You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
Down in Llanberis last week, no issues whatsoever.
You'd have to be a bit of an arsehole to be doing more than 20 driving through Deiniolen or Dinorwic anyway.
The only bit we really noticed was through the centre of Llanrug - bloody good idea tbh, it made me far more aware of the difference in how we percieve places in a car rather than on a bike.
We cycle through Llanrug quite often and on a bike you notice things that you ignore in a car at 30.
That drop to 20 gives you much more time to process your surroundings.
It removes the disconnect between you as a driver and the enviroment you're passing through.
That drop to 20 gives you much more time to process your surroundings.
I found that whilst driving around central London for the first time in about 20 years. Apart from that there Hyde Park Corner roundabout, it’s just less stressful to get around (IMO of course 😁)
The irritating thing about this is the UK is that for 20mph limits to work properly it needs more than just road signs posting a limit. the roads need to be re-engineered to get the full benefit including weirdly removing traffic lights. At 20 mph car drivers then need to cooperate not be in conflict and then traffic flows actually increase because instead of going 0-30-0 cars go 10-20-10 ( to over simplify
So once again half arsed from various UK governments local and national
It removes the disconnect between you as a driver and the enviroment you’re passing
or in other words it means you aren’t fully concentrating on the road. 😕
That drop to 20 gives you much more time to process your surroundings.
When it was implemented round here a few years ago, the pasty Daily Mail brigade were exposing themselves on Facebook as dangerous drivers. One of the regular claims they made was that the slower speed limit meant they got bored, so spent more time looking around at tress and stuff and therefore more likely to hit a pedestrian or cyclist.
They walk (drive) amongst us.........
The other bogus excuse I have heard is "20 mph is more dangerous as you have to watch the speedo all the time" as if its any differnt to 30 mph in that regard.
Personally I would like tosee real zero tolerance for road traffic violations - either car drivers would change they behaviour of be banned in a week
Controlling your speed is one thing, remembering the limit is another when there isn’t necessarily a repeater to remind you
It's easy now in Wales - if you don't see a sign, but you do see streetlights - do 20.
So once again half arsed from various UK governments local and national
Right but redoing every suburban road in Wales would cost a fair bit and take a long time, whereas the default 20 limit is a start and a lot easier and cheaper.
They have re-done some main roads though, here in Cardiff, starting a while back.
Personally I would like tosee real zero tolerance for road traffic violations – either car drivers would change they behaviour of be banned in a week
After driving trough Biggar in the 20mph zone and being flashed the entire way by a bloke a in Tesla riding my bumper, I can get behind this, but in loads of ways I reckon it would be as counter-productive as it would be unenforceable.
I just think we need to legislate that new cars only work to geofenced speedlimits. They seem to have been able to make hire e-scooters to only work in certain locations. Lets do the same with cars, set limiters based on location, and no way to override it unless you are something like the emergency services. Sure its going to take a few years to be implemented and longer to roll out, but from what I've seen of the driving public sticking at 20 road sign up seems to make bugger all difference
I just think we need to legislate that new cars only work to geofenced speedlimits
Having driven a brand new Volvo which appeared to have a combo of geolocated & camera activated speed limits popping up on the dash, all I can say is that I'm glad I was in control of the actual speed & could activate the speed limiter when I wanted to.
I’m still struggling that this has anything more than a passing political stunt to with road safety.
According to government figures analysed by the RAC foundation 1711 died in RTA in 2022. Of which 44% were in the vehicle involved in the accident. Only 7% of accidents had exceeding the speed limit as a factor in reported accidents.
56% of fatalities in reported road accidents had driver or rider error or reaction (which includes failing to look properly, loss of control and poor turn or manoeuvre) reported as a contributory factor leading to the accident.
21% not wearing their seatbelts, which might explain why 44% of those who do die in traffic accidents are in the car involved in the accident.<br /><br />
<br />It them goes on to say that 59% of fatalities are on rural roads, so not even cover3d by these new speed limits.
So according to the governments own analysis speeding is not the issue it is made out to be and they are actually ignoring the real cause of fatal accidents. That le2ads to the question of why aren’t they focusing on the major causes and locations?
That's an awful lot of words you used to not talk about what is actually being discussed here.
