20 mph Zones - Extend or Eliminate?

[bramling]

So if you stop doing what you need to be reasonably safe from law breaking motorists on the public highway, you are being bullied. That's just about summing the situation up. No wonder that so many potential cyclists just don't bother.

So what’s the solution?

* Complete replacement of our failed political system (that seems to be the cause of most of our current problems)?
* Acceptance that we need to cease population growth?
* Reduce availability of cheap credit in order to reduce the availability of cars?
* Sort out the police, who seem dysfunctional in so many areas, and with whom most people seem pretty dissatisfied?

From my perspective cycling has become more dangerous over the last two and a half decades, and a lot of this can be indirectly attributed to government policies and failings. Sticking up a few 20 mph discs isn’t going to address that, nor even start to.

Worth also adding that, like many things, this has all got worse since Covid.

Out of interest, have you cycled / do you cycle on roads?

 

[AM9]

Out of interest, have you cycled / do you cycle on roads?

Frequently since my teens but over the last thre/four years, very little owing to a leg issue. I have however as a motorist, always respected cyclists on the road and despite the attempts of some 'bullying' drivers stood fast in doing so.

Frequently since my teens but over the last thre/four years, very little owing to a leg issue. I have however as a motorist, always respected cyclists on the road and despite the attempts of some 'bullying' drivers stood fast in doing so.

I live in hope of cycling again soon, I have a Brompton and a hardtail hybrid cycle.

 

[DerekC]

So what’s the solution?

* Complete replacement of our failed political system (that seems to be the cause of most of our current problems)?
* Acceptance that we need to cease population growth?
* Reduce availability of cheap credit in order to reduce the availability of cars?
* Sort out the police, who seem dysfunctional in so many areas, and with whom most people seem pretty dissatisfied?

From my perspective cycling has become more dangerous over the last two and a half decades, and a lot of this can be indirectly attributed to government policies and failings. Sticking up a few 20 mph discs isn’t going to address that, nor even start to.

Worth also adding that, like many things, this has all got worse since Covid.

Out of interest, have you cycled / do you cycle on roads?

Cyclists seem to assume that the effectiveness or otherwise of the 20mph speed limit should be determined based on the effect on them. Whether or not we drive a car or cycle, we are all pedestrians. To repeat, the risk of a pedestrian being killed when hit by a car at 30mph is between five and eight times higher than at 20mph. As far as I am concerned that's the end of the argument. In town centres, housing estates and other places where cars and pedestrians are likely to interact, the speed limit should be 20mph. That doesn't mean that all 30mph zones should become 20mph zones, though. The difficult areas are where there are heavily trafficked routes which pass through urban areas. South London seems to be doing real world experiments - applying 20mph to the A24 through Tooting, for example. Hopefully somebody is collecting the statistics so that we can have proper evidence to base decisions on, and not just a lot of social media anecdotes from the motoring lobby.

 

[AdamWW]

Cyclists seem to assume that the effectiveness or otherwise of the 20mph speed limit should be determined based on the effect on them. Whether or not we drive a car or cycle, we are all pedestrians. To repeat, the risk of a pedestrian being killed when hit by a car at 30mph is between five and eight times higher than at 20mph. As far as I am concerned that's the end of the argument. In town centres, housing estates and other places where cars and pedestrians are likely to interact, the speed limit should be 20mph. That doesn't mean that all 30mph zones should become 20mph zones, though. The difficult areas are where there are heavily trafficked routes which pass through urban areas. South London seems to be doing real world experiments - applying 20mph to the A24 through Tooting, for example. Hopefully somebody is collecting the statistics so that we can have proper evidence to base decisions on, and not just a lot of social media anecdotes from the motoring lobby.

I think a lot of people don't know/have forgotten that kinetic energy goes as the square of speed or don't think through the consequences.

I wonder if it would make people more aware if analogue speedometers were arranged so that the needle moved linearly with energy not speed.

I do wonder about your assertion that we're all pedestrians though. You'd think so, but from the way some drivers behave it appears that they've never had to cross a road away from an official crossing in their life. Perhaps because they always park right in front of where they're going even if that means parking in a bus layby or blocking a pavement.

 

[bramling]

Cyclists seem to assume that the effectiveness or otherwise of the 20mph speed limit should be determined based on the effect on them. Whether or not we drive a car or cycle, we are all pedestrians. To repeat, the risk of a pedestrian being killed when hit by a car at 30mph is between five and eight times higher than at 20mph. As far as I am concerned that's the end of the argument.

