[Closed] Why is the urban speed limit not 20MPH by default?

Dunno!

Speed limits on Britain’s urban roads are 60% higher than Europe. (30 mph compared to 18.6 mph)

Seems to be 50km/h here in Germany most of the time, or 30mph.

Well the local MPs canvassed us about changing our area to a 20mph limit.

We suggested that first they might want to enforce the 30mph limit a bit more effectively first. I reckon well over half of the motorists are doing more than 30, and a good proportion are nearer 50. (typical victorian sidestreet, parking both sides, not enough room for 2 cars to pass side by side).

Heard nothing from them since then.

[i]Britain has the highest percentage of pedestrian road fatalities in Europe 22.5%[/i] of....?

sounds good to me.

(both 20mph and actually enforcing it)

In Portsmouth the 20mph limit on all residential roads has reduced casualties by 22%.

Surely that proves speed limits should be reduced even further ?

How about 10 or 15mph ?

Although I reckon that a 5mph speed limit would most likely reduce casualties by 100%

Let's go for that !

the car is king look at folk signing petitions to lower fuel prices you just cannot mess with drivers in a democracy as every one owns one- so many lost votes- and they view any other road user as an impediment to their progress. Dont slow them down etc
It is clearly a good idea- would make parts of my commute slower though

It's also 50 in Canada, molgrips, but I would argue that German drivers (at least in many parts of the country) are not trying to navigate the same types of roads that we have to here in Britain, and that even when they are, they are far, far more pedestrian-and-other-road-users-conscious than British drivers.

Sometimes I struggle with comparing Britain (one country) against Europe ( a continent). But, that said, I find the sense of travelling more slowly compelling.

I recall the outcry a year or two back at the parents who encouraged their primary school aged kids to cycle to school in London.

What we need is a...

...critical mass 😉

In 2011, the UK had the safest roads in the world.

In 2011, the UK had the safest roads in the world.

Safest for who?

ourkidsam - Member
Britain has the highest percentage of pedestrian road fatalities in Europe 22.5% of....?

I'm guessing they mean that 22.5% of road traffic accidents involving a pedestrian result in a fatality (though intuitively this seems high to me?). i.e. our accidents are more likely to be lethal than European accidents - presumably because of the greater speed involved.

Safest for who?

Specifics shmecifics.

our accidents are more likely to be lethal than European accidents - presumably beacise of the greater speed involved.

[img] [/img]

They mean that 22.5% of fatalities on British roads are pedestrians.

Yes, but you dont strive to be the best, you strive to avoid killing anyone.

I'd vote for a 60mph limit on the motorway while we're at it.

Speed limits on Britain’s urban roads are 60% higher than Europe. (30 mph compared to 18.6 mph)

Why that comment when it is very clearly false ?

Britain has the lowest urban speed limit in Europe.

http://www.europe.org/speedlimits.html

I'm fresh from a Speed Awareness Course and brimming with statistics. C'mon...hit me!! (but not with a car)

In 2011, the UK had the safest roads in the world

Britain has the highest percentage of pedestrian road fatalities in Europe 22.5%. (EU European Road Safety Observatory)

Speed limits on Britain’s urban roads are 60% higher than Europe. (30 mph compared to 18.6 mph)

Not in the European countries i've been to.

Lowering urban and residential speed limits to 20 mph has been found to increase a urban journeys by just 40 seconds maximum.

Just worked out my normal 'urban' journey and it actually adds 2m55s so they're wrong there too.

Btw. The [url= http://www.abd.org.uk/safest_roads.htm ]UK has the safest roads[/url] in Europe already depending on which sources you choose to look at 😉

How about instead more emphasis on the Green Cross Code and the Cycling Proficiency course?

[img] [/img]

Maybe we need the automotive equivalent of this [b][u][url= http://www.slowbicyclemovement.org/ ]Slow Bicycle Movement[/url][/u][/b].

Too many fat boys would have their little weenies drop off if we reduced the speed limits in urban areas. To them this would be a greater disaster than the current death toll.

20 on "urban" roads, 50 on d00l carrij ways and 60 on mowtah ways.

average speed cameras everywhere.

big spike in the middle of the steering wheel.

having to re-take your test every 5 years.

all cars limited to 60 apart from emergency services and racing cars that cannot be used on public roads.

sorted.

I'm fresh from a Speed Awareness Course and brimming with statistics. C'mon...hit me!! (but not with a car)

Would a Porsche 911 turbo trump a Ferrari Testarossa on top speed?

Just worked out my normal 'urban' journey and it actually adds 2m55s so they're wrong there too

More than half of road deaths and serious injuries occur on roads with 30 mph limits

This statistic is meaningless on its own. We're not told, for example, what percentage of roads are 30mph roads, or what the volume of traffic is like on those roads. If the 30mph roads make up 1% of the total, that's a very different situation to one where 30mph roads make up 99% of total roads.

You can't simply say "half of the accidents occur on a 30mph road" and automatically assume that half of the accidents occur [i]because [/i]it's a 30mph road.

Standing on this statement alone, it's equally valid to suggest raising the limits to 40 would solve the problem.

Britain has the highest percentage of pedestrian road fatalities in Europe

Again, meaningless statement. Percentage of what? Total population? Total road users? And it tells us nothing about cause; do we have an allegedly high rate because we're worse drivers, or because there's more people driving?

Britain has one of the lowest levels of children walking or cycling to school in Europe.

Yeah, they're all in mummy's chelsea tractor.

Speed limits on Britain’s urban roads are 60% higher than Europe

We also drive on the left. And? Does this correlate with anything? We're not told.

British parents consistently cite traffic speed as the main reason why their children are not allowed to cycle or walk to school.

I thought British parents consistently cited fear of nonces as the main reason why their children are not allowed to cycle or walk to school. Where's this study come from? Oh, wait, we're not told. There's a theme here.

Lowering urban and residential speed limits to 20 mph has been found to increase a urban journeys by just 40 seconds maximum.

Depends how far you're driving. Go anywhere near a school at rush hour and you've more chance of spontaneously combusting than you have of getting anywhere near the speed limits, it's hardly surprising that changing the limit has little effect.

Lowering urban and residential speed limits to 20 mph has been found to decrease child pedestrian accidents by up to 70%(Transport Research Laboratory).

What sort of statistic is "up to" 70%? Either it's 70% or it isn't, decreasing it by 0.5% is still "up to" 70%.

In Portsmouth the 20mph limit on all residential roads has reduced casualties by 22%.

Because people are going slower, or because traffic's going elsewhere? Assuming the former, that's the only sensible statement in the entire bunch.

Next.

Not driven in Spain, have you?

No I haven't, Cyprus was scary though. And I wasn't saying this [i]is[/i] the case. Just trying to interprete the statistic. But i got that wrong anyway!

They mean that 22.5% of fatalities on British roads are pedestrians.

This isn't a particularly useful stat for comparing the relative safety of pedestarians around europe. It could just mean that we have safer cars (in terms of driver/passengers safety).

Would a Porsche 911 turbo trump a Ferrari Testarossa on top speed?

It depends.

More than half of road deaths and serious injuries occur on roads with 30 mph limits

This statistic is meaningless on its own. We're not told, for example, what percentage of roads are 30mph roads, or what the volume of traffic is like on those roads. If the 30mph roads make up 1% of the total, that's a very different situation to one where 30mph roads make up 99% of total roads.

If half occur on 30-limit roads, changing that speed limit will affect half the casualties, so it's not meaningless. It's not saying 30mph roads are more dangerous per mile or per journey.

Britain has the highest percentage of pedestrian road fatalities in Europe

Again, meaningless statement. Percentage of what? Total population? Total road users?

Dealt with above. Of all the road deaths, 22.5% were pedestrians.

They mean that 22.5% of fatalities on British roads are pedestrians.

Comparatively, do we have more pedestrians? Or perhaps, safer cars? Fewer people dying in cars in high speed collisions = an increase in the percentage of pedestrian deaths, statistically.

Not that I'm disagreeing or agreeing with the campaign, I'd like to stress. I just like poking holes in bullshit emotive statistics that are designed to mislead.

I'd vote for a 60mph limit on the motorway while we're at it.

Don't see the point in that but fine when busy, indeed I'd have variable speed limits clearly marked, like on M25, up to 90mph but strictly enforced.

D0NK - Member

Just worked out my normal 'urban' journey and it actually adds 2m55s so they're wrong there too

yes but your normal journey @20mph max won't be exactly 10mph slower than it is now will it? You are only travelling at 30 for a small portion of the time, junctions lights crossings etc stop start. The above is saying normally you won't really notice the difference. (tho your perception tells you you're going a lot slower but perception is rubbish)

I occasionally need to give way at the single mini roundabout I cross but that's it, (oh and I usually slow down a little to revel in running over a few kids, knocking off a cyclist or two etc) but otherwise maintain 30 for the entire way. So yes, it is almost a linear 50% extra time.

The point is anyway it's a ridiculous meaningless stat.

It's not saying 30mph roads are more dangerous per mile or per journey.

Which is exactly why it's meaningless, because that's what it *should* be saying. Otherwise there might be more accidents on those roads simply because there's more of them.

ernie_lynch - Member

In Portsmouth the 20mph limit on all residential roads has reduced casualties by 22%.

Surely that proves speed limits should be reduced even further ?

How about 10 or 15mph ?

Although I reckon that a 5mph speed limit would most likely reduce casualties by 100%

Let's go for that !

+1 ernie - it's ridiculous, of course 20mph will result in fewer accidents, as would 10, 5, 2

30mph is plenty slow enough, I hardly ever get to that speed as it is

and just to light the blue touch paper, its about time the motorway limit was increased

A bit of clarification from 20s plenty Retro tho they still don't cite their sources/studies

Also most places will be within a third of a mile of a 30 mph arterial road. Hence the maximum increase in actual car journey time from introducing 20 mph on the residential roads would be 20 seconds at each end of the journey. In reality this would be far less. So 40 seconds is the maximum expected increase in journey times.

and just to light the blue touch paper, its about time the motorway limit was increased

Do you lot never drive anywhere! I would die of bordom going everywhere at 20.

[i]mean that 22.5% of fatalities on British roads are pedestrians.[/i]

Just means that more foreigners die in their vehicles, or maybe we get more tourist who look the wrong way when crossin the road?

Or a thousand other reasons, other than the one you've picked.

I believe the approach some people on here are ultimately advocating has been tried already. It was effective at reducing accidents, though was generally regarded, as car use grew, as slightly labour intensive.

However, with unemployment set to ride to 3 million this year, the present government are considering resurrecting it as a means of keeping the common peasantry to some good use. Both keeping them out of mischief and teaching them their place, and ultimately reducing their numbers

[img] [/img]

Okay, why should be not have 40mph as a default?

Britain has congested tight urban roads - I'd say more so than most other countries. It's busier here than most other countries I'd bet - peds and cars - which will automatically lead to more accidents.

I wonder if you take car/ped density into account if we'd still have such dangerous streets?

I don't think there's any point in lowering the limit to 20 - what we really is enforcement, but what we really desperately urgently need is a sense of responsibility.

Most of our speeding debates have been centred around motorways and open roads - it's very hard to argue for speeding in towns and cities I feel.

I generally stick to 20mph on obviously residential roads like those estate places some people live on.

Isn't there a whacky argument that i cars go slower they actually make traffic flow faster ❓

WIN:WIN 😀

jools182 plus 1
i mean have you tried driving around at 20mph? sod that! i like to get to where i'm going in a reasonable amount of time. and let's not forget how much extra fuel will be used when driving at an even lesser speed thus contributing further to pollution and congestion.
and while were on the subject how many of these pedestrian fatalities are caused by dickheads who don't use the f'ing crossings that are provided or just don't bother to look before crossing?, i'd bet if you take pedestrian stupidity into consideration and didn't class those deaths as speed related the figures would be a lot lower.

D0NK - Member

A bit of clarification from 20s plenty Retro tho they still don't cite their sources/studies

Also most places will be within a third of a mile of a 30 mph arterial road. Hence the maximum increase in actual car journey time from introducing 20 mph on the residential roads would be 20 seconds at each end of the journey. In reality this would be far less. So 40 seconds is the maximum expected increase in journey times.

Yes what they're saying there is that they've completely made up that 'maximum' statistic.

For what it's worth,

Made-up statistics aside, I think the country needs a national revision of speed limits across the board. I think some are too low, and some are too high.

"Speed kills" is short-sighted, Daily Mail-pleasing, revenue-earning claptrap. What kills is *inappropriate* speed. What kills is not paying attention, yakking on the phone whilst trying to light a fag and tell little Hermione to be quiet and blimey look at the legs on that *crunch*

Driving past a school at 20mph at 9am is probably too fast. Driving past a school at 40mph at 4:30 in the morning, probably perfectly safe. Driving on a motorway in freezing fog is a different situation to a balmy spring afternoon, which is different again to midnight. A single carriageway might have stretches where it's safe to do 90, but with a nasty corner that you can only do 40 round when it's wet because of the fallen leaves, and you need to slow down coming past the farm because you can't see the entrance properly.

People aren't taught to make this kind of decision. They're taught "this makes you go, this makes you stop, try not to hit anything, off you go then." So we stick these little one-size-fits-none round signs everywhere to tell the mouth-breathers what a sensible speed should be, erring on the side of caution in case it rains one day or someone's driving a Morris Marina.

ZOMG YOUR ALL MAINICAS 4 DRIVIN @30!! campaigns make me despair, because it's a knee-jerk reaction to a bigger problem that doesn't have a simple solution. Yes, wholeheartedly, some roads should have a 20mph limit. But suggesting blindly reducing the limit of every urban road to 20mph without any analysis whatsoever beyond a handful of made-up stats scraped from a website with an axe to grind, well, it's the ramblings of someone who fundamentally misunderstands the problem. Sorry.

a handful of made-up stats scraped from a website

Copied from one place. Not scraped.

I started driving through my local town (Dorking) at 20 about three years ago. It is massively better all round - instead of accelerating to the next lights you can easily just roll along and anticipate the flow - people can filter in and out, pedestrians can cross the road and so-on.

It only feels slow because you haven't tried it properly. Do it for a year and then comment.

I think it is perfectly sensible and practical - not all 30 limits down to 20, but High Streets and residential two lanes.

Copied from one place. Not scraped.

Yes, that was the salient point in that last post, well done.

And +1 - it is how we are taught that is wrong.

We should start out by thinking of the roads as a massive cooperative system, with the ideal outcome being mutually beneficial flow.

Edit: that includes people being able to cross the road, cycles making safe progress etc etc. For example, scanning the pavement looking for people that want to cross - when you slow down you have ample time for stuff like that.

i mean have you tried driving around at 20mph? sod that! i like to get to where i'm going in a reasonable amount of time

It won't make much difference. It'll look like it will, but it won't.

Cougar and mmb - GIVEN that people are going to walk out in front of cars and yak on phones or otherwise not concentrate whilst driving, it's better to be doing 20 than 30 when it happens, isn't it?

You won't stop people not concentrating on stuff, driving or walking. It's impossible.

I think it is perfectly sensible and practical - not all 30 limits down to 20, but High Streets and residential two lanes

Of course. It's not 30 everywhere in the first place.

Yes, that was the salient point in that last post, well done.

I thought you made some good points, but speed limits that vary by time and weather and location are rather difficult to implement. In the mean time, perhaps lowering the maximum might go some way toward making urban areas nicer places to live, work and travel?

Or, at least, having another look at the urban (and other) speed limits. Maybe it should be 20 or 40 or 50 or 100? Why is it 30?

no matter if the accidents are speed related or not speed [b]does[/b] affect the outcome for those involved, particularly pedestrians, which you tend to get a lot of in [i]residential[/i] areas.

Retro they may have made them up, I dunno, but the fact still stands dropping the speed limit by 33% (assuming 30 to 20) will not produce 33% longer journey times. plus there will still be the 30mph+ arterial roads (tho I'm buggered if I know where they will be round my way)

Perhaps our pedestrians are just more stupider than those elsewhere?

Perhaps our [s]pedestrians[/s] [i]drivers[/i] are just more [s]stupider[/s] [i]selfish[/i] than those elsewhere?

Some 'objective' facts: https://sites.google.com/site/driversprotestunion/the-dangerous-20

Very objective! I like their poll:

"If you knew that speed limits are totally arbitrary and unscientific, speed cameras cannot see one single accident cause and that the simple act of going above a number on a pole, (speeding) cannot cause an accident, would you support speed cameras?"

Where did the pole come from?

