are no hazards and the road is clear, they think they can drive and do other things that will make their working day go faster.
I'd guesstimate my wheels are in motion for 4/5ths of the working day, and 1/3 of that is on 30 roads. The afternoon school run is as congested as my day gets, and that's hardly a chew on. Clear roads is my norm, due to the nature of the business (off peak working hours home delivery) and the general geography.
If we had towns which were designed to be:
Streets for six year olds
Neighbourhoods for nine year olds and
Towns for twelve year old
Then there's a good chance that the afternoon school run would be less congested and so the overall impact of a load more 20 mile limits would be even less than currently.
Even on clear roads the average speed is going to be before the posted speed limit, unless those are roads which don't have frontage access to dwellings.
Even in our densely urban city areas, the change from long stretches of 30 urban arterial road road with only occasional school time only 20 limits, to a default 20, is going to have a noticeable impact.
I will have to speed, safely, or I will probably quit my job, if I don't lose it due to becoming unecomic to have an in house delivery team. For those who have no other skill, expect more suicides from the sheer frustration of spending hours every day on a performative act of safety theatre. Or indeed, more deaths from distracted driving, as drivers take the opportunity of the world going so slow while there are no hazards and the road is clear, they think they can drive and do other things that will make their working day go faster.
Due to an aging population, there's a good chance that in house delivery teams for most business will become uneconomic due to there being a shortage of working aged people (at least compared to the overall population size).
For those who have no other skill, expect more suicides from the sheer frustration of spending hours every day on a performative act of safety theatre. Or indeed, more deaths from distracted driving, as drivers take the opportunity of the world going so slow while there are no hazards and the road is clear, they think they can drive and do other things that will make their working day go faster.
That statement is a bit sweeping, as we’re talking about a situation where goalposts are being moved. The logical conclusion of the argument is that a government could come in and decide that all roads are being closed, at which point a massive number of jobs would then cease to exist - yet I doubt many people would find that outcome particularly desirable.
That statement is a bit sweeping, as we’re talking about a situation where goalposts are being moved. The logical conclusion of the argument is that a government could come in and decide that all roads are being closed, at which point a massive number of jobs would then cease to exist - yet I doubt many people would find that outcome particularly desirable.
I don't think losing one's job is desirable for anyone. This though is potentially "collateral damage" for saving a lot of lives as Wales' scheme has proven to do.
What isn't OK is an attitude of "well, I'll just break the law to do my job". To be honest the attitude shown in these posts is dangerous as a whole - I hope I never encounter them on the road - arrogant drivers who won't accept their flaws are the absolute worst ones.
Or indeed, more deaths from distracted driving, as drivers take the opportunity of the world going so slow while there are no hazards and the road is clear, they think they can drive and do other things that will make their working day go faster.
In my experience insurance will pay out for damaged property, and for loss of earnings. As far as I'm aware, hospitals and the police don't tend to claim for their costs, those are borne by the taxpayer. I doubt that the VED on your work vehicles goes very far towards covering that.
I see children walking to and from school all the time. The people who drive their kids to school will happily claim their reason is safety, but I think most people know it's for the convenience.
The 20 campaigners don't seem the least bit concerned about what perfectly safe drivers like me notice all the time. Because we're out there, constantly assessing risks, keeping your kids safe while you do whatever it is you do as your day job and spend maybe an hour a day behind the wheel, if that. There's zero enforcement of basic road safety law around schools. Why? All the signs, markings, and the highway code, might as well not exist. Why? It's not because of people like me.
The very idea that I should be wasting my time pootling along at 20 on a road that is clear and dry with wide sightlines, all day every day, when that very same limit is apparently also deemed safe outside a school where parents are parking nose to tail anywhere they can, on some of the narrowest estate roads there are, and kids are moving in all directions, is ridiculous.
You're never going to see me doing more than 5 in that scenario. The people who do anything close to 20 in that situation, aren't breaking the speed limit. But they are breaking the law.
The fetishism of a 20 speed limit over basic road safety as the means to keep urban roads safe, means the only time the latter are prosecuted, the unsafe but not speeding drivers, is when a child is hit or even killed. And yet any copper with a speedgun can catch me breaking the law, the speed limit. But being unsafe in any other way? Good luck. My record is spotless for a reason.