In general terms it is reasonable to consider that cyclists are rather more likely than any other group to be on the receiving end of an incident that is in no way their fault - and not just from motorists, pedestrians can be just as much of a liability to cyclists.

For pedestrians, it’s all well and good saying that 20 mph is absolutely safer, however like everything in life there is an element of compromise. Pedestrians have to take some responsibility, which means taking care when crossing a road. Obviously roads where there are specific issues merit special measures (which may well be a reduced speed limit, but could also be something as simple as an extra crossing), however like with many things a blanket restriction is not the answer.

Personally as a pedestrian I find 20 mph extremely irritating as it often means waiting longer to cross a road. So it seems to be annoying for pedestrians and drivers, and more difficult for cyclists, lose all round.

 

[Bletchleyite]

and more difficult for cyclists

I don't agree. In central London as a cyclist I love it. I can out-accelerate the cars and ride with them taking the lane (and anyone not fit enough to ride at 20 on the flat has the option of an e-bike, which can at least take them to 15.5* which is good enough for most purposes given how 20 on a car speedo will actually be about 18). Absent full segregation on the Dutch model (which is my preference but not always practical, particularly in an old city like London) it is vastly better than 30 for me.

Plus if anything does hit me I'm considerably less likely to be seriously injured.

I can understand why drivers don't like it, but having tried it I don't understand why a cyclist would not, unless they're the sort of cyclist who wants to get their head down on a £10K road bike and ride at 30 or more, but that sort of cyclist is a small minority and city streets aren't the place for them anyway, to do that you want to get out onto the country lanes which typically have a 60mph limit anyway!

(Before I tried it I thought I wouldn't like it because it would prolong overtakes, but my experience in central London is that people just don't overtake, particularly if you take the lane and ride as if you were a motorcycle rather than in the gutter).

I wonder if maybe compliance is higher in London due to the more intensively policed nature of it compared to the rest of the country? And because cars really are deprecated in central London?

 

[Meerkat]

However, slightly more time spent on journeys through roads that have more restrictions than some drivers would prefer does not simply translate to a direct cost when the full human impact is included.

It is a significant amount of time in total as it affects a lot of journeys for individuals. And in business cases time has a value.

I'm not convinced that additional time is that significant, particularly on some roads in Wales where the actual average speed when a 30 mph limit was nowhere near that figure, and the actual speed was much nearer the new 20mph limit since it was changed.

If that is true for a particular site then there won’t be complaints about it

Then there's the actual speed when a 30mph limit road isn't heavily loaded where speeds are consistently heading towards the 40mph level, effectively invalidating any case for 30mph being as safe as body collision tests indicate

If the road isn’t heavily loaded then the chances of an accident plummet - risk isn’t just severity but also likelihood

and adjust the legal limit to bring that down to the appropriate safety aspirations.

That is a very poor way of making law. Just prosecute the current law properly or engineer the road to have a physical 30mph limit

He shouldn't be sweating after a two mile ride unless it's all uphill.

I did compare it to walking/jogging - you wouldn’t have a shower if you walked (cruised) to work, so don’t jog (thrash it)!

To repeat, the risk of a pedestrian being killed when hit by a car at 30mph is between five and eight times higher than at 20mph.

What’s the risk of them actually being hit, particularly in the disputed 20v30 zones?
PS I have always wondered - is this stat the impact speed or the speed before braking?

I don't understand why a cyclist would not

20mph reduces overtaking - as a cyclist I hate having cars trundling along behind me.

 

[bramling]

I don't agree. In central London as a cyclist I love it. I can out-accelerate the cars and ride with them taking the lane (and anyone not fit enough to ride at 20 on the flat has the option of an e-bike, which can at least take them to 15.5* which is good enough for most purposes given how 20 on a car speedo will actually be about 18). Absent full segregation on the Dutch model (which is my preference but not always practical, particularly in an old city like London) it is vastly better than 30 for me.

Plus if anything does hit me I'm considerably less likely to be seriously injured.

I can understand why drivers don't like it, but having tried it I don't understand why a cyclist would not, unless they're the sort of cyclist who wants to get their head down on a £10K road bike and ride at 30 or more, but that sort of cyclist is a small minority and city streets aren't the place for them anyway, to do that you want to get out onto the country lanes which typically have a 60mph limit anyway!

