A trial scheme by Wandsworth council in London to enforce 20mph speed limits has been blocked by the Department for Transport (DfT), which has described the way the authority was using its powers as ‘unlawful’.
The council installed speed cameras to catch law-breaking drivers on two roads in the borough where residents had long complained about speeding. Traffic studies at the sites had revealed one in four drivers were breaking the speed limit.
However, the DfT asked the DVLA to stop sharing details of drivers caught speeding under the enforcement scheme , saying: “Wandsworth Council is carrying out this experimental speed enforcement trial using powers in a way that is unlawful. We have therefore taken immediate action and asked DVLA to stop sharing registered keeper details with Wandsworth Council for the purpose of enforcing this scheme.”
The number of vehicles travelling over 25mph at the two sites halved during the enforcement scheme – despite no fines having been issued. The council is currently in discussion with the DfT over the future of the trial.
20mph limits reduce road danger and help encourage cycling
Twenty is plenty
While the benefits of 20 mph limits are indisputable, enforcement remains a challenge. The Metropolitan Police oversees roads that see 5.5 million car trips every single day. Given that according to research by TfL, 87% of drivers break a 20 mph speed limit when they have an opportunity to do so, and that one third of London’s streets are now subject to a 20mph limit, take a guess at how many drivers in London are penalised for breaking a 20 mph limit on a typical day. The answer is 117 – a figure so low as to be statistically insignificant. Read more
In the absence of town planning that places the needs of people above those of cars, widespread 20mph speed limits are a must. We can dream about the widespread dedicated cycle infrastructure, interconnected public transport and pedestrianised zones that have become standard practice in the Netherlands, but given we’re already 50 years behind the Dutch, pragmatism demands we push for the second best offered by 20 mph limits.
Here at the ETA, we’re proud to have helped coin the phrase “Twenty’s plenty” and thrilled that over the years it evolved into 20’s Plenty for Us, a campaign group we continue to support.
Given the number of deaths and serious injuries on our roads, there is no justification for 30 mph as the national speed limit. According to 20’s Plenty for Us, “The 30mph limit that was plucked out of the air in 1934 as being better than no limit, is no longer fit for purpose. It is unjust, unjustifiable and needs to be consigned to history.“
There is no doubt that 20mph limits have numerous benefits. The introduction of 20mph speed limits in areas of London has contributed towards a 50 per cent reduction in the number of children killed or seriously injured on the roads (see British Medical Journal) – these zones not only reduce casualty figures, they improve quality of life by transforming streets into areas where people are happy to cycle and children are able to play.
The ethical choice
The ETA was established in 1990 as an ethical provider of green, reliable travel services. Over 30 years on, we continue to offer cycle insurance , breakdown cover and mobility scooter insurance while putting concern for the environment at the heart of all we do.
The Good Shopping Guide judges us to be the UK’s most ethical provider.
ShoveYourTwenty
I’ll do 40 through them 20s just to piss you off morons.
The ETA
The sooner your driving licence is revoked the better
Rm
All opinions here that differs are rebutted. You are not listening to people’s choices that is rigid and dictatorial. Stop pushing an your ideology and pursue practicality and realism this is not Amsterdam London is very different in all ways.
The ETA
Amsterdam was just as congested as London before they stopped prioritising cars
Tommie Aldridge
I agree that only certain roads near schools etc. Should be 20mph and then back to 30mph. The trouble with councils is give them an inch and they take a yard! If they get the power to do this then what will be next? The council do benefit from all these big brother cameras, and make money on the back of it always crying poverty 😢
James
Cameras are not stopping people that choose to speed, speed humps also have no affect.
Speed humps do cause damage to vehicles though, they also increase pollution in London.
I’m looking in to the claim that the poorest areas in London also have the most humps and they are also the highest.
The ETA
What makes you think speed cameras don’t work? Their widespread introduction under the New Labour administration of 1997 resulted in an almost halving of road fatalities over the following decade. A trend that was arrested when the next government removed many of them.
James
20 is plenty on a small residential road with parked cars, definitely agree.
However this is not always the case, I’ve seen 20’s on wide roads with no parked cars and not a soul about, it’s ridiculously slow to sit at 20 on those roads. Consistency is the biggest problem with UK speed limits, they more often than not make no sense.
The ETA
20mph can seem too slow on some roads, yes – we’re thinking specifically of sections of road in London that are effectively dual carriageway. Part of the problem is that many urban roads have been engineered for speeds that are unsafe. When the Netherlands transformed their roads network in the 1970s, much of it involved engineering to prevent inappropriate speeds – as opposed to simply relying on speed limits
Ryana
My advice would be 20mph on motorway, that’s the best we can do!!!
Noel
How ethical is it to peddle ideas which penalise cars… then try to sell us cycle insurance?
The ETA
Are you able to explain why promoting safer streets while at the same time selling cycle insurance is unethical?
Anon
Er… It’s called a conflict of interest… And it’s disallowed in many industries.
The ETA
We’re advocating for safer roads, which, incidentally benefit everyone no matter how they travel – how on earth is that a conflict of interest?
John Duffy
As someone who drove nights for 15 years 20 is plenty day time but between 22.00/06.00 should allow 30mph in some roads. Then people that call it a money earner you can throw it back in their face. Anyway you should use your brain cells an drive to the conditions of the road sometimes 20 can be a bit fast in some circumstances. P.s. Ave drove artics 37 year all over Europe an never had an accident that was my fault.
John
Our local authority Bootