20 mph Zones - Extend or Eliminate?

[DerekC]

I used to live in village with a (short) 40mph section on on an otherwise unrestricted "A" road that cut the community in half. We measured speeds of up to 60mph at times and crossing on foot, at the only possible location, on a bend with a restricted sightline, was a nightmare. You had to have good hearing and be quick to make it safely. Six months ago we moved to a town with a large 20mph zone in the middle. What a relief! There is time to look, look again and cross roads knowing that if you did misjudge it (and I am at the age where sight and hearing are noticeably worse than they used to be) an approaching vehicle will be able to stop.

I have also noticed (although I don't have objective evidence to prove it) that compliance has deteriorated in the last few months. Does this by any chance have anything to do with the headlines generated by Rishi Sunak last October, like this one:

Sunak vows to stop 20mph zones​

By Graeme Baker
BBC News

Rishi Sunak says he wants to stop "hare-brained" road calming and safety schemes, including 20mph zones, to end what he says is a "war on motorists".
The prime minister said he wanted to ensure such measures would no longer be "forced" on drivers.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-66965714

There are claims that they don't improve road safety, which I think is totally contrary to common sense. Blanket limits on some main roads may be undesirable and not have much effect, but in the centre of towns they are, I think, transformative.

Thoughts appreciated.

 

[AM9]

I used to live in village with a (short) 40mph section on on an otherwise unrestricted "A" road that cut the community in half. We measured speeds of up to 60mph at times and crossing on foot, at the only possible location, on a bend with a restricted sightline, was a nightmare. You had to have good hearing and be quick to make it safely. Six months ago we moved to a town with a large 20mph zone in the middle. What a relief! There is time to look, look again and cross roads knowing that if you did misjudge it (and I am at the age where sight and hearing are noticeably worse than they used to be) an approaching vehicle will be able to stop.

I have also noticed (although I don't have objective evidence to prove it) that compliance has deteriorated in the last few months. Does this by any chance have anything to do with the headlines generated by Rishi Sunak last October, like this one:

Sunak vows to stop 20mph zones​

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-66965714

There are claims that they don't improve road safety, which I think is totally contrary to common sense. Blanket limits on some main roads may be undesirable and not have much effect, but in the centre of towns they are, I think, transformative.

Thoughts appreciated.

There are claims about most changes that improve safety anywhere, e.g.

asbestos 'improves' safety​

smoking 'doesn't affect health'​

climate change 'isn't happening'​

... plenty of other claims and denials etc., etc., ...​

and now those that push existing speed limits (and beyond) claim that lower speeds increase deaths and serious injuries on roads.​

Just look at the actual data that they use to justify their position. There's been other threads about this here on RUK where the debates are laden with strawman arguments.

 

[75A]

I used to live in village with a (short) 40mph section on on an otherwise unrestricted "A" road that cut the community in half. We measured speeds of up to 60mph at times and crossing on foot, at the only possible location, on a bend with a restricted sightline, was a nightmare. You had to have good hearing and be quick to make it safely. Six months ago we moved to a town with a large 20mph zone in the middle. What a relief! There is time to look, look again and cross roads knowing that if you did misjudge it (and I am at the age where sight and hearing are noticeably worse than they used to be) an approaching vehicle will be able to stop.

I have also noticed (although I don't have objective evidence to prove it) that compliance has deteriorated in the last few months. Does this by any chance have anything to do with the headlines generated by Rishi Sunak last October, like this one:

Sunak vows to stop 20mph zones​

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-66965714

There are claims that they don't improve road safety, which I think is totally contrary to common sense. Blanket limits on some main roads may be undesirable and not have much effect, but in the centre of towns they are, I think, transformative.

Thoughts appreciated.

I'm off to Wales in May, see how it goes. I think i'll be ok because although the roads around here all have the national limit (60)? they're mainly single lane with lots of tractors and the one from my house to the sea frequently hows cattle on it.

 

[JohnMcL7]

They've deployed an extensive change of 30mph down to 20mph limits here as a trial but I don't find it's any use because there's no enforcement (nor can there be until they fix the atrocious signage) so normal drivers who were never a problem have slowed down a bit but those who were flying along doing well in excess of 30mph are still flying along doing well in excess of 30mph. As a cyclist it should be great because at 20mph I can do a similar pace to the cars but there's still plenty drivers flying by doing dangerous close passes even though I'm doing the speed limit and as a pedestrian, it's difficult to tell especially at night whether it's safe to cross or not because if the car is doing the speed limit I've plenty time but if they're going a lot quicker then it's not but I can't easily tell until they get close.