I don't think reducing speed limits from 30 to 20 is going to do much, if anything, to reduce the number of fatalities and injuries suffered by vehicle occupants. So you are right, in that respect.
But like I said, this is a different discussion.
You are ignoring the other bits though.
20mile an hour zones are much more pleasant places to be.
The feel safer. They are quieter. The standards of driving feel better.
For reference I live in Peebles within sight of a NSL sign. Previously I would say most cars were hitting 40 by the time they passed my gate which is an area of on street parking and a "walk through parked cars bus stop"
It's so much nicer to live on the same street now
But like I said, this is a different discussion.<br /><br />
I thought this was a discussion n the Welsh assembly imposing a 20mph speed limit in the name of road safety and some facts based on government data might be relevant
So according to the governments own analysis speeding is not the issue it is made out to be
You're mis-understanding the point.
ANY accident, regardless of how it was caused - inattention, looking the wrong way, wheels falling off, anything - will have more severe consequences if the vehicles involved are going faster. It's the same reason we wear seatbelts and have crash protection systems and airbags. Pedestrians and cyclists don't have those, hence 20mph in certain areas.
So according to the governments own analysis speeding is not the issue it is made out to be and they are actually ignoring the real cause of fatal accidents. That le2ads to the question of why aren’t they focusing on the major causes and locations?
Are you sure there's not an effort to educate drivers around rural driving risks and what they can do about it?
Because one campaign is 'easy' and has some benefit, it doesn't negate or replace other efforts to improve road safety for all. And let's remember, urban speed limit reduction benefits those who walk and cycle, children and elderly, those who cannot afford a car, bus users etc. It's a just approach to community safety - not a driver focused attack as so many present it as.
While the Welsh government cited road safety, many people have picked up on this as the *only* benefit, which is just not the case. There are so many more benefits - noise reduction, pollution reduction, pedestrians and cyclists feeling (and being) safer, more uptake of active travel and public transport, etc etc.
You’re mis-understanding the point.<br /><br />
No. The point is speeding isn’t the main cause of fatal accidents. Why not focus on those that actually are but don’t heave revenue streams associated with them. Why are speed cameras installed on new roads. Surely if they are designed properly they should be safe and not need them
No. The point is speeding isn’t the main cause of fatal accidents. Why not focus on those that actually are but don’t heave revenue streams associated with them. Why are speed cameras installed on new roads. Surely if they are designed properly they should be safe and not need them
But flip it around the other way and ask why not
If roads are safer, quieter, cleaner and generally nicer at 20mph, why not do it? It only adds seconds, occasionally minutes to any given journey, so what is the actual downside?
I thought this was a discussion n the Welsh assembly imposing a 20mph speed limit in the name of road safety and some facts based on government data might be relevant
Relevant to the 44% of victims who were vehicle occupants.
We're mostly talking about the other 56%.
No. The point is speeding isn’t the main cause of fatal accidents.
Well, yes. If the limit is 30mph and you are doing 29mph then speeding will not be a cause of the accident. However, if the limit is 20mph and you're doing 29mph then speeding will be a cause of the accident.
The fact is 30mph is simply too fast on busy roads where people on foot, on bikes, and in cars are all sharing the same limited space.
Also, you are failing to take into account that even if speed isn't a direct contributor to a fatality/injury, if everyone is driving at 30mph then everyone has less time to observe because there is less time to pull out of a junction, less time to brake for traffic lights, less time when entering a roundabout, etc.
When the limit is 30 everything has to be done at a slightly more frantic pace which is where the mistakes come in.
The point is speeding isn’t the main cause of fatal accidents.
Nearly right it's, @inappropriate speed is a major cause of fatal accidents@. Unfortunately the enforcing authorities simplified the message too much to cope with the 50% or more of us who are less than average drivers and are unaware of nuance.
According to government figures analysed by the RAC foundation 1711 died in RTA in 2022. Of which 44% were in the vehicle involved in the accident. Only 7% of accidents had exceeding the speed limit as a factor in reported accidents.
these numbers tell me that the speed limits are too high.
if people are being killed by cars that are travelling within the limit, then LOWER THE LIMIT.
