"Far more pleasant for walkers and cyclists": 20mph speed limit analysis hailed "astonishing", with drivers' journeys just 45 seconds longer

Properly set speed limits has an overwhelmingly possitive effect on driver compliance and assure that vulnerable road users are given an accurate perception of what speed most traffic will be going.
My opinion on speed limits is based on seeing a lot of data on the lack of correlation between speeds and speed limits. One road in Bristol showed 97% non-compliance on one higher standard road clearly not designed for it and in Monmouthshire it was 99.4%. Who is that meant to single out or target?

That's speed limits being brought into contempt and by the same people who will often most vocally proclaim that speed limits should be respected and obeyed.
If you drop the speed limit without changing the design of the road, all you're doing it prohibiting the behaviour of some of the safest drivers on the road and forcing the police to target them to the detriment of limits targeting those who are least likely to slow down when limits are lower but also the the most likely to do harm.

It's not about change Lee Waters keeps comparing the speed limit to such things as the smoking ban, this is wilful ignorance of the subject, speed limits are materially different and the Stongtowns video I posted gives one of best explinations I've seen as to why this is the case.
If there was never a good reason to look at traffic speeds or engineering recommendations in the setting of speed limits, that would have always been the way you set them, it's not merely an oversight and no one thought not to.

I think I'm done in this one. Let's see what happens.

We agree on the best way to ensure given speeds. So I agree this change is imperfect especially as a standalone measure. However a) there is still good evidence that 30 to 20 reduction reduces speeds b) early numbers from this change show that effect here and c) that enhances safety. It can certainly facilitate other benefits (more pleasant for active travel etc.)

Oh OK, 'afore I go...
From your repeated "bringing limits into contempt" is it that you have some other concern than mere road safety? I am more interested in the safety aspect (and actually "nicer places and active travel") than law or adherence to rules per se. Is it that you have a different focus (eg. respect for law in general)? After all lots of drivers already treat parts of road law with contempt. And a small but sadly significant minority extend that contempt to include the wellbeing of others in the way of their vehicle (or indeed who failed to "respect ma authority!" in some way).

What do you mean by "prohibiting the behaviour of some of the safest drivers on the road"? Who are these people? What is being prohibited (to remind ourselves - by changing some 30mph roads to 20mph)? How does that reduce safety?

"forcing the police to target them " Who is doing this and how are they doing it? There are people speeding (on roads with limits other than 20mph), driving on the pavement, running red lights, driving without insurance and licences and stealing bicycles - right now. Who is forcing the police to target them? How are the police managing to avoid doing so? If someone was forcing the police to do this, what activities do you think the police should be prioritising policing instead?

What are your suggestions as to when or how redesigning and rebuilding all our roads to a certain design speed is going to happen? Or is the idea simply to go round, measure that drivers are speeding (IIRC the numbers show most are, at least slightly, in some places) then just increase speed limits in most places? Since the psychological anchoring effect exists what evidence is there that overall speeds will not increase where this is done? How will increased speed on a road improve road safety (or anything, really)?

As far as I am aware, there is evidence to suggest that 20mph speed limits work well on roads that naturally lend themselves to lower speeds. I've never seen a study that suggests it's a good idea to set speed limits uniformly low with complete indifference to traffic speeds or engineering recommendations, as the Welsh government has done. In fact, including such roads in the lower limits can undermine the effectiveness of lower speed limits where they do make sense.

It's important to note that when non-compliance with speed limits is as high as I mentioned, those trying to obey the law may unintentionally increase their accident risk by driving significantly slower than the mean flow of traffic.

Regarding the point about 'prohibiting the behaviour of safer drivers,' what I meant is that these lower limits can unintentionally prohibits the behaviour of drivers who are already driving safely, such as those going well below 30mph and into the low 20s when it's clearly safe to do so under prevailing conditions. Speed limits are typically meant to presume ideal conditions because, unlike people, they can't adapt in real time. Factors like rain, darkness, parked cars along the road, excess pedestrians, and sightlines ahead should naturally influence people's speed. That's why there has always been a need for other laws, such as careless and reckless driving, to address behaviour not aligned with the road conditions.
People going well below 30mph if it's clearly safe to be doing so are still being sensible.
Suggesting that these individuals are no longer sensible simply because the speed limit has changed is an appeal to the law. Without considering the broader context the existence of a law doesn't necessarily make it a good one. They could enact a law mandating people to sit on a chair and eat milk, bread, and pine needles for sustenance, that doesn't inherently make it a good law.
Where speed limits are bases on traffic speeds, those breaking the limits will overwhelmingly be same drivers to run red lights, tailgate and generally driver like c**ts.

People who don't drive inappropriately to the conditions are overwhelmingly not doing so due to a lack of signage to tell them not to. For instance, I once avoided an accident involving two children in Cardiff by driving well below 30mph because it clearly wasn't safe to be going faster on a busy shopping street filled with people.
When it comes to road design, where people and cars meet it's better to design the roads in a way that causes uncertainty in drivers' minds such as lowering kerbs and removing traffic controls, this can not only cause a better road environment for vehicles, cyclist and pedestrians, it also helps reduce pollution. As for faster main roads, it's a good idea to give people plenty of places to cross safely such as installing refuge islands etc

Ah the refuge island.

You don't ride a bicycle on the roads do you? You'd understand how 'the pinch point' adds to the conflict between the vulnerable cyclist and the invulnerable motorist.

And judging by the state of the retro reflective bollards on the ones I ride past, they don't offer too much refuge to pedestrians.

My apologies, I didn't leave like I said. I will get my coat, honest...

ajuk.uk [at] gmail.com wrote:

... that naturally lend themselves to lower speeds. I've never seen a study that suggests it's a good idea to set speed limits uniformly low with complete indifference to traffic speeds or engineering recommendations, as the Welsh government has done.

Well I guess you'd say "two wrongs don't make a right" but are you aware that they didn't go through a careful road design and behaviour monitoring process for every current 30mph zone? Nope, it's just a default, also applied without this process. Actually many places where it does apply do share an important characteristic - people are likely to be present outside of motor vehicles. The "engineering" point being that they are significantly less likely to die when hit at speeds closer to 20mph than 30mph.

ajuk.uk [at] gmail.com wrote:

... lower limits can unintentionally prohibits the behaviour of drivers who are already driving safely, such as those going well below 30mph and into the low 20s when it's clearly safe to do so under prevailing conditions. Speed limits are typically meant to presume ideal conditions because, unlike people, they can't adapt in real time.

Still not getting this. There are laws against the consumption of some drugs in this country and age restrictions on others. The existence of those laws (arbitrary, and far from universally adhered to) is not "prohibiting me from staying sober" eg. if I see others indulging at parties?

There's certainly peer pressure in both cases (and other valid arguments like the point about eg. road design guiding behaviour etc) - that's understood but doesn't invalidate the notion of having a rule in the first place?

The fact that many drivers do not drive to the conditions is equally a separate issue. And one that I believe is already legislated for via inconsiderate / careless driving charges. Simply having a higher or lower number on a sign doesn't have much to do with that.

I'm very happy to concur that that driving to conditions should also be taken far more seriously than it is. (Witness all the "sun in my eyes" / "I couldn't not stop in time as it was wet" / "I did not see them as it was dark" excuses and mitigation in courts). If you are proposing all signs be dynamic (eg. can reduce the limit as local conditions change) that bears consideration. Although again it's probably a prohibitively expensive way of addressing this. Seeing as we've already crossed the in- car- tech rubicon self- limiting accelerators / navigation devices which lower displayed limits might be a more realistic way forward?

ajuk.uk [at] gmail.com wrote:

Without considering the broader context the existence of a law doesn't necessarily make it a good one. ...
Where speed limits are bases on traffic speeds, those breaking the limits will overwhelmingly be same drivers to run red lights, tailgate and generally driver like c**ts....where people and cars meet it's better to design the roads in a way that causes uncertainty in drivers' minds such as lowering kerbs and removing traffic controls, this can not only cause a better road environment for vehicles, cyclist and pedestrians, it also helps reduce pollution.

Summarising there. Two points - do you actually think there shouldn't be speed limits AT ALL and that we should then just police "appropriate driving" (I'm assuming you're OK with enforcement on this issue? ) ? Of course we already do/can police exactly this (see all the "police funnies " tweets like "we spotted this driver with a aofa on their bonnet and stopped them..."). It's just not that common to meet police and they're normally going elsewhere on some other errands.

The last bit appears to be a reference to the "shared space" concept. Sadly this has been found in practice to be one from the "good idea fairy" in that there are extremely limited circumstances under which it "works". (I believe one of the originators later acknowledged this). It doesn't "work" for the blind / partially sighted at all really.

https://www.aviewfromthecyclepath.com/2014/12/the-devastating-effect-of-...

Plenty more here:

https://www.aviewfromthecyclepath.com/search/label/shared%20space
As soon as there are more than a couple of motor vehicles it only really works for their occupants, not pedestrians or cyclists. A version limited to cyclists and pedestrians works a bit better but still is unpleasant and inconvenient once the numbers of either mode creep up.

Hence the Dutch principles of a) separation of traffic by speed / mass / direction and b) clarity - ensuring those within a space know *exactly* where they are and what behaviours are expected of them.

https://bicycledutch.wordpress.com/2021/01/06/the-third-edition-of-susta...

(Which finally returns to the best way to do spaces for transport - design the road so it cues drivers about what route of road it is and effectively sets its own speed. Sadly the opposite of how we've mostly designed roads in the UK or rather we've decided it's safer to make most of them wide as possible and with wide radius corners etc...)

To address your first point, the Atkins report states that average (free-flowing) traffic speeds only decrease by about 1.3 mph. However, this decrease is for a 10 mph drop in the speed that people are being told to expect traffic to be moving at. The Atkins report also examined schemes where most main roads are exempt.

Some very high-standard roads in Manchester saw speed increases after the speed limit was lowered, as did two roads in Bristol. I am aware of a dual carriageway near my location with a 30 mph speed limit that has a higher average speed than another one a few miles away with a 50 mph limit. This stark difference between speeds and speed limits surprised me when I first encountered this data.

I have spoken to police officers and driving examiners, all of whom were surprised by the data from road traffic counters (RTCs).
I initially became aware of this when I filed an FOI request for an urban 40 mph road near me and some other local high-standard 30 mph limit roads.
I had a suspicion that the average speed on the 40 mph limit road would only be slightly higher. However, when they sent me the response showing that the average speed on the 30-limit roads were all significantly higher, that's when I had the realisation.

The Strongtowns video I mentioned before explains why speed limits are different to other laws, non-compliance is not purely about wilful disobedience to the law. The 30mph limit doesn't work because people are just used to it, it's the speed most sensible people would not exceed in the absence of a speed limit. They didn't go through a process for every 30 zones, however, that's why it's good that UK limits rely on the process of streetlights and then you have reckless and dangerous driving laws. You go exactly 30mph down a tight street residential side street lined with parked cars and run over a child you can't use "I wasn't speeding" as a defence in court.

I don't really understand your analogy to drug laws, it just seems like a strawman.

Yes, there should be speed limits, if you're having to ask you're not following me but their primary purpose is to single out the drivers trying to use roads as if it's their own personal race track, not the normal behaviour of ordinary drivers and not be seen by drivers as a target speed.

If you're speedo broke, could you driver safely?

ajuk.uk [at] gmail.com wrote:

A driver coming across a speed limit sign in open fields is highly likely to either miss it or dismiss it as irrelevant, increasing the chance they maintain an inappropriate speed through the village.
If people are not slowing down before they reach the speed limit signs, this is a learned behaviour that comes about from councils setting the limit signs back.
People in general are more likely to obey and make an effort to obey rules they perceive as reasonable and make sense, this is called the Pygmalion Effect, you show people contempt, they will respond accordingly.
TBF no matter what speed limit you set there people will speed up naturally as it will feel safe to do so as the posted speed limit does not match the one implied by the road's design.
These limits I very much doubt are being set by advice from traffic engineers, it's merely councils responding to demands from people who want the rules set in a way that they think will make them safer. Limits set too low or too high can reduce safety, it's not a contest to see how low you can set them.

I’m done with bargaining with drivers, I’m done with driver psychology, done with trying design the roads to cause drivers to slow down. We have been asking drivers nicely for 100 years now and look at how we are repaid day after bloody day.

A competition to see the lowest speed limit - very well put - bring it. The motor industry has been allowed to put these 2 tonne high-speed weapons in 100,000s of people’s hands - that needs to be curtailed with a black box device in every car so it cannot be mis-used by anyone in any way.

David9694 wrote:

A competition to see the lowest speed limit - very well put - bring it. The motor industry has been allowed to put these 2 tonne high-speed weapons in 100,000s of people’s hands - that needs to be curtailed with a black box device in every car so it cannot be mis-used by anyone in any way.

If you blackbox a car so that it's full control is taken from the drivist, many drivists will use their remaining control to continue their efforts to employ their car as a weapon in service of their churning lower brain. When they do their various harms, they'll use the blackbox as an excuse or scapegoat. "The black box dun it!"

The fundamental issue is the nature of motorised transport of the unrailed kind. They're inherently dangerous because of their mass, speed and freedom to go about spaces in which there are all sorts of things, including people, which are highly vulnerable to their least deviation from being properly controlled. 

Rather than have segregated infrastructure for cyclists, peds, horseriders and so forth, there should be segregated infrastucture for motorised transport. Essentially, put them all on railed tracks, fenced off from other spaces in which they currently become such a danger.

Roads for peds, cyclists and horse riders only. How safe they would become! Tracks for your car, the vans and the lorries with automated driving. Beeching killed a lot of it but it could always be built back. ..... But I'm forgetting that HS2 debacle ..... .

Cugel wrote:

The fundamental issue is the nature of motorised transport of the unrailed kind. They're inherently dangerous because of their mass, speed and freedom to go about spaces in which there are all sorts of things, including people, which are highly vulnerable to their least deviation from being properly controlled. 

I can imagine people dropping their phones at this point (maybe into their cup holders or footwells) and exploding "they're after our freedoms!"

Cugel wrote:

Rather than have segregated infrastructure for cyclists, peds, horseriders and so forth, there should be segregated infrastucture for motorised transport. Essentially, put them all on railed tracks, fenced off from other spaces in which they currently become such a danger.

It's a seductive picture. And I note that again NL have actually taken a step towards this by banning (and sometimes physically preventing) overtaking on a class of roads. This is actually solely for drivers' safety; such roads by law already requiring separate provision for horsists, footists and cyclists.

Unfortunately I'm still not a believer in "we only need to take the motorists off the roads". As I've mentioned before cyclists and pedestrians mixing is not ideal - even in a bigger space. We all like to walk / cycle "abreast" and spread out to fill space. Better to give each mode its own area. Which can however be adjacent without safety issues or creating an unpleasant environment, unlike e.g. motorways.

Our current roads are almost all far wider than would be needed even if you could instantly replace cars by bikes - which is not ideal for those crossing them. Narrower NL cycle paths (which still appear 3-lane-motorways-wide to a UK cyclist) are better here. No trouble to traverse without needing formal crossings.

As for horses... I'm a bit prejudiced but I'm leery about sharing space with these highly strung high-speed fermentation vats on spindly legs. And if I'm on one of my funny bikes apparently the feeling's mutual. Also roads are tough on their finger-and-toenails and they need special tap-shoes.

I don't think of full pedestrianisation e.g of a set town centre streets as an ultimate goal. It would be ok if drivers could play nicely (black box) and were a lot fewer. 

Horses on the roads are pretty niche, so not really on the cycling worry list, even the unshod "stealth" horses and donkeys of the New Forest.

I attempted to provide an explanation that delves into the psychology behind speed limit non-compliance, but it appears that you've reverted to a hasty generalization about a specific group of individuals solely based on their status as drivers.

ajuk.uk [at] gmail.com wrote:

These limits I very much doubt are being set by advice from traffic engineers, it's merely councils responding to demands from people who want the rules set in a way that they think will make them safer. Limits set too low or too high can reduce safety, it's not a contest to see how low you can set them.

I missed that bit! The Ranty Highwayman (an actual UK civil engineer) has an article which may be of interest. It's on why ultimately how we design our roads (what we design them *for*) is indeed a political choice. That's despite efforts of politicians to push the buck back to engineers... (The article is in the context of installing pedestrian crossings but the same applies for other things "that show drivers down!" )

https://therantyhighwayman.blogspot.com/2021/12/invitation-to-cross.html...

A look at a different transport system and how slightly different overall *choices* of goals lead to some radically different designs and rules might also be interesting:

https://bicycledutch.wordpress.com/2021/01/06/the-third-edition-of-susta...

https://swov.nl/en/fact-sheet/sustainable-road-safety

ajuk.uk [at] gmail.com wrote:

These limits I very much doubt are being set by advice from traffic engineers, it's merely councils responding to demands from people who want the rules set in a way that they think will make them safer. Limits set too low or too high can reduce safety, it's not a contest to see how low you can set them.

Isn't it more of a contest to see how close to zero deaths we can get? So far, all the various 20mph speed limits around the UK have reduced traffic fatalities, so it seems like a quick and easy method of saving lives. I think you can make valid cases for certain roads to have higher limits, but it very much depends on how well drivers can handle higher speeds without hitting people and/or buildings.

You're mixing up speed limits with actual traffic speeds.

ajuk.uk [at] gmail.com wrote:

You're mixing up speed limits with actual traffic speeds.

Well, there's clearly some correlation between the two. The idea is that without either a mechanical intervention or neural implants, the easiest way to reduce the speed of drivers it to change the speed limits.

Good news, took a spin this morning, they are listening. New signs have gone up, it's now been exempted and staying at a 30 brilliant let's hope that going forward we can see more of this. 

Well that proves that the other comments about "but but we won't be able to change the limits" are bunk.

I reckon you could turn that into 80 with some paint or black tape!

Also - for safety and to match reality (rather than some misplaced idealism) / enhance compliance you can make a 70 into a 90 pretty simply also!

If it saves one life (and the Labour party in Wales)...

