20mpg zones "are a waste of money"

Laws to enforce 20mph will be about as useful as the laws regarding mobile phones whilst driving.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2791801/

"20 mph zones are effective measures for reducing road injuries with no evidence of casualty migration to nearby roads"

please post any conflicting studies here if you find them

.

Miles per gallon zones? Had to chuckle at that typo in your title!

I wonder who the chairman regards as "amateur enthusiasts" and just what qualifies his comments as, presumably, reasoned and professional? And how do you do a double blind test on a speed limit, the implication being that neither the researcher or the subject, the driver, knows where the 20 miles per hour speed limit is? Seems a bit "amateur enthusiast" to me.

The "voice of the driver" has a point. too much money is spent on these schemes when common sense and careful use of funding will garner better results,i.e. less deaths/injuries/accidents.

I agree with crosshouses as well,there are'nt the cops to enforce it anyway...their all on holiday now after their olympic duties anyhow.

in my area we have a "30" zone and a camera...everyone slows for the camera,slides through the "30" zone and accelerates away laughing...i dont think this will slow people down.

"20" zones may save lives,but reality is,people will not stick to them. i too, would like to think that they would work...but i think the amount of traffic on our roads is doing a very fine job of slowing the whole country down on its own. its quicker to cycle where i live,and go past all the motorists waiting for the lights to change, or move another foot forward in the queue.

What a bloomin brilliant web-site!

I no longer need to go to the daily mail comments section to get a fix of idiocy!

Although its a highly contentious subject. I'm not a fan of putting these 20's plenty zones on big roads. Round housing estates, yes thats fine. But there is one near me that goes on for over 4 miles right through a small village. Its awful and just frustrates people when there is no real need for it.

First, the gentleman is right to call for double blind trials, using rigorous scientific trialing is the only way to show whether unproven theories are valid.

Secondly, who will enforce a 20mph limit when 30mph and other limits are widely ignored? With more police cutbacks to come I'd suggest there's little chance of enforcement.

I'd love to see a 20mph limit, but legislation that is not enforced (eg the use of hand held mobile devices) brings the law into disrepute.