Why are speed cameras installed on new roads. Surely if they are designed properly they should be safe and not need them
Yep, if by 'designed properly' you mean incorporating speed bumps/traffic calming measures, traffic lights and crossings, along with every measure available to keep speeds as low as possible.
But I'm going to assume you're pinning the blame away from Larry Leadfoot who can't be trusted to stick to below the speed limit, which is the root cause. People just drive too fast.
imnotverygood
Full Member
It removes the disconnect between you as a driver and the enviroment you’re passingor in other words it means you aren’t fully concentrating on the road. 😕
I disagree. It gives you more time to notice environmental risks and hazards such as pedestrians,emerging traffic etc.....rather than trying to read the menu in the pub window.
56% of fatalities in reported road accidents had driver or rider error or reaction (which includes failing to look properly, loss of control and poor turn or manoeuvre) reported as a contributory factor leading to the accident.
And you're against controls that might mean these crap drivers drive a bit slower when around pedestrians & cyclists for what reason?
So, was up a ladder cutting my hedge as I have to do every month or so. Over the hour I saw a handful of cars observing the 20. In fact I saw one car overtake someone doing 20, on a humped zebra crossing of all places
There is no hope that people will 'voluntarily' abide by these limits so it needs enforcement, either through fines or technology like geofencing (and if the data / s'ware needs improving to make it work so be it.)
There is no hope that people will ‘voluntarily’ abide by these limits so it needs enforcement, either through fines or technology like geofencing (and if the data / s’ware needs improving to make it work so be it.)
I agree there are many who ignore it.
Anecdotally I would say that perhaps a third of drivers in our town stick to it rigidly, a third drift over the limit, and a third ignore it but are slower than before. But that means two thirds of cars are not below 30mph, and the last third are the kind of drivers who would have ignored 30mph before anyway but are now doing maybe 30, rather than 30+.
And it only takes one of us to slow most of the speeders down.
I'm still intrigued why anyone is arguing against safer streets for the more vulnerable street users...
Because they don’t see their driving as the issue. It wouldn’t happen to them.
Also seems that most of the arguments against are pure whataboutery and/or prioritising the right to drive selfishly above anyone else's rights to a safer more pleasant environment.
these numbers tell me that the speed limits are too high.
if people are being killed by cars that are travelling within the limit, then LOWER THE LIMIT.
On Motorways?
When mechanical failure is to blame?
When driver error is to blame?
As we say in my industry the only safe option is not to do it, once you've started you can only manage the risk.
People have been killed by cars moving at walking pace, ALARP principle applies.
Someone asked me the other week if I'd be happy to see a 40mph limit on B roads where cyclists are allowed and all other roads are left at existing limits but cyclists banned. I don't think they expected me to agree.
A lot of limits are way above the safe speed on the road in question but what average idiot forgets is that it's a limit and that you should drive to conditions. Since they are incapable of following that knock it down to 40 and once there is an alternative segregated route then put it back up if safe to do so.
Get hit by a car at 20mph you will survive with minor injuries. At 30mph its major injuries. At 40 mph iyou are likely dead.
Braking distances are shorter at 20mph than 30mph.
This is not about the car users. Its about the thousands of pedestrians and cyclists killed by cars
There's a trade-off between inconvenience and safety. That's why speed limits are not 10mph everywhere, clearly. It would be too inconvenient to make limits 20mph on all A roads, for example.
However the key point is that 20mph on urban streets is really not that big of a deal.
Exactly. And don't fall for the economic argument of driving slower costs more. So what if your amazon delivery is another 0.00001p more expensive. Shop local instead.
If everyone were to stick to 20mph you'd get more people through roundabouts without needing lights, as the same sized gaps are automatically much more usable more safely. You're less likely to need lights.
NOt only that but its much easier to adjust your speed to fit thru gaps at junctions and you have more time to do so. Its much easier to co operate at low speeds like we do on single track roads
Why are speed cameras installed on new roads. Surely if they are designed properly they should be safe and not need them
Is this a serious post or is it an attempt at Alan Partridge style satire that has gone over my head?
fascinating dive into who runs all the anti 20mph facebook groups
(unsurprisingly its a bunch of tory councilors many of whom say different things in public)
https://twitter.com/WillHayCardiff/status/1746942241950560337
*shocked Pikachu face*
What a surprise. People/politicians whipping up a storm to suit themselves - not serving the best interests of the country.
The point most people on here seem to be missing in spectacular fashion - The 20mph speed limit was in the main already in place before they spunked the 30 odd million on this latest nonsense. It was already in place where there are schools and many other streets like housing estates. It made sense. When they did this, years ago, no one as far as I can recall had an issue with it. And its now been blanket implemented in some crazy places where its questionable if the previous 30 mph was even justified.
As a result every man and his dog now uses this as an excuse to be late or to cancel. Some are justified some probably not. But if you haven't walked in these people shoes you won't really know.
Taxis have been hit. Bus routes cancelled and villages left stranded. Fact.
They've got this hard-on for looking like they are "saving peoples lives" however they completely direct it to the wrong place, then ignore and trot out excuses for the huge elephant in the room. The state of the NHS in Wales.
But this lot don't live in the real world as proved during covid times. They make mountains out of molehills in an attempt to justify their warped agenda's.
Like these 50mph zones. Absolute crap and only brought in to get planning permission for things like a brand new housing estate next to a dual carriageway. Without any shadow of doubt there are brown envelopes stuffed with cash involved here.
I live in a village in coastal Ceredigion and I love it.
Entitled, self centred, pr!cks still blast past the village school at 40mph, even at drop off time so I’d love to see more cameras and speed bumps.
It’s not blanket. It was done to make the streets safer, more pleasant and more useable for active travel. It is a very small step in the direction of redressing the balance between car use and other travel modes. Wales is generally heavily car dominated (some exceptions exist) and for a small place with a low population has pretty awful air quality and health outcomes. Its levels of cycling are woeful and transport poverty is a real issue. <br /><br />The idea that the only places that need 20mph limits are outside schools misses the point that people aren’t just impacted by cars outside schools. We need change well beyond the 20mph law… but this was cheap and easy to do so is a first step. <br /><br />
Those problems you quote as facts are all solvable and in many cases the 20mph limit is being used as a pretext for doing something that they already wanted or planned to do.
in reality, the limit makes little difference for most drivers beyond losing them a maximum of 1min per mile of new 20mph limit. In many cases it’s much less.
As a result every man and his dog now uses this as an excuse to be late or to cancel. Some are justified some probably not. But if you haven’t walked in these people shoes you won’t really know.
Taxis have been hit. Bus routes cancelled and villages left stranded. Fact.
I live in the Scottish Borders and we've had 20mph in place for a over three years now. In all of that time, I have never heard a single man, or his dog, use the speed limit as an excuse to cancel or be late for anything. Taxi's are still running (mostly driven by drivers who predicted end of the world when the 20mph came into force). I am almost certain that no bus routes have been cancelled for any reason other than budgets. Rather than being stranded, villages are exactly as they were before, just with slightly slower traffic passing through. Fact (actual real Fact from real world lived experience)
Had a holiday in Wales and loved the 20mph limits, once I'd adjusted. So much easier as a driver, so much nicer as a pedestrian with cars going 2/3 the speed.
Couple of stretches in Nottingham and Cambridge I've driven recently with 20mph, make so much sense in an built up area.
Not because of a default 20mph limit unless otherwise signposted…
Actually it is - trying reading their reasoning for adjusting the route and the action the government is taking:
https://www.route-one.net/bus/welsh-government-is-reviewing-20mph-limits-effect-on-buses/
I live in the Scottish Borders
Me too, and totally support the 20mph limits.
IME what it's meant is that the majority of drivers rather than driving over 30 as they use to in the 30 limits now drive below 30 in the 20 limits. There is still a large number that drive at 40 in the 60 limits (we've an older population), but they don't continue at 40 in the 20's as they use to in the 30's.
On social media I do remind folk having a pop at Labour for the Welsh 20's that we've a Tory controlled council here who implemented our 20 limits. Funny how the OP's never respond - which leads me to believe that they're Bot's and the like.
Arriva cutting out stops due to speed limits? Any excuse to drop low use/profit bits of routes.
They’ve got this hard-on for looking like they are “saving peoples lives” however they completely direct it to the wrong place, then ignore and trot out excuses for the huge elephant in the room. The state of the NHS in Wales.
