Over half of Londoners think councils prefer improving roads for drivers over safety of cyclists and pedestrians, as majority call for more Low Traffic Neighbourhoods and 20mph limits, new study finds

ajuk.uk [at] gmail.com wrote:

The problem with a blanket 20mph limit is that not all roads are of the same standard, yet this approach treats them as if they are, disregarding the reasons behind engineering recommendations for setting speed limits.

Is there a problem with driving at 20 mph on roads built to a higher standard? Does it affect you so much by taking a few seconds longer to drive somewhere or reach the back of the queue of vehicles in front? Because, let's face it, most urban journeys are stop-start due to traffic lights, road furniture and the sheer number of vehicles, which all have a far greater impact on journey times than speed limits.

The recent stats from Wales suggest that casualty rates and insurance claims have dropped significantly since the new limit. Has anyone really suffered because they are expected to travel at or below 20 mph now instead of 30?

And exceptions to the so-called 'blanket' 20 mph limit* do exist. There are plenty of urban and extra-urban roads with 30 mph limits. The main problem with this topic that too many drivers simply want to do 30 mph (or more) for selfish reasons.

* it is not a blanket, as you'd know if you live or regularly drive in Wales.

Like Linus, some folks seem unable to let go of the blanket.  Even though there was one previously (30mph blanket, applying to ... er ... the same roads), and there are other unaffected ones ("derestricted" / NSL blanket).

They're right though, the "best in class" idea for changing speeds / behaviours is to make the road design follow the desired function and "cue" the appropriate speed (more or less) *.

Also (some) people have severe loss-aversion when it comes to small reductions in the amazing facilities that we've provided, everywhere, for people driving.  Some tend to throw their toys out of the pram.  Even though they've still got the lion's share of toys.

A subtle point is that opinion does matter - overall we do rely on "social pressures" / norms and conformity.  It's unlikely the UK would be able to "police it better" if everyone dug their heels in (and/or there was market pressure - see "war on some drugs"...).  Or not without transforming greatly and becoming a police state / recruiting sufficient numbers of informers -unlikely if we're positing "nobody will obey this".

However the positive side of social conformity is that in fact it works so well that merely changing the numbers on the signs does indeed make a difference!  (Of course there are other reasons e.g. "anchoring effect" etc.)

One trick we're missing with lower motoring speeds though is to push harder on providing better facilities for cycling and also public transport.  There's a potential virtuous circle we could access as follows.

At least in NL it may make getting public buy-in for motor traffic reduction easier.  They can point out that it's needed to open the way for benefits like faster and more reliable public transit and more (separate) space for cycling.  And in addition to create more areas where motor traffic is slow and infrequent enough that everyone feels safe enough to cycle on the streets and thus new separate infra is not needed.

* Lots of ways to do this (e.g. here).  UK designers already understand this idea - although mostly in the opposite direction e.g. how can we make it safer for drivers given they're going at speed!

Well, if something is clearly engineered in a certain way, sticking a sign up telling people not to do it without any design changes is a bit of a psyop. The word 'expected' is a bit loaded because it’s based on the assumption that a speed limit is something you just set, rather than being based on traffic speeds.

While I’m stating that speed limits are mainly a tool to single out reckless drivers, they’re most effective at lowering speeds and reducing accidents when they align closely with engineering recommendations or are set just below them. When you see non-compliance as high as 99.4%, as was measured in Magor, the reason can’t be reduced to a hasty generalization about people in cars. This shows what happens when speed limits are set without considering speeds as a function of their setting. The limit was lowered as a direct response to high non-compliance with the existing speed limit instead of raising it, which led to this situation.

Expectation isn’t self-existing; if you show people a lower expectation, they are less likely to respond positively. If the limit comes across as contemptuous, people are less likely to make an effort to obey it. This is known as the Pygmalion Effect.

Often, those behind these schemes are the most vocal about people simply needing to 'obey speed limits.' They advocate for limits set at such a low level that it causes ridiculous levels of non-compliance, which doesn’t make sense. This also places the onus on the behaviour of the more sensible drivers and forces the police to target them, detracting from their ability to focus on those least likely to slow down and most likely to cause harm—even though it's maniacs and 'reckless car culture' that are often alluded to for dropping the limits.

That's not the main reason why non-compliance is often so high. One of the weak arguments against this is that people complain they will need to drive around watching their speedometers. That’s a flawed argument because it’s not true; most people want to avoid crashing or running someone over and tend to drive at a speed they feel comfortable with on that road. This behaviour is more a function of how our brains work. Charles Marohn made a video explaining this in more detail.

That’s also why raising a speed limit can have a negligible effect on average speed but an enormous effect on compliance. If they want more people to use public transport, including almost all main roads means that includes the roads most buses use and buses often have to adhere to limits while cars don't.

So, while I’ve seen conflicting data on the effectiveness of the scheme in Wales, even if it did work, that doesn’t mean it wouldn’t work better if the lower limits were more strategically placed on roads suited to such limits. The way it is now, it looks like an effort has been made to bring speed limits into contempt.

Tell it to the meeja.

I suspect that they don't realise they are unsafe.

If more people cycled, drivers in particular, they'd quickly realise how poor most cycling infrastructure is. Cycle training should be a compulsory component in the driving test. Trikes or power assist hand cycles should be available for those who can't ride a bicycle.

bensynnock wrote:

I suspect that they don't realise they are unsafe.

That kind of driver attitude really snaps my cranks. It's typically a topic that they know almost nothing about as they don't cycle, but for some reason they suddenly believe that they know better than the cyclists that avoid the badly designed/implemented cycle lanes for very good reasons.

Why do these people believe that cyclists don't know what's best for themselves?

"Why do these people believe that cyclists don't know what's best for themselves?"

Because they (drivers) are paid-up first class highway citizens and cyclists are ignorant free-loading scum?

A cultural norm reinforced by the media, police, courts, judges and juries. 

While the suffragettes were fighting embedded ignorance across society I can't help but compare this degree of cultural hatred with the UK's current attitudes towards people on bicycles.