Wales set to reduce default speed limit to 20mph in residential areas

This.  In all the debates about road safety one thing stands out: every day apparently licenced "careful competent drivers" go out and total their cars and sometimes themselves on bollards, into houses, into bridges, off carriageways... That's not counting the other vehicles and people they crash into.

https://cyclingfallacies.com/en/16/higher-standards-of-driving-would-mak...

That's a sizeable argument (there are others) for more segregated infra and a better approach to road safety in general.

However that is years off and it's not a reason not to do other things as well.  Even improvements that are small relative to the "proper" infra solution could be worth while.  These might be for safety, to make places more pleasant and / or to encourage what cycling we can.

So let's have this as long as this does indeed bring down the speeds and / or improve safety.  Which may also require a commitment to enforcement (more of it - or any of it!)

Which may also require a commitment to enforcement (more of it - or any of it!)

Sadly, as you suggest, there will be no enforcement. The police can't be bothered with red light offences, vehicles with No MOT, No VED and no insurance etc. so they're no about to bother with this (although it's still a good policy!)

chrisonatrike wrote:

In all the debates about road safety one thing stands out: every day apparently licenced "careful competent drivers" go out and total their cars and sometimes themselves on bollards, into houses, into bridges, off carriageways... That's not counting the other vehicles and people they crash into.

And that doesn't include the drivers that don't crash. A large proportion of those routinely exceed urban speed limits by a large amount when traffic levels allow it - I see it every time I leave the house and find that attitude incredibly selfish and irresponsible. In-vehicle speed limiters cannot come soon enough, especially now that the police are not interested / adequately resourced to enforce speed limits around the country and it's not practical to have ANPR or fixed cameras on every street.

Quote:

Even improvements that are small relative to the "proper" infra solution could be worth while.  These might be for safety, to make places more pleasant and / or to encourage what cycling we can.

Interventions such as School streets, pedestrianised high streets or open spaces and LTNs show that taking away or significantly reducing vehicle numbers has real benefits and can be used to persuade councils to do more.

Applying a blanket 20mph limit is a way of saying that we want to change the way people behave in all such spaces, not merely 'priority' locations such as outside schools. Not much point having a School street if the kids then turn a corner onto one where drivers continue to behave like complete twats - and I'm afraid many of them do. Example:

"Bank Farm Road showed 90 per cent of cars drove above the 30mph limit. "I think it's quite shocking, the speed that we see. The average speed on the road is 36 to 37mph."

My kids used to ride along BFR to secondary school. It runs through the large Radbrook housing estate, past the primary school, day nursery, Co-Op, and doctor's surgery. One end is between two secondary schools (a total of ~2,000 pupils).

https://www.shropshirestar.com/news/local-hubs/shrewsbury/meole-brace/20...

it's not practical to have ANPR or fixed cameras on every street

It wouldn't matter if there were, the police still wouldn't be interested. If you do everything for them, they still won't do anything about No MOT +/- No VED +/- No insurance vehicles. My best guess for why they are prepared to do more work not enforcing these laws is corruption. Once these vehicles, such as Audi PJ07 NFP,  have embarked upon the 'Off Grid' approach to cutting motoring costs, restarting MOTs and VED payments would draw attention to them- it then becomes worthwhile investing in the Lancashire Constabulary Personal Protection Plan

Unless you remove air bags and seatbelts, fit weak bolts to seat runners and fit a large rusty metal spike to the steering wheel I don't think anything will stop most drivers caring about anything other than their own convenience.

I've got a submission in with Warwickshire police (hence not sharing yet) where an Audi Q7 tried to force its way past us on a very single track road. The driver eventually sounded her horn while swerving to the left, seemingly running off the road, harassing my mate. Her excuse when he stopped and blocked her to remonstrate with her for her dangerous driving? - she was late for her school run. When we (eventually) stopped to let her past after a bit of sulking, she amazingly didn't continue on her way but stopped for a chat. I got bored and rode off - in front of her. We stopped again later, and she wanted to chat even though we made it clear we didn't.

That can't be true! Audi Q7 drivers are always safe, observant and competent, along with all other Volkswagen Audi Group vehicle owners.

NOtotheEU wrote:

That can't be true! Audi Q7 drivers are always safe, observant and competent, along with all other Volkswagen Audi Group vehicle owners.

BMW drivers are the best.

Not sure 20 mph is very slow, it is demonstrated in research to be a better speed limit for people to not die when collisions happen and a better speed limit to prevent more collisions happening in the first place.

Australia has some strange speed limits and 40 km/h in school zones is not supported by science but was a political choice. Check out South Australia though who have 25 km/h or 15.5 mph in places where school children are or at road works. Australia is moving to reflect science so would suggest that in the next few years across Australia 30 km/h speed limits will become more normal and with the lead from Wales more pressure will be placed on politicians to make the roads safer.

Well "slow" and "fast" are all relative of course...

I think in e.g. NL the residential limit is often 30 kph - that's actually slightly below 20 mph.  America - land of the car - also has some low residential area speed limits.

Some case studies here:

https://nacto.org/publication/city-limits/the-tools/case-studies-in-lowe...

Not saying it's popular and certainly if you change things to slow people down there will of course be a lot of complaints - but it's certainly done in places.

grOg wrote:

20 mph is very slow for residential areas; for comparison, Australia has the eqivalent of 30 mph for residential areas and 25 mph for shopping precincts and school zones, which is plenty slow enough for safety; enacting limits slower than that is real motor vehicle hating territory.