Yeah, why make roads safer when you can have better hospitals?
Patch 'em up and back on the racetrack, Mad Max stylee.
It was my first trip to Wales since the 20mph speed limit was introduced. It was absolutely fine but there were plenty of people driving 30-35mph in the 20mph zones which was really noticeable. I got tail gated a fair bit.
There were some oddities where roads were lined with 20mph/30mph/40mph changes and some real strange speed limit signage positioning which you can tell from the blanket way the new signage was introduced. For one instance as you come out of the village where my in-laws lived it's 20mph for quite a while past the houses (which is fine) and then a 100m 20-30mph zone then a 40mph zone. The 40mph zone starts at a bend which has loads of accidents since there a blind get out. Why didnt them extent the 30mph zone?
Also as a road cyclist. The Welsh pot holes are terrible!
I've read that some bus services (well, one) have been cut...i don't understand why when the bus companies control the timetable - surely they can just tweak the timetable to allow an extra few minutes?
Pretty obvious a cycling forum would approve and fair enough. But real world here in Wales it's hugely unpopular, I've yet to actually speak to anyone who drives a significant amount who is in favour. If you only make a few journeys in heavy traffic you won't notice any difference, but if you drive a lot, especially in quieter areas or less busy times of the day it makes a significant difference to journey times. Once out of Cardiff it's largely ignored, driving through the valleys the vast majority of signs have been painted out along with fixed cameras.
The idiots driving past schools at 40mph will still do it along with all the rest of their dangerous driving. Social media rednecks blame cyclists in part, so anti cycling sentiments have increased. Figures used to justify the policy are increasingly being shown to be flawed (accident statistics from Spain taken during lock down restrictions). The amounts quoted on money the NHS will save are the Welsh labour parties own £350 million on the side of a bus.
Pretty obvious a cycling forum would approve and fair enough. But real world here in Wales it’s hugely unpopular, I’ve yet to actually speak to anyone who drives a significant amount who is in favour. If you only make a few journeys in heavy traffic you won’t notice any difference, but if you drive a lot, especially in quieter areas or less busy times of the day it makes a significant difference to journey times. Once out of Cardiff it’s largely ignored, driving through the valleys the vast majority of signs have been painted out along with fixed cameras.
Most of the people i know who were vehemently opposed are now "meh". The opponents make more noise than the supporters or those who don't care. It's not largely ignored outside Cardiff....god knows where you got that from.
I drove from Gower to the north of Anglesey, and it made sod all difference.
Most of the people i know who were vehemently opposed are now “meh”.
Fair enough we obviously know different people. But don't live in an echo chamber and a long distance journey on main trunk roads isn't typical of most journeys. I have my experiences which I've shared. Don't dismiss then because yours are different.
Most of the people I know who were vehemently opposed are now “meh”.
That's because they are driving round at 26mph as that's what has become known as the limit they will proscute at.
But if they had instead spent that £34.4 million on putting up more speed cameras in the pedestrian areas/accident hotspots that are now 20mph then they would actually have caught the speeding cars that are doing greater than 33mph, rather than now just having most people doing 26mph and still have the dangerous speeding cars that are unlikely to be caught withput further massive expenditure.
And I am guessing any claims on emissions are void in certain areas where you now have cars struggling to climb steep hills at slow speeds.
As a result every man and his dog now uses this as an excuse to be late or to cancel. Some are justified some probably not. But if you haven’t walked in these people shoes you won’t really know.
Taxis have been hit. Bus routes cancelled and villages left stranded. Fact.
I live in Edinburgh which has 20mph limits as default. As the research shows traffic flows do not decrease, journey times do not go up because traffic flows better, taxis and buses still run
I do 30k miles a year and, as I posted earlier, I live in fairly rural wales but drive all over and still stick to my opinion that it’s brilliant.
if you drive a lot, especially in quieter areas or less busy times of the day it makes a significant difference to journey times.
It feels like it does, but it doesn't. Because it only affects suburban streets on which your average speed was nowhere near 30mph anyway. In a typical Valleys town the through road is lined with parked cars on both sides so you spend half your time sat waiting for someone to come the other way single file - where 20 is entirely appropriate. On the more open bits where the houses are further apart and you need to get somewhere, they're 30 or 40.
Everyone says 'I don't mind 20mph where it's appropriate' well, me too - and 20mph is appropriate on residential streets.
a long distance journey on main trunk roads isn’t typical of most journeys.
No but i drive round Gower and Swansea most days and it makes sod all difference to my journey times.
And I am guessing any claims on emissions are void in certain areas where you now have cars struggling to climb steep hills at slow speeds.
Hahahaha.
You just undermined any reasonable discussion with that incorrect gem....
Happy to be corrected but it hasn't cost £30 odd million, but will cost that over the decade or so it takes to switch out and change the signage, etc.
Seeing as a single road incident involving a fatality ends up costing a million quid if you can save three lives you'll be quids in, nevermind reducing all the heartache.
Very interesting thread from a Wales Online reporter about the astroturfing around the anti-20 limit Facebook groups:
https://twitter.com/WillHayCardiff/status/1746942241950560337?t=i8hWr4l2xh-WNA9N-TSvsA&s=09
TL;DR it's English Tories who support their own 20 limits while rabble rousing in Wales. 🤣
Again – complete nonse4nse proven to be false
It's been proven that emmissions are the same no matter what gear you are in ? Please show me that research.
The only way that could be true is if the drivers are too stupid to change gear.
too stupid to attempt to drive up a hill in a gear than is going to stall the engine ?
too stupid to use the lowest gear possible in order to save fuel ? In an area of low incomes ?
Before you cuold drive up the hill in third but now you will be using second, hence higher emmisions.
Before you could drive up the hill in third but now you will be using second, hence higher emmisions.
So in your wold a car a 2000rpm in seco0nd at 20 mph creates more emissions that at 2000rpm at 30 mph in 3rd?
Slowert speeds = less fuel burnt = less emissions. the RAC tried to prove your po9int and infact proved it wrong
Happy to be corrected but it hasn’t cost £30 odd million, but will cost that over the decade or so it takes to switch out and change the signage, etc.
£34.4 million according to a BBC report, that is quoted on a parliamentary web page :
https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cdp-2023-0214/
and £32 million quoted on the Welsh government web page :
https://www.gov.wales/introducing-20mph-speed-limits-frequently-asked-questions
Pretty sure most of the signage has now been changed...
Before you cuold drive up the hill in third but now you will be using second, hence higher emmisions.
Assuming travelling at the same speed. Which you said they are not.
Slowert speeds = less fuel burnt = less emissions. the RAC tried to prove your po9int and infact proved it wrong
I give you some research results that are probably more rigorous than those by the RAC :
On the one hand it can be kind of reassuring that so many of the arguments against 20mph limits are absolute made up nonsense- if that's the best people can do as a counterargument, it's a fantastic argument for switching to 20mph in general.
On the other hand, they've still proved to be really effective despite being made up nonsense, which is a problem not just for speed limits but for literally everything.
Anyway, still very happy in my 20mph town which has been 20mph for years and which literally nobody wants to turn back from being 20mph.
gravedigger - I suggest you read that - it has nothing to do with 20 mph limits - its about what revs you change gear at. Zero relevance
. CONCLUSIONS<br />Theoretical speed profiles were used to assess the impact of gear change on vehicle exhausts of two vehicle<br />types by using the VeTESS emission tool. The results clearly show that both the Euro III diesel car and the<br />EURO IV petrol car can reduce the emissions of CO2 (and fuel consumption) when shifting up gear early. <br />The same findings apply to CO and HC, but cannot be made for NOx and PM. The large uncertainty ensuing <br />from difficulties in the PM measurement can be the cause of these variations but needs to be studied<br />thoroughly before drawing conclusions.<br />Since this study dealt with theoretical, non-realistic speed profiles the real impact of an improved gear<br />changing behaviour on emissions could not be quantified. The use of real life driving cycles with information<br />on gear choice will improve these assessments offering useful information to policy makers who aim at<br />promoting an environmentally friendly driving behaviour. Future research should therefore include large<br />scale monitoring programs to gain more insight into this matter. In 2007 a travel survey will be initiated in<br />Flanders (Belgium) as a part of the research project “An activity based approach for surveying and modelling<br />travel behaviour”. The analysis of these data will hopefully provide more information on the problem of gear<br />changing behaviour and emissions.