As a driver though it's a lot worse as I get frequently harassed by drivers annoyed I'm doing 20mph so they stick dangerously close to the back of the car and try for dangerous overtakes, it's reached the point I'm looking into getting dash cameras fitted. I'm also wanting to try and fit a camera outside the house as there seems to be some drivers making a point of abusing the 20mph as loudly as possible on a daily basis.

I think what also irritates me about the 20mph limit is the way they're boasting about how much they're improving active travel in the area when they've done nothing useful but obviously that would be more work than just sticking some 20mph signs on a lamp posts and pat yourself on the back.

It would be interesting to know if there's any attempts to get drivers to comply in other areas as I've thought if they'd made some effort to enforce the 20mph limits with some random police cars from time to time, they perhaps wouldn't be so widely abused. Potentially also being more careful with 20mph limits on roads that really need to be 20mph rather than the blanket approach which means roads that don't need to be 20mph would mean better compliance.

 

[neilmc]

In Cumbria we're thinking of introducing more 20mph zones through villages especially ones with schools, but subject to local consultations as to whether people actually want them. So far I think the answer is likely to be a resounding yes.

 

[bramling]

I used to live in village with a (short) 40mph section on on an otherwise unrestricted "A" road that cut the community in half. We measured speeds of up to 60mph at times and crossing on foot, at the only possible location, on a bend with a restricted sightline, was a nightmare. You had to have good hearing and be quick to make it safely. Six months ago we moved to a town with a large 20mph zone in the middle. What a relief! There is time to look, look again and cross roads knowing that if you did misjudge it (and I am at the age where sight and hearing are noticeably worse than they used to be) an approaching vehicle will be able to stop.

I have also noticed (although I don't have objective evidence to prove it) that compliance has deteriorated in the last few months. Does this by any chance have anything to do with the headlines generated by Rishi Sunak last October, like this one:

Sunak vows to stop 20mph zones​

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-66965714

There are claims that they don't improve road safety, which I think is totally contrary to common sense. Blanket limits on some main roads may be undesirable and not have much effect, but in the centre of towns they are, I think, transformative.

Thoughts appreciated.

Speaking from the perspective of someone who walks, cycles and drives, I don’t find 20 mph particularly helpful.

When walking I find it makes it harder to judge crossing a road, and seems to lead to bunching up of traffic which makes crossing take longer.

From a cycling perspective, where do we start! Firstly it seems to make vehicle drivers less attentive. I reckon I’ve had more incidents on 20 mph roads than anywhere else. Secondly, for me personally at least, I find there’s a tendency to be catching up with cars or other vehicles, and that’s generally not desirable for a number of reasons. Following something like a bus in this way isn’t pleasant due to fumes. Perhaps worst of all, 20 mph roads tend to be accompanied by more calming measures, and these are a menace to cyclists because they tend to result in the surface on and around them deteriorating faster, leading to more hazards such as potholes.

I’d say 20 mph has its place especially on residential roads, but on the sorts of roads where people shouldn’t really be going much more than 20 mph anyway. On larger roads it seems to cause more problems than it solves.

In Cumbria we're thinking of introducing more 20mph zones through villages especially ones with schools, but subject to local consultations as to whether people actually want them. So far I think the answer is likely to be a resounding yes.

The problem with that one is in many cases I suspect the resounding yes is really “I want vehicles to be doing 20 mph past *my* house, but I don’t want to be doing 20 mph when I drive elsewhere”. Life doesn’t quite work like that unfortunately.

 

[bluenoxid]

I have no problem with 20mph zones. In my area there is this weak argument that strategic roads should be 30mph but during the day, you can barely achieve 20mph due to congestion anyway

 

[DerekC]

In Cumbria we're thinking of introducing more 20mph zones through villages especially ones with schools, but subject to local consultations as to whether people actually want them. So far I think the answer is likely to be a resounding yes.

Great.

Speaking from the perspective of someone who walks, cycles and drives, I don’t find 20 mph particularly helpful.

When walking I find it makes it harder to judge crossing a road, and seems to lead to bunching up of traffic which makes crossing take longer.