I see children walking to and from school all the time. The people who drive their kids to school will happily claim their reason is safety, but I think most people know it's for the convenience.
The 20 campaigners don't seem the least bit concerned about what perfectly safe drivers like me notice all the time. Because we're out there, constantly assessing risks, keeping your kids safe while you do whatever it is you do as your day job and spend maybe an hour a day behind the wheel, if that. There's zero enforcement of basic road safety law around schools. Why? All the signs, markings, and the highway code, might as well not exist. Why? It's not because of people like me.
The very idea that I should be wasting my time pootling along at 20 on a road that is clear and dry with wide sightlines, all day every day, when that very same limit is apparently also deemed safe outside a school where parents are parking nose to tail anywhere they can, on some of the narrowest estate roads there are, and kids are moving in all directions, is ridiculous.
You're never going to see me doing more than 5 in that scenario. The people who do anything close to 20 in that situation, aren't breaking the speed limit. But they are breaking the law.
The fetishism of a 20 speed limit over basic road safety as the means to keep urban roads safe, means the only time the latter are prosecuted, the unsafe but not speeding drivers, is when a child is hit or even killed. And yet any copper with a speedgun can catch me breaking the law, the speed limit. But being unsafe in any other way? Good luck. My record is spotless for a reason.
I guess the Police like rules that are black and white. So speed limits and drink drive limits are fairly straightforward. You are either above the limit or below it. Similar with phones, you are either touching it or not. Deciding whether someone is driving badly or not is more subjective. Banning pavement parking would be easy enough, especially around schools. I'm sure people would soon adjust after a few fines had been handed out.
Thats not what you are restricting though is it?
If you really desperate to single out 20 year olds a less impactful intervention would be mandate speed limiters
The very idea that I should be wasting my time pootling along at 20 on a road that is clear and dry with wide sightlines, all day every day, when that very same limit is apparently also deemed safe outside a school where parents are parking nose to tail anywhere they can, on some of the narrowest estate roads there are, and kids are moving in all directions, is ridiculous.
You're never going to see me doing more than 5 in that scenario. The people who do anything close to 20 in that situation, aren't breaking the speed limit. But they are breaking the law.
I'm certainly in favour of even lower speeds around schools. Ideally in the form of an outright ban of motor vehicles on the adjacent streets during school hours. Some schools already have such measures.
Meanwhile streets like the one I live on (rural village, not really a through route to anywhere, designed for horses and carts, no footpaths, one lane used for parking and the odd passing place, the other for both directions of traffic) and suburban cul-de-sacs need the Dutch treatment (brick paving, planters etc.) to stop people bombing down them at 20mph when that's clearly an excessive speed when pedestrians are not just crossing the road, they're walking along it.
Thats not what you are restricting though is it?
If you really desperate to single out 20 year olds a less impactful intervention would be mandate speed limiters
I see children walking to and from school all the time. The people who drive their kids to school will happily claim their reason is safety, but I think most people know it's for the convenience.
The 20 campaigners don't seem the least bit concerned about what perfectly safe drivers like me notice all the time. Because we're out there, constantly assessing risks, keeping your kids safe while you do whatever it is you do as your day job and spend maybe an hour a day behind the wheel, if that. There's zero enforcement of basic road safety law around schools. Why? All the signs, markings, and the highway code, might as well not exist. Why? It's not because of people like me.
The very idea that I should be wasting my time pootling along at 20 on a road that is clear and dry with wide sightlines, all day every day, when that very same limit is apparently also deemed safe outside a school where parents are parking nose to tail anywhere they can, on some of the narrowest estate roads there are, and kids are moving in all directions, is ridiculous.
You're never going to see me doing more than 5 in that scenario. The people who do anything close to 20 in that situation, aren't breaking the speed limit. But they are breaking the law.
The fetishism of a 20 speed limit over basic road safety as the means to keep urban roads safe, means the only time the latter are prosecuted, the unsafe but not speeding drivers, is when a child is hit or even killed. And yet any copper with a speedgun can catch me breaking the law, the speed limit. But being unsafe in any other way? Good luck. My record is spotless for a reason.
Not all roads which are 30 need to be reduced to 20 to have a significant impact on road safety.
Roads which are through routes which have little to no direct access to houses needn't be changed from 30 limits, especially if there are no viable alternative routes.