Why is it so hard for some people to understand that slowing down reduces the consequences of [s]accidents[/s] collisions, even if speeding doesn't [i]cause[/i] the collisions??

GIVEN that people are going to walk out in front of cars and yak on phones or otherwise not concentrate whilst driving, it's better to be doing 20 than 30 when it happens, isn't it?

In the industry I work in, that's what we'd refer to as a "workaround." How about increasing penalties for driving with a phone pressed to your ear, for starters. Or, hey, back when I were a lad, Bristol's Darth Vader used to tell us how to cross roads without dying, whatever happened to that?

speed limits that vary by time and weather and location are rather difficult to implement

's pretty much where I was going. I'm not talking about enforcing variable speed limits, I'm talking about teaching people to be better drivers so that we don't need to worry so much about limits. Though it's not a bad idea; have signs that are zoned (like you get with bus lanes currently) perhaps?

we should be looking out for them and expecting it, not just blaming them.

I won't be there when you cross the road, so always remember the Green Cross Code.

Objective!? Just a load of crap - the concentration needed to go 20 is so high that you can't watch the road properly! Absolute rubbish. Just put the car in 3rd and leave the pedals alone. Maximise the gap to the car ahead (three seconds is nice) and relax.

The DPU (actually one bloke called Keith) are awesomely insane.

no matter if the accidents are speed related or not speed does affect the outcome for those involved,

You might be right, but call me old fashioned but I'd rather not hit anything in the first place.

Why is it so hard for some people to understand that slowing down reduces the consequences of collisions, even if speeding doesn't cause the collisions??

Because of reducto ad absurdum. Get rid of all the cars and walk everywhere, that'd reduce RTAs by 100%. What's the problem?

Because of reducto ad absurdum. Get rid of all the cars and walk everywhere, that'd reduce RTAs by 100%. What's the problem?

You'd still get accidents on the roads, as pedestrians might accidentally walk into each other. Some of these may be fatal, if one pedestrian is particuylarly frail, or falls awkwardly.

Zero fatalities will never happen, but...

A quick Google (I've seen several similar graphs) found this graph, which shows the chance of death when a pedestrian is hit by a motor vehicle. The energy involved is related to the square of the velocity, so reducing the velocity makes a huge difference.

[img] [/img]

I'll take 1 in 20 over 50:50 any day.

Because of reducto ad absurdum. Get rid of all the cars and walk everywhere, that'd reduce RTAs by 100%. What's the problem?

Increaso ad absurdum, lets set them at 70mph then.

It's an urban area - people mill about and sometimes get on the road - like the Highway Code says, we should be looking out for them and expecting it, not just blaming them.

Good point, but I'd counter that you'll also miss seeing pedestrians that certainly do warrant attention. Especially since spring is on the way.

Good point glenp - rest assured I am always on the look-out for such sights.

Perhaps our pedestrians [s]drivers[/s] are just more stupider [s]selfish[/s] than those elsewhere?
It's an urban area - people mill about and sometimes get on the road - like the Highway Code says, we should be looking out for them and expecting it, not just blaming them.

I find it quite stupid that the speed limit is 70mph on the motorway, it was 70mph when MK1 escorts and other similar cars on the road that used drum brakes front and back to stop and big metal pointy steering wheels.
Cars are probably 1000 times more safer now and stop in 1/4 of the distance and corner better and better mirrors ect ect so really the speed limit should be raised to 90mph, or atleast between the hrs of 10pm and 5am, iyts like traffic lights, at 10pm they should just all flash orange and its free for all untill 5am, nothing worse than sat at a set of traffic lights for 2 mins whilst nothing is in sight.
What should really happen in built up areas is if you are caught speeding eg 35mph in a 30 you get a £1000 find.
Also what i find rediciouls is speed cameras right outside a school, drivers are more intrested in looking at there speedos to make sure there doing 30 than watching for kids stepping / running into the road.
Its ok blaming the drivers, but id say half of fatel incidents with pedestrians is down to the pedestrians, that step out probably drunk or drugged up on a Fri or Sat night.

molgrips - Member

Speed limits on Britain’s urban roads are 60% higher than Europe. (30 mph compared to 18.6 mph)

Seems to be 50km/h here in Germany most of the time, or 30mph.