"This will cost roughly £32.5 million between 2022-2027"
Ok, maybe not a decade then...biggest chunk spent in the first couple of years for the hardware.
gravedigger – I suggest you read that – it has nothing to do with 20 mph limits – its about what revs you change gear at. Zero relevance
"can reduce the emissions of CO2 (and fuel consumption) when shifting up gear early."
yes, shifting up early means you are out of that less efficient gear as soon as possible, into a more efficient gear which will have a better mpg and therefore you will produce less emmissions over your journey as your mpg will be better - as co2 emmisions are generally about constant per gallon of fuel.
My mpg going up that local hill at 20mph in second is a lot worse than my mpg going up that hill at 30mph in third, hence more fuel used per journey, hence more emmisions.
My average mpg now has dropped from just over 32mpg to around 28 mpg, which must mean more emmisions.
Most of the studies showing that mpg isn't meaningfully impacted by the 20mph zone are based on the fact that you are driving steadily, and it is easy to keep your mpgs up, especially if they are displayed on your car.
However the presense of significantly steep hills somewhat buggers this up.
Its actually the opposite but never mind.
So it is the opposite then, so 20mph zones are a bad thing, right?
not according to the 20 is plenty site;
Or the Welsh government:
Or the ethical choice website:
https://www.eta.co.uk/2023/05/05/myth-busters-20mph-speed-limits/
Or a German report quoted by the Guardian;
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/apr/19/ask-leo-20mph-speed-limits-pollution
(Which also quotes a report that speed bumps should be removed as they cause increased emissions).
So what are you basing your statement on ? Anything factual ?
Yeah - as above - the Will Hayward/Wales Online investigation
https://twitter.com/WillHayCardiff/status/1746942241950560337?t=i8hWr4l2xh-WNA9N-TSvsA&s=09
the social media campaign against Wales deciding it's own speed limits being organised by Tory councillors under the pretence of being a grassroots campaign is pretty grim stuff. - (CowbridgeAnalytica as some wag described it)
Real "Shut up Taffy - know your place" stuff
it does also highlight the fracture in Tory party in Wales quite dramatically too - how it's pivoted from a pro devolution centerist wing of the party - to a fairly hard right wing anti devolution party under RT's recent leadership - running campaigns from England against what Welsh tory members in Senedd were actually endorsing up until a few months ago.
Arrogant little englanders trying to lord it up over Wales and Scotland are a bigger threat to "the union" than any party or organisation in Scotland or Wales
So it is the opposite then, so 20mph zones are a bad thing, right?
No - if you pick the right car you can show higher fuel usage at 20mph than 30 mph at a constant speed. However once you take into account real drivingh conditions ie slowing and accelerating then 20mph reduces emissions
Once again do you bother to read your links? the first one backs my point and refutes yours
So, the mechanics and physics are quite clear. Smoother driving to a lower limit will always require less energy, less fuel and produce fewer emissions than repeatedly accelerating to a higher limit.
20 mph limits reduce pollution, reduces pedestrian casualties without any significant increase in journey times even reducing them sometimes as traffic flows better
And if you read the article, you get to the real reason:
This service is already operating at a low frequency and there is no funding to support increased resource going into services so we have had to amend the route with the time saved by not operating in the village.
It's lack of funding. That's what I was alluding to. You could have as many busses as you want, regardless of speed limit, if you were able to fund public transport properly. Dont let the right wing pull the wool over your eyes. And yes, I know Wales is Labour run but it gets its funding from Westminster.
MPG and emissions: the improvement in both these areas may take a while to realise but it will come due to modal shift and reduced traffic as car dominance is reduced. This will take more than speed limits but the 20mph introduction is the first step in the right direction. <br /><br />
I think that Welsh Govt stated that the change will be emissions and air quality neutral at the same volume of traffic. Any loss in fuel economy at constant driving at a lower speed will also be balanced by reduced consumption as cars don’t cycle from 0 to 30 in stop start traffic. <br /><br />
But the limits are here now so any move to remove them will seem regressive.