MEPs push for 30kph (18.641mph) limit on residential roads throughout Europe

I drive, in fact I've even been a white van man at times, I'll even admit to occasionally exceeding the speed limit, I dont have children and I cant see how a 20 mph speed limit in residential areas is an act of selfishness.

I think some roads should possibly be even lower than that, I grew up playing football on streets (and two weeks a year of street tennis when Wimbledon came around) and didnt have to worry about cars speeding down the road. If kids tried that now on the same street they would almost certainly be cleaned out, more than likely by someone cutting through to Tesco.

I suspect that most people who live in a residential area and have kids, want a 20mph limit outside their house. It is a massive act of selfishness to want a 30mph limit everywhere else.

I am torn between the devil and the deep blue sea on this.
As a cyclist and a Grandad 20mph is good but as a motorist its not always so good. The problem is speed limits need to make sense to all users and even I can cycle faster than 20 with a fair wind; so does 20 apply to me too?
To a motorist 20 only makes sense in very limited areas like school zones; heaven help the BMW that runs over my Granddaughter. But elsewhere else its very slow progress and drivers need to be able to see why it applies in order to respect it.
Like most things safety is basically common sense but sense is so often spoiled by the do-good brigade; speed humps being a perfect example of good intentions giving bad outcomes for all users.

I am all for reducing speed limits in residential streets, and side roads, but I can't help feel that it will give people a false sense of security. Nowadays, all of the blame is on the driver, because they are in a big motor-driven metal box, yet the people that walk out in front of them are allowed to do so.

Reducing speed limits to 20mph, will make people think that it is safe for their children to play football in the road out the front, and that there is less danger. There may be less deaths, but there will still be injuries, and surely we should be trying to reduce that as much as we are deaths.

I just think that pedestrians will get the wrong idea by reducing speed limits, after all these are roads we are talking about, surely it should be the pedestrians responsibility to look around them and not walk accross a road if a car is coming, not the driver's responsabilty to drive so slowly that if a pedestrian does decide they want to walk out they can stop? We should be encouraging use of parks for children to play in, and zebra crossings for people to cross at.

On the note of efficiency, I know from closely monitoring my mpg needle, that my car is most fuel-efficient around the 40-50mpg range, and at 20mph you will be continuosly changing up and down between 1st, 2nd and 3rd gear, which isn't fuel-efficient at all. It's also worth noting that at 20mph, in say 3rd gear, most cars will be running at practically idle, and will be almost silent. While this is generally good, it will only add to the 'false sense of security'.

deleted

Let's face it, most cars do not travel at a constant speed in rush-hour congestion. It's stop-start,gear-stick shuffle stuff. The 20 mph limit's most important when the congestion isn't there.

it would encourage more cycling and that's good. More bikes=fewer cars.

Then we want to exclude I-C vehicles from town centres.

"However, there is no reason why other EU countries (with a more enlightened attitude to road danger reduction than ours) shouldn't make a success of it."

It's worth bearing in mind that the UK has some of the safest roads in Europe. Only Sweden and Norway (the latter is not in the EU of course) have lower fatality rates in road accidents. Given that the UK also has some of the highest vehicle densities/km of road of any developed nation, this is of particular note. Italy has roughly the same population as the UK, just under 60 million. Yet Italy's road fatality rate dipped just under 4,000 during 2010, compared with 2,222 in the UK. Italy by no means has the most dangerous roads in the EU, though it is worth noting that data from Switzerland shows that the country's Italian speaking cantons have significantly higher accident levels than the German speaking cantons, with the French speaking areas slotting somewhere in between (perhaps only the Swiss could be so precise with such data).

The accident black spot for road deaths in the EU was previously held by Greece and Portugal. But since the EU was widened and Eastern European countries allowed, the appalling road accident rates of Romania and Bulgaria in particular have highlighted the need for harmonised action on road safety.

France and Portugal have had particular success in reducing road accidents due to a combination of measures, with much tougher enforcement by police being a key factor. You can say what you like about Jacques Chirac during his tenure as French president (corrupt is a common criticism) but one definitely positive mark he made on France (and which will probably be mentioned in his epitaph when he no longer walks this mortal coil) was his campaigning of the safer road policy and the crackdown on drink driving in particular.

Introducing 20mph limits in built-up areas won't necessarily increase fuel consumption given that average speeds in congested London can be just 10-11mph anyway. Better phasing of traffic lights would also help encourage drivers to drive more slowly. Careful drivers will still drive carefully, rubbish drivers (in BMWs) will still be rubbish but both braking distances and impact forces will be lessened, almost inevitably saving lives.

If you want to drive fast, go to a race track. That's what I do.

Cars today may operate most efficiently at a continuous ~50mph, but that's irrelevant as cars can't keep to a continuous speed on residential roads - and they certainly should NOT be doing anywhere 50mph in them! That also applies to any mixed-use urban roads. Even ignoring the existence of 30mph speed limits today, cars simply can't average much over 20mph on such roads. Traffic lights, frequent junctions, etc. are going to keep them waiting for significant amounts of time. Accelerating to 30mph only leads to longer idling at lights.

Cars would almost certainly be more efficient if driven more slowly, closer to the average speed than the limit in urban areas. Dropping limits to 20mph would quite likely *help* drivers achieve that, and so save them fuel!

In my opinion the arguments against 20 limits in residential areas are either bogus, or just symptomatic of the British driver's obsession with their "right" to drive as they like and damn the consequences.

Many residential streets in the UK are blighted by rat-running drivers travelling too fast for the conditions. Its obvious that over the decades our streets, which were once places to live and play in, have been hijacked and turned into places mainly for driving through and parking in.

20 limits would obviously only be a first step to re-humanising our neighbourhoods, but it would at least be a start. Of course, as others have suggested, without enforcement the effectiveness of the limit would be weakened. However, there is no reason why other EU countries (with a more enlightened attitude to road danger reduction than ours) shouldn't make a success of it.

Personally, I don't agree with this. It's nannying going too far again. My opinion is that those likely to cause the problems are going to be causing the problems whether the sign says 20 or 50mph. It's largely a mentality thing, those that are considerate and able to drive well (which funnily enough should be taught and subsequently tested in the driving test) won't cause a problem, and those that are tools will - and that's certainly borne out by my commuting experience.

And then there's a whole plethora of impacts from emissions, journey time, delivery schedules etc. All these will have to be costed into an equation somewhere, and that costing will make its way into product prices, but in order to maintain margins, won't make it into salaries and benefits. Sound familiar?

This whole concept is basically coming down to we can't enforce the existing rules we've got, because it's too expensive to do so, so how about we come up with an arbitrary limit which may reduce casualties, and obviously only put a positive spin on it by using the headline of casualty reduction.

Oh, and not to forget the lack of investment in driver education, discrepancies in licence and driving standards, and equally, free movement of labour and transport has to stay, as everything in the EU is equal.

Aah - my bad - for the Oldsmobile I was reading the Celica - missed the hatching on the lines - was just going by colour

Quote:

I live in a 20mph zone, and aside from people (mostly residents, this is an isolated housing estate and not generally used as a rat run) largely not observing the speed limit, when confronted with a vehicle, the driver will either assert themselves in such a way that I am forced to the kerb, or use their horn as a kind of 'get out of my way' device, even if my speed is only a couple of mph below the 20 limit. Some drivers even mount the dropped kerbs and undertake at speed, this is something that happens depressingly often.

I must admit I've seen this behaviour as well - the last leg of my commute home is a one-way system with a 20mph limit - the road is normal width but one side is lined with parked cars.

The number of times I've had drivers sit right up my bahookie revving their engines, just to have them do only a couple of mph more once past me, is quite annoying.

Quote:

The argument that you must cut speed to reduce those injuries can be carried ad absurdum until the roads are closed

It can. but the big gains are made between 40mph and 20mph. Above 40mph, hit a ped and there's every chance you'll kill them. 20mph and below, nearly all collisions are survivable. that makes it the sensible driving speed for any residential street, in my opinion. The aim is to *halve* road deaths.

Quote:

the benefits to society of being able to move people and goods around more quickly

I'm yet to be convinced that in a city environment, reducing the speed limit to 20mph would have much effect on overall journey times at all, especially at peak times.

Quote:

If you tend to drive outside of peak times, as I do, wouldn't you say that 20mph is unncessarily slow?

yes, maybe. Personally I'm all for a slower speed limit at peak times with the 30mph limit remaining in place off-peak, especially on through routes. But that's a pretty big headache in terms of making people understand what the limits are and when. Given the choice of slightly dull evening drives through town, and a lot less people dying as a result of slower traffic, i'll take that choice.

Quote:

Don't forget, these are _blanket_ city wide speed limits

on residential streets and single lane roads, yes. not on arterial roads and larger through routes that goods traffic will tend to use.

Quote:

Here is a chart from 1997 showing some steady speed fuel efficiencies for a selection of cars

wow, those are some pretty representative cars of european driving habits, no? I'm glad i'm not driving around in an oldsmobile cutlass

That said, I'd still support a 20mph limit (if only it could be enforced effectively).

I live in a 20mph zone, and aside from people (mostly residents, this is an isolated housing estate and not generally used as a rat run) largely not observing the speed limit, when confronted with a vehicle, the driver will either assert themselves in such a way that I am forced to the kerb, or use their horn as a kind of 'get out of my way' device, even if my speed is only a couple of mph below the 20 limit. Some drivers even mount the dropped kerbs and undertake at speed, this is something that happens depressingly often.

dave_atkinson wrote:

What, so we shouldn't try and reduce those injuries and deaths? come on.

I didn't say that. I said that, regardless of speed, there will still be injuries and deaths. The argument that you must cut speed to reduce those injuries can be carried ad absurdum until the roads are closed. Less injuries at 20 than 30? Slow down to 20. Less at 10 than 20? Slow down to 10. 5? 3? 1? The argument in itself doesn't carry any balances.

Therefore, in cold (hearted) dispassionate terms, there must come a point at which the benefits to society of being able to move people and goods around more quickly is balanced with the human cost of life and limb. I simply disagree that such a point is at 20mph.

Don't forget, these are _blanket_ city wide speed limits. They apply 24 hours a day, even when the rush hour and jams are finished and the school kids are in bed.

If you tend to drive outside of peak times, as I do, wouldn't you say that 20mph is unncessarily slow?

spen wrote:

Both my car, a Nissan Micra and the Astra td I drive for work can comfortably do 20 in fourth gear with the engine running at little more than idle - I fail to see why you would be in second, unless you're driving a clarkson mobile

A bus? A lorry? A delivery van? None of these are particularly noted for their low-speed efficiencies, and we are talking about cities where such vehicles are more likely. Try going up a small hill at 20 in 4th gear.

Here is a chart from 1997 showing some steady speed fuel efficiencies for a selection of cars. With a couple of notable exceptions, 30mph returns significantly higher mpg than at 20mph. Hence 20mpg uses more fuel, hence more pollution, in the city centre. This is less relevant during rush/jam hour when no-one is moving anyway, but at off peak times it just seems wrong to me to force vehicles to use more fuel.

I just disagree. 20mph is too low a limit in my opinion. My final word.

It's only about speed though is it? Well, not to me anyway and yes, I have been hit by a car before!

What I mean is this:

When out on the road doing my 'local loop' I use roads that have 20, 30 and 40mph limits. I find that the close encounters come in the 20mph zone 9 times out of 10.

In the 40mph zone for example, I am given a wide bearth when being passed. Yet there seems to be a view point of 'I am only going slowly' at 20mph so I can 'just' squeeze past.

As much as speed plays a part and a big one at that, there are still other factors that a blanket speed limit would not address.

Just mho.

Spen - you'll probably be burning more fuel if you car is in 4th gear than 3rd when driving at 20mph.

On the whole the 20mph limits make sense for side streets. This would save lives, merely because there are so many inattentive drivers and lower speeds give everyone a better chance.

Cars tend to be most efficient in the 50mph range, it's no coincidence that manufacturers use 56mph as a quoted speed for fuel consumption. That's when the engine is operating very efficiently and before the big drag from wind resistance really kicks in. at 20mph they're less efficient than they are at 30mph. But not as inefficient as they are at 70mph, and we don't mind doing that, do we?

@alotronic - cyclists aren't required to fit a speedomoter, so they can't be held legally accountable for breaking a vehicular speed limit.

Quote:

You can keep cutting limits, but there will still be injuries and deaths

What, so we shouldn't try and reduce those injuries and deaths? come on.

Yes indeed - 20mph collisions lead to death in about 5% of cases, 30mph collisions lead to death in about 50% of cases. Quite a big difference.

It is nonsense to say that modern cars can't operate efficiently at 20mph. Again it's basic physics - rolling, wind etc resistance which require power to overcome to maintain a steady speed increase with the square of speed - pwoer consumption per km thus increases linearly with speed. There may be some adjustments around engine friction in lower speeds/lower gears but not enough to overcome these.

Portsmouth also has a city-wide 20 limit on all residential and side streets. Compliance is not universal, but average speeds have come down and motorists are generally more considerate than they are in, say, London. The cost was less than £400 per street to implement it.

Note that cyclists are not limited by motor vehicular speed limits - ie 20 does not apply to cyclists who just must not ride dangerously - I think I've got that right. I think I even read it on this site somewhere.

We are in a London 20 zone and it makes a difference to the people who notice it... still rogue element but overall it's a lot better.

I predict a Mail headline about Eurocrats making us drive at 18.641 m.p.h- or fining motorists who even dare measure their owm speed in m.p.h.

This would be a huge step forward. Of course there are cities like Edinburgh which are already moving to bring in 20 mph speed limits across residential roads, but this proposal would go further and is to be welcomed!

Our estate, which has a junior and middle school, has a 20mph limit and I'd say that on the whole, people stick to it and it's supported by residents. What's more, it's nice to see kids out playing and riding their bikes on the street.

On that note though - as mentioned in this report - some more road safety lessons for kids wouldnt go amiss, I don't think many of them know which side of the road is which.

As long as it's sensibly applied I think it will gain acceptance but there will always people who think its an infringement of their human rights.