OK I know this was back near the start, but in Germany the standard speed limits in residential areas is 30kmh.
And it is much more policed in Germany as well. Through roads in villages tend to be 50kmh IF they a judged to be wide enough (which is actually most of the time) but as soon as you turn off the through roads its 30.

It does feel a lot safer being a pedestrian or cyclist in residential areas as well.

Are you trying to say, Count Zero, that you drive along towards a pedestrian crossing and get surprised when a pedestrian pops out wanting to cross?

Why not just keep a look out and expect people to want to cross? Going down a line of parked cars - there's potential for kids, cats, dozy folk to emerge - you're awareness of them is as diminished as their's of you, because of the parked cars. Drive further out - you should be a door opening away anyway, so if anyone emerges there's going to be a little room anyway. Same for cycling - never cycle withing a car door opening space of parked cars.

As for your how often question - never. If I see someone not looking I'm covering my brakes, moving further out and [i]then[/i] alerting them if I need to. Just ploughing on straight without either slowing or moving out is just daft, whether you ring your bell or not.

Sounds to me like you ride in the gutter of the road, in which case you're just asking for trouble.

Also what i find rediciouls is speed cameras right outside a school, drivers are more intrested in looking at there speedos to make sure there doing 30 than watching for kids stepping / running into the road.
Its ok blaming the drivers, but id say half of fatel incidents with pedestrians is down to the pedestrians, that step out probably drunk or drugged up on a Fri or Sat night.

Maybe the question should be why would anyone want to travel at a speed that is highly likely to cause a pedestrian/cyclist death if an impact happens?

(Regardless of whether the pedestrian did something stupid or not )

I am sure people don't think 'I want to drive at a speed likely to cause death'. They drive to the speed limits (more or less) and with the flow of traffic.

I would be a bit narked if some muppet decided it was a good idea to drive at 20 mph in a 30mph zone because 's/he didn't want to drive at a speed likely to cause death' and I had to sit behind them.

EDIT: I should add that I would only feel that way if it was clearly safe to be driving at 30mph (ie, not going past a school at 9am etc...)

OK I know this was back near the start, but in Germany the standard speed limits in residential areas is 30kmh.
And it is much more policed in Germany as well. Through roads in villages tend to be 50kmh IF they a judged to be wide enough (which is actually most of the time) but as soon as you turn off the through roads its 30.

It does feel a lot safer being a pedestrian or cyclist in residential areas as well.

That's sensible, unlike the suggested blanket 20mph for all roads regardless of context.

I couldnt agree more, i hate people driving at 20 in a 30 all it does is make me mad and i have to do more than 30 to overtake them so its the person doing 20 that makes people speed!
I was an undertaker for many years and at the end of the day thats life. people are born and people die, 1 in 1 out makes the world go round.
People will always drive faster than the speed limit so i have no idea why speed limits exist in the 1st place, its a case of using your common sence most of the time, and some people just dont have any, so why would a silly round sign make a diffrence

OK I know this was back near the start, but in Germany the standard speed limits in residential areas is 30kmh.
And it is much more policed in Germany as well. Through roads in villages tend to be 50kmh IF they a judged to be wide enough (which is actually most of the time) but as soon as you turn off the through roads its 30.

It does feel a lot safer being a pedestrian or cyclist in residential areas as well.

+1 - trouble is motorists in the UK generally coudn't give a toss about the existing 30mph limit so without massive enforcement you won't get this kind of sensible balance, i find it genuinely sad that people can't treat the speed limit as a safe limit rather than a target to be exceeded whenever they feel safe they won't get caught, then again i live round the corner from a rat run that to$$ers use to avoid a fixed speed camera so I may be jaundiced.

In France pedestrians now have priority when crossing the road regardless of whether they are using a crossing.
“If a pedestrian or cyclist “shows a clear intention to cross” (described as “an ostensible step forward or a hand gesture”) drivers will be required to stop for them. The only exception is where there is a designated pedestrian crossing less than 50m away.”

other road users are indeed responsible for you speeding when you [s]choose[/s] are forced to overtake them. good spot it works in court iirc

its a case of using your common sence most of the time, and some people just dont have any

ps the speed limit is exavtly that the maximum speed you can do it is not a target speed that must be obeyed by all road users.