Well, I walk a lot. In the 20 mph areas in our town it's easy to cross the road safely. In the 30 mph areas it's much harder. I can think of four reasons why that is. First, the sightline required is proportional to speed. Second, the higher the speed the further an approaching vehicle moves towards you whilst your brain is working out whether it's safe to cross. Third, the braking distance at 30 mph is about double that at 20mph, so if I get it wrong I am much less likely to be hit and fourth, at a traffic island in the 20mph area quite a few drivers will slow for you and create a bigger gap for you to cross in. It's much less common in a 30mph area.

I haven't noticed extra bunching, but a bunch implies larger gaps between bunches so you might have to wait longer, but it's safer when a gap arrives.

From a cycling perspective, where do we start! Firstly it seems to make vehicle drivers less attentive. I reckon I’ve had more incidents on 20 mph roads than anywhere else. Secondly, for me personally at least, I find there’s a tendency to be catching up with cars or other vehicles, and that’s generally not desirable for a number of reasons. Following something like a bus in this way isn’t pleasant due to fumes. Perhaps worst of all, 20 mph roads tend to be accompanied by more calming measures, and these are a menace to cyclists because they tend to result in the surface on and around them deteriorating faster, leading to more hazards such as potholes.

I don't cycle any more so can't really comment on that - other than to say that in our area the "sleeping policeman" calming measures are mostly installed with gaps at the kerbside, presumably for cyclists. And there are potholes everywhere!

 

[bramling]

I don't cycle any more so can't really comment on that - other than to say that in our area the "sleeping policeman" calming measures are mostly installed with gaps at the kerbside, presumably for cyclists. And there are potholes everywhere!

It doesn’t really matter whether there’s a gap or not, any form of traffic calming measure by definition poses a higher chance of damage to the surface because there are going to be joins. And furthermore they can be far harder to spot than on plain road.

On my regular cycle route home from London which I do quite regularly these days, there are some absolutely lethal potholes in the joints between speed bumps and the normal road surface. Forget where these are and it is extremely dangerous as you’re quite likely to hit them at a funny angle, which is asking for trouble. I find it enough a hazard when cycling at night on fairly empty roads, it would be far worse in the daytime.

 

[DerekC]

It doesn’t really matter whether there’s a gap or not, any form of traffic calming measure by definition poses a higher chance of damage to the surface because there are going to be joins. And furthermore they can be far harder to spot than on plain road.

That does depend on what sort of calming measure. Rather than sleeping policemen or similar, some villages in this area have artificial narrowings with signs giving priority to traffic exiting the village. They have a cycle bypass on the restricted side, which seems sensible.

On my regular cycle route home from London which I do quite regularly these days, there are some absolutely lethal potholes in the joints between speed bumps and the normal road surface. Forget where these are and it is extremely dangerous as you’re quite likely to hit them at a funny angle, which is asking for trouble. I find it enough a hazard when cycling at night on fairly empty roads, it would be far worse in the daytime.

Understood - but isn't the answer to fix the potholes rather than get rid of the speed restrictions? I admit to having a bee in my bonnet about safety for pedestrians, but they have to be considered as well as cyclists.

 

[bramling]

That does depend on what sort of calming measure. Rather than sleeping policemen or similar, some villages in this area have artificial narrowings with signs giving priority to traffic exiting the village. They have a cycle bypass on the restricted side, which seems sensible.

Even worse. You either get a cycle bypass which is guaranteed to be filled with rubbish as well as poorly maintained, or else you go with the normal traffic, which causes all sorts of problems, not least the risk of a head-on collision - hardly safe. Again, the implications of these measures just isn’t thought through.

Understood - but isn't the answer to fix the potholes rather than get rid of the speed restrictions? I admit to having a bee in my bonnet about safety for pedestrians, but they have to be considered as well as cyclists.

Yes the answer should be to fix potholes, but in this country it simply doesn’t happen, and in the winter time they are always going to form faster than they can be repaired. So anything which increases the likelihood of them forming is very much a bad thing. And not just a bad thing, but actually a serious safety hazard. Rather disproportionate just to appease a few residents.

 

[DerekC]

Even worse. You either get a cycle bypass which is guaranteed to be filled with rubbish as well as poorly maintained, or else you go with the normal traffic, which causes all sorts of problems, not least the risk of a head-on collision - hardly safe. Again, the implications of these measures just isn’t thought through.

Well, having been out and about most of today I checked out half a dozen speed bumps (the kind that has a lump in the middle of the carriageway with a flat wheel path either side to suit buses) and none of them had potholes. There were also three full width combined speed bumps and pedestrian crossing points, and two of them did have potholes - or at least significant defects in the road surface on the upslope and/or downslope. Which based on an extremely small sample suggests that a) the problem is not universal and b) different kinds of calming measure might be safer for cyclists than others. I will check out some cycling bypasses next time I pass through a village that has them. However, has the Cycling Club (or whatever the right body is) done any research into different calming measures and their effect on cyclists? That might be more convincing than yours or my opinion.

Yes the answer should be to fix potholes, but in this country it simply doesn’t happen, and in the winter time they are always going to form faster than they can be repaired. So anything which increases the likelihood of them forming is very much a bad thing. And not just a bad thing, but actually a serious safety hazard. Rather disproportionate just to appease a few residents.

You do have to take a step back and ask yourself - what is the purpose of roads? They are meant to be for safe use by all - motor vehicles, cycles and on foot. Historically pedestrians have had a pretty raw deal. General purpose rural main roads without a footpath (which is most of them, outside towns) are generally unusable because speeds are too high and sight lines too poor. Many secondary roads aren't much better. In towns, the situation is slowly beginning to improve. A lot of people walk around towns and for them to be dismissed as "a few residents" is just trying to trivialise a real issue. 20mph zones are, I think, an excellent thing in the centre of towns and in many other urban settings. If traffic calming features are a problem for cyclists then redesign them. (the calming features, not the cyclists )

 

[Cdd89]

I suspect the cop-out answer is “both”. Namely they should be widened on residential roads where extra caution is warranted (despite their proliferation it feels like only a minority have them), and rolled back on more major roads where 20mph feels extremely slow (if people learn to break the limit on those roads, they’ll learn to do likewise on all 20mph roads).

I would say every urban “back road” should have them; I don’t do much driving but conversely I’d call out Chelsea Embankment as a road which feels extremely slow at 20.

 

[DC1989]

So has Sunak managed to keep his promise about 20mph zones since his announcement in September ?

Having a quick google, since that announcement I can find that

Cornwall will go 20mph in stages by 2026
Oxfordshire approved 12 new 20mph areas
Newham will go 20mph in stages by 2025
Ely in Cambridgeshire will go 20mph in April 24
All of Scotland will go 20mph in 2025

There's many I missed I'm sure..

I can't find any evidence of any LA reversing 20mph zones

Whether you agree with them or not.........Sunak has once again lied/failed to keep his promise!

 

[westv]

All of Scotland 20mph? Is that correct?

 

[stuu]

All of Scotland 20mph? Is that correct?

No. 30mph limits will become 20, with exceptions, like in Wales

 

[jmh59]

As a driver though it's a lot worse as I get frequently harassed by drivers annoyed I'm doing 20mph so they stick dangerously close to the back of the car and try for dangerous overtakes, it's reached the point I'm looking into getting dash cameras fitted.

I've had front and rear cams for a while now and they produce interesting memories sometimes. As to 20MPH zones, our estate has been that for a while and generally it's been ok, except of course it's become obvious that the 20MPH limit does not apply to Royal Mail or numerous couriers (except UPS for some reason) or builders. On my trip to work I tend to use cruise control in 30's and 20's which makes it easier to spot annoyed drivers like you find while not being tempted to adjust speed to suite their desires. The A65 through the centre of Ilkley (and all side roads) has now become 20 and you can't tell because no-one does that (well, except me any anyone behind me!!)

I spent many summers and winters south of Montreal and the limits there, often 30KPH which is near enough 20MPH just seems fine to everyone. Mind you, the roads are a heck of a lot nicer than ours... (the only thing that caught me out first time is cycles go in all directions on both sides of the road!)

 

[75A]

I've had front and rear cams for a while now and they produce interesting memories sometimes. As to 20MPH zones, our estate has . (the only thing that caught me out first time is cycles go in all directions on both sides of the road!)

Sounds like Leicester.

 

[mpthomson]

Neither, just use them appropriately.

 

[PGAT]

E = 1/2mv^2. Reducing from just 30 to 20 is a big win for how relatively easy it is

 

[cactustwirly]

Great.

Well, I walk a lot. In the 20 mph areas in our town it's easy to cross the road safely. In the 30 mph areas it's much harder. I can think of four reasons why that is. First, the sightline required is proportional to speed. Second, the higher the speed the further an approaching vehicle moves towards you whilst your brain is working out whether it's safe to cross. Third, the braking distance at 30 mph is about double that at 20mph, so if I get it wrong I am much less likely to be hit and fourth, at a traffic island in the 20mph area quite a few drivers will slow for you and create a bigger gap for you to cross in. It's much less common in a 30mph area.

I haven't noticed extra bunching, but a bunch implies larger gaps between bunches so you might have to wait longer, but it's safer when a gap arrives.


I don't cycle any more so can't really comment on that - other than to say that in our area the "sleeping policeman" calming measures are mostly installed with gaps at the kerbside, presumably for cyclists. And there are potholes everywhere!

Surely the answer is more pedestrian crossings and zebra crossings?

I don't find it hard at all to cross a 30mph road I do it on a weekly basis. If you are having difficulty then you are clearly crossing in the wrong place.

I agree with 20mph on small residential roads but main roads should be 30mph.
I find 20mph roads frustrating and it's a lot harder to stick to 20mph anyway. Plus they increase emissions compared to 30mph

 

[jon0844]

Emissions presumably depend on the gearing of your car and how heavy your right foot is, and for EVs it absolutely isn't true - slower speeds mean less energy usage full stop.

 

[Snow1964]

Eliminate is wrong, but 20mph zones outside schools, in medieval town centres and in residential streets are reasonable.

What is not reasonable is very long lengths of main roads being restricted to 20mph

 

[cactustwirly]

Surely the answer is more pedestrian crossings and zebra crossings?

I don't find it hard at all to cross a 30mph road I do it on a weekly basis. If you are having difficulty then you are clearly crossing in the wrong place.

I agree with 20mph on small residential roads but main roads should be 30mph.
I find 20mph roads frustrating and it's a lot harder to stick to 20mph anyway. Plus they increase emissions compared to 30mph

A lot of the cars I have driven will be doing more revs at 20 than at 30 therefore producing more emissions

 

[The Ham]

20's are a useful tool, however they do need to be put in place where they aren't going to be easy to exceed by road users.

Ultimately there'll be more 20mph limits (just because more roads will be built), likewise there's likely to be some which get removed for various reasons.

 

[AdamWW]

A lot of the cars I have driven will be doing more revs at 20 than at 30 therefore producing more emissions

Of course it's not as simple as comparing continuous travel at 20 mph with that at 30 mph. It is said that overall 20 mph limits reduce emissions because there is less accelerating to road speed then braking again. I have no idea to what extent (if any) this is actually true.

But even ignoring that. is this just the case that gearboxes are designed on the assumption that 30 mph is the slowest speed limit? In which case it's a bit circular - we have 30 mph limits so we'll design cars to operate at that speed so we must have 30 mph limits...

And of course not applicable to electric cars anyway.

 

[AM9]

Neither, just use them appropriately.

Based on the safety issues of the particular roads in question.

A lot of the cars I have driven will be doing more revs at 20 than at 30 therefore producing more emissions

Across the board, this unlikely phenomenom will reduce to zero as IC vehicles are removed from the roads. As mentioned above, EVs aremore efficientat 20mph.

 

[jon0844]

It's also quite worrying when the other argument is that driving at 20mph is more dangerous because you have to keep your eyes focussed on the speedo all the time instead of the road.

If you can't maintain a speed without looking at the speedo constantly, give up driving now please - for the safety of all of us.

 

[bramling]

It's also quite worrying when the other argument is that driving at 20mph is more dangerous because you have to keep your eyes focussed on the speedo all the time instead of the road.

If you can't maintain a speed without looking at the speedo constantly, give up driving now please - for the safety of all of us.

There is an argument to say it takes more effort to keep a car at exactly 20 mph, which in turn may well mean less attention focussed on surroundings. What certainly is the case is that you’re more likely to have people driving aggressively close behind, including some who know better such as professional drivers, which definitely *is* a distraction.

 

[The Ham]

There is an argument to say it takes more effort to keep a car at exactly 20 mph, which in turn may well mean less attention focussed on surroundings. What certainly is the case is that you’re more likely to have people driving aggressively close behind, including some who know better such as professional drivers, which definitely *is* a distraction.

A car travelling at 20mph is travelling at 9m each second, whilst at 30mph it's 13.4m each second.

Given that the stopping distance (with a 0.7 second reaction time, which is very fast) at 30mph is 23m vs 14m at 20mph it means that at 20mph you could add 1 second to your reaction time and still stop within the same distance as if you were traveling at 30mph.

It's therefore unlikely that you would actually be so distracted that it would actually make your stopping distance worse than if you were traveling at 30mph.