20mph is about 30% higher than the average speed on A roads where I live. If people start to realise that it doesn't take much longer (and can sometimes be faster) to cycle rather than drive we might see more people choosing to cycle rather than drive.

As for 'motor vehicle hating', you say that like it is a bad thing. What is there not to hate about the great many unnecessary motor vehicle journeys? A 20 mph limit doesn't prevent necessary journeys - it might make them take long, but how much of a problem is that, if they are necessary. I can tell you something else that makes necessary motor vehicle journeys take longer... the many unnecessary motor vehicle journeys.

One of the few joys of driving now is sticking to a 20 limit just to see how irate you can make following cars.

I was doing "plenty" through my local High Street and had a driver pull out in front of me. She was aggrieved that I shouted at her as I had to slow to avoid her. As she then decided she wanted to discuss it, I had a quick "Didn't you see me?" to which the surprising answer was "Yes" so I just rode off. At the other end of the High Street she floored it to get past me - still in the 20. At the bottom of the hill I then had the moral victory of being able to shout at her again for encroaching on my cycle lane as I overtook her queuing for the island.

Unfortunately the limiter can be overridden by the simple expedient of pressing the go faster pedal.

I would love to see cars fitted with mandatory speed limiting devices and never heard a convincing argument for not doing so.

Unfortunately, the latest I have heard is that while the EU is bringing in some new laws, they have been watered down to a homeopathic extent, including not actually limiting the speed of the vehicle but merely warning the driver that they are exceeding the speed limit, and no requirement for the feature to be turned on, merely installed in the vehicle. 

The UK, no longer being part of the EU, has no plans to implement a similar law. Whilst it is quite likely that cars sold in the UK may end up with the same features as those sold elsewhere in the EU, given the above loopholes that will have no noticeable effect (indeed many cars sold today are already able to warn you if you are exceeding the speed limit). 

And if the EU were to push ahead with laws that make meaningful speed limiting devices mandatory, then car manufacturers might be more inclined to deactivate that feature in the UK assuming it remains non-mandatory here (I daresay the vast majority of customers would opt for a model without speed limitation than a model with, given the choice). 

"I would love to see cars fitted with mandatory speed limiting devices and never heard a convincing argument for not doing so."

"You have to be able to accelerate to get out of trouble"

I had this debate with someone where I pointed out that if they were in trouble, then it was virtually certain that they could have done something prior to the situation to mitigate it. They refused to give an example of speeding to get out of trouble and just told me that I didn't know how to drive.

hirsute wrote:

"I would love to see cars fitted with mandatory speed limiting devices and never heard a convincing argument for not doing so."

"You have to be able to accelerate to get out of trouble"

I had this debate with someone where I pointed out that if they were in trouble, then it was virtually certain that they could have done something prior to the situation to mitigate it. They refused to give an example of speeding to get out of trouble and just told me that I didn't know how to drive.

It's when you need to avoid a falling chimney

Mercedes have been fitting speed limiters for years - I've been using one since 1999. It's very easy to flick on and off and the main benefit to me is to stop me unconsciously chasing other cars - in a 30moh area it is very easy to fall into pacing the car in front which almost always is running slightly faster than the speed limit. It also works well in heavy traffic on motorways where it stops you drifting over the speed limit as traffic thins out or accelerates.

Off the top of my head, I can't think of a time in 23 years of continuous using their system that I've used the accelerator to break through the limit.

I have occasionally popped the limiter or cruise control up a couple of mph to avoid sitting on someone's rear quarter - running at a similar speed is an issue with cruise control and though you could rightly say the proper action is to drop back, the problem is also inconsistency - people also unconsciously react to other cars, so you find yourself running alongside a car that previously was going considerably slower, and once you pass they relax and soon drop back.

Limiters don't need to be mandatory to help though most people seem to struggle with 2 pedals and a steering wheel, so anything extra is a problem.

That campaign was just to justify state traffic police revenue raising by booking people just a few k's over the limit; I was a motorcycle policeman, so I know the system. To be clear, speed limits are arbitrary.. for eg, roads designed for 70 kph speed limits in Victoria were dropped to 60 kph because of a bureaucratic decision to eliminate 70 kph speed zones; after being challenged by the RACV, the government reversed the decision but only for roads that hadn't been changed yet, so now some 70 kph designed roads have 60 kph limits.

Cycloid wrote:

Apparently the Welsh Tories voted to oppose the 20mph limit. - For some people that in itself will be a decider. All those new signs will cost a lot of money. 

The estimate made in the Bristol 20mph report was saving £15m a year from reduced injuries etc. so the cost of the signs should be considered an investment in public health (and a very cost effective one).

Thanks for the Information - Another statistic to store inside my head.

Cycloid wrote:

Apparently the Welsh Tories voted to oppose the 20mph limit.

Meanwhile in Cornwall they've just voted to introduce a load. Shame they've actively borked literally all other proposed active travel measures down here. 

Hit the nail on the head.
20 is plenty is far cheaper to implement than building real cycling infrastructure, even cheaper than white paint, yet the majority on here think it's a win.
The politicians and councillors are pulling your pants down and you lap it up.
20 is plenty is a con to make people think they are doing something.