(Before I tried it I thought I wouldn't like it because it would prolong overtakes, but my experience in central London is that people just don't overtake, particularly if you take the lane and ride as if you were a motorcycle rather than in the gutter).

I wonder if maybe compliance is higher in London due to the more intensively policed nature of it compared to the rest of the country? And because cars really are deprecated in central London?

I think you may well be on to something with the idea that London may not be the same as elsewhere.

Personally I don’t really like having vehicles close up behind. If you come off for whatever reason (for example hit a pothole badly, pedestrian does something, or even a stray animal crosses), you are going to go straight under the wheels of whatever is behind you if they’re not leaving a decent gap - which of course many people don’t. 20 mph isn’t going to offer you much help in that situation.

Personally I’d rather take my chances with 30 mph and have people overtaking properly. 20 mph really seems to bunch traffic up in undesirable ways.

 

[AM9]

It is a significant amount of time in total as it affects a lot of journeys for individuals. And in business cases time has a value.

Ah the cost is everything mentality, - even to the extent of sacrificing safety.

If that is true for a particular site then there won’t be complaints about it

Oh yes there will, - those motorists that would see it as taking away their right to travel at 30mph forever, (or whatever speed over the limit that they think they should get away with.

If the road isn’t heavily loaded then the chances of an accident plummet - risk isn’t just severity but also likelihood

Once again, safety is secondary, let's trade some light injuries for a lower number of KSIs.

That is a very poor way of making law. Just prosecute the current law properly or engineer the road to have a physical 30mph limit

Then listen to the whining of speeding motorists that cameras and enforment is war on motorists and a cash cow. On the other point. Making every inadequate road safe at 30mph is like throwing cash at persistent speeders. If there is violation of limits set to protect pedestrians and other vulnerable road users, reduce the legal limit until the actual speeds meet th safety requirement, (or of course put those inconsiderate drivers off using the roads in question).

 

[Ediswan]

I wonder if it would make people more aware if analogue speedometers were arranged so that the needle moved linearly with energy not speed.

Interesting idea. Against, the scale would be cramped at 20 mph, so harder to read.

 

[Meerkat]

Ah the cost is everything mentality, - even to the extent of sacrificing safety.

Bit childish, and you don’t seem to understand how safety has a value, and time has a value. Shouting ‘but safer so ignore every thing else!’ isn’t a sensible way of debating things.

Oh yes there will, - those motorists that would see it as taking away their right to travel at 30mph forever, (or whatever speed over the limit that they think they should get away with.

Not on a road where the vast majority of them cant do 30 anyway.
There is a good theory that speed limits should be set at the 85th percentile of current speeds. Most drivers know what they are doing.

Then listen to the whining of speeding motorists that cameras and enforment is war on motorists and a cash cow. On the other point. Making every inadequate road safe at 30mph is like throwing cash at persistent speeders. If there is violation of limits set to protect pedestrians and other vulnerable road users, reduce the legal limit until the actual speeds meet th safety requirement, (or of course put those inconsiderate drivers off using the roads in question).

You haven’t proven what the safety requirements are - you are just saying ‘safer’
Lets make all trains go over level crossings at ‘stop on sight‘ speeds - it’s safer!

 

[Bikeman78]

I do wonder about your assertion that we're all pedestrians though. You'd think so, but from the way some drivers behave it appears that they've never had to cross a road away from an official crossing in their life. Perhaps because they always park right in front of where they're going even if that means parking in a bus layby or blocking a pavement.

I rarely walk in my local urban area, apart from taking the kids to school which is a two minute walk. Local journeys are undertaken by bike, car or bus. If I go shopping in the city centre, I cycle or take the bus and rarely have to cross any roads to get to where I want to go.

For pedestrians, it’s all well and good saying that 20 mph is absolutely safer, however like everything in life there is an element of compromise. Pedestrians have to take some responsibility, which means taking care when crossing a road. Obviously roads where there are specific issues merit special measures (which may well be a reduced speed limit, but could also be something as simple as an extra crossing), however like with many things a blanket restriction is not the answer.

Or putting the crossing where people actually want to cross. An example that springs to mind, there are two Pelican crossings very close together by the Hilton hotel. From my observations over 20 years or so, an awful lot of people ignore both crossings and cross the road between them. The one closer to the castle is used so rarely, I reckon I get stopped by it once a year on average.