That may well mean that there's some roads near to schools which stay as 30 limits, however they may need to have other roads safety measures (such as controlled crossing points), which may allow some drivers down now than changing it to a 20, but would mean that for others they are not impacted.
It's one of the things which hopefully the authorities learned from the introduction of the 20 limits in Wales.
If those lessons are learned then there's a good chance that more widespread introduction of 20 limits would have a limited impact on drivers like yourself, however would also bring about road safety improvements.
Roads which are through routes which have little to no direct access to houses needn't be changed from 30 limits, especially if there are no viable alternative routes.
Most of these through routes have more pedestrians than residential streets. More on the pavement and more crossing the road. Lots have on-road parking as people access shops etc. I'd say they have more hazards than residential streets and definitely should keep the 20mph limit.
I live in North Wales and often drive all day for work. There's very little wrong with the application of 20mph limits in my experience.
Most of these through routes have more pedestrians than residential streets. More on the pavement and more crossing the road. Lots have on-road parking as people access shops etc. I'd say they have more hazards than residential streets and definitely should keep the 20mph limit.
I live in North Wales and often drive all day for work. There's very little wrong with the application of 20mph limits in my experience.
Most of these through routes have more pedestrians than residential streets. More on the pavement and more crossing the road. Lots have on-road parking as people access shops etc. I'd say they have more hazards than residential streets and definitely should keep the 20mph limit.
I live in North Wales and often drive all day for work. There's very little wrong with the application of 20mph limits in my experience.
Most of these through routes have more pedestrians than residential streets. More on the pavement and more crossing the road. Lots have on-road parking as people access shops etc. I'd say they have more hazards than residential streets and definitely should keep the 20mph limit.
I live in North Wales and often drive all day for work. There's very little wrong with the application of 20mph limits in my experience.
Find local businesses, view maps and get driving directions in Google Maps.
maps.app.goo.gl
It's a road which connects several estate roads but at this point doesn't have any houses with driveways onto it and even where it does there's lengths where there's not that many.
Therefore the benefit in making it a 20 limit would be limited, whilst (if the length of the road was long enough) the time penalty would be more noticeable than on other roads.
Find local businesses, view maps and get driving directions in Google Maps.
maps.app.goo.gl
It's a road which connects several estate roads but at this point doesn't have any houses with driveways onto it and even where it does there's lengths where there's not that many.
Therefore the benefit in making it a 20 limit would be limited, whilst (if the length of the road was long enough) the time penalty would be more noticeable than on other roads.
That's the sort of road where I'd be surprised if it was 20. Extend the active travel route along the pavement by Hitches Lane, sort out the side roads so that users of said route have priority over cars turning, and upgrade the pedestrian crossing to a signalled one and you could probably raise the limit to 40.
Looking at the residential cul-de-sac (Willowbourne) in more detail, I'd suggest that the raised street (to pavement height) with brick paving should start where the double-yellow lines end, not after several residential properties have already been passed. There also should be more cut-throughs for pedestrians and cyclists around the area, there's no need for them to have to follow the spaghetti road network which exists to slow down motor traffic.
The entrance to Belvedere Close likewise should have some traffic calming - the pedestrian dropped kerbs are set very far back presumably to allow motor traffic to enter what is a short cul-de-sac at higher speeds. Who thought that was a good idea? It means poorer visibility for people wishing to cross the entrance and the traffic isn't going as slow as it should be. I'm not sure that the pavements there are particularly accessible either, someone's garden is spilling over.
As always in the UK, we do things half-baked and with no consideration for how people might use them.
Better bus links would help. That no. 7 is a prime example of why not enough people use public transport: It's infrequent, irregular, and goes nowhere fast.
If you scroll down to chart 7 it does the number of accidents which included you've drivers, as you can see these have been falling since 2005.
There's also data for older drivers which has a similar graph, which shows numbers are broadly flat (maybe a sight increase).
Another interesting point, looking at the same graph for older drivers, that whilst there are more younger drivers accidents, the number involving multiple vehicles for older drivers is about the same number as for younger drivers.
Obviously these graphs don't give population numbers (and there are more older people), however chat 1 is by billion miles, which shows that drivers over 85 are more dangerous than anyone drivers younger than them..
We are aware of an issue with emails from the Forum to Microsoft-based email accounts (hotmail/outlook/live.com email addresses). This is being looked into currently, thanks for your patience meanwhile.