On a less snarky note, at least there is a footway there, albeit not one likely to encourage rare pedestrians or non-racing-snake cyclists to share.  (FWIW I think the Dutch solution for the countryside is about right - build decent cycle paths *instead* of footways in most instances.  It's entirely legal for pedestrians to walk on them.  There won't be many of either mode - if there are, you need a different solution - so sharing works just fine.  Indeed it's far more common that people cycle say half a mile or more than walk - it's more convenient!)

One more thing - I don't think that section of road would have been covered by the 20mph default anyway. Given the lack of lampposts, it would not have been classed as a "restricted road", which is why it was (a long time previously) NSL. In order to change from NSL to 30mph, the Council would have needed to make an Order, backed with repeater signs (which you can see e.g. here).  

New, more promient signage is now needed to mark the transition from "restricted road" (with 20mph limit) to the section where the speed limit has remained 30mph by virtue of the pre-existing Order.

20 mph limit = a safer world and a nicer world  Drivers and non-drivers included. Which whinge are you running with, drivers? 

• The rule is too straightforward; or
• The rule is too complex 

Not very interested in driver compliance as an argument. Drivers don't rule the bloody planet. 

Not all that interested, as chrisonatrike describes, in the designation of small segments of road at different speeds as an attempt at a compromise - drivers will prove that themselves with a "we're terribly confused by all this" article, e.g. from towns that sit on the border.  

[ duplicate post - website choppy - needs more cowbell]

David9694 wrote:

[ duplicate post - website choppy - needs more cowbell]

But failing to take into account real-world human behaviour is just obstinate.
You can make a road more dangerous with a limit set too low or too high relative to its engineering for that reason.

ajuk.uk [at] gmail.com wrote:

The problem is that it almost is, the guidence for exceptions do not allow councils to take into account traffic speeds and engineering recomendations in the allowence for making exceptions, as if there was never a reason to do that and no one had previously concidered not to. 

The guidance does allow this, and if the councils choose to do so they can very easily apply for exceptions. Swansea Council certainly have done, with many roads staying at 30. In several of those exceptions they have pointed out the lack of previous incidents as reason to keep the 30, even on roads with several shops and lots of pedestrians crossing frequently. Looking at DataMapWales I suspect many councils have been less proactive, and have used their powers to apply for (sensible) exceptions far less than they perhaps should've done.

ajuk.uk [at] gmail.com wrote:

The problem is that it almost is, the guidence for exceptions do not allow councils to take into account traffic speeds and engineering recomendations in the allowence for making exceptions, as if there was never a reason to do that and no one had previously concidered not to. 

The guidance does allow this, and if the councils choose to do so they can very easily apply for exceptions. Swansea Council certainly have done, with many roads staying at 30. In several of those exceptions they have pointed out the lack of previous incidents as reason to keep the 30, even on roads with several shops and lots of pedestrians crossing frequently. Looking at DataMapWales I suspect many councils have been less proactive, and have used their powers to apply for (sensible) exceptions far less than they perhaps should've done.

It is not a blanket 20mph at all, that is a myth that has been mainly been made up by the Tories for political point scoring.

20mph will only be near a school, hospital, community centre, rows of houses/shops, housing estates ie potentially large concentrations of pedestrians or cyclists travelling along or across a road.

Local authorities had the power to keep roads at 30mph and they all had a consultation process with the public before implementation, so that locals could have their say so things were done correctly.

Roads can be reviewed and errors corrected by local authorities once things have had a chance to bed in.

It has transformed the village I live in and made the environment much more pleasant and many feel the same, they just do not feel inclined to scream and shout about it on social media..

As for the petition, it can be signed by the same person multiple times and people from all over the world have signed, so making it worthless, it will be debated in the Senedd and then binned, believe me.

There will be no cost to Labour, when the drama queens and the cultists get bored and move onto something else or go back to ULEZ drama to shout about, things will settle down.

I hope you're correct

Well I heard the average speed in many cities was less than 20mph - indeed Edinburgh is at around 14mph.

Ergo we don't need speed limits in cities!  What a waste of signs!

Maybe those numbers are a lie though?  The other day I was cycling through town and I ended up waiting at some lights for over a minute not even moving!  That's nowhere near 14mph?!

Also I can't work out how these cars keep smashing through walls and demolishing bus shelters in urban areas though.  Maybe their drivers are just getting out and pushing them very hard?

Since it is now the default limit in Wales, there are only signs at the boundaries - and the lamp posts are the signs !

Like the one on inverleith row (20 limit) a couple of weeks ago?
"The car flipped up, flew across the road, and then landed on its roof, wiping out the bus stop."
Must have got caught by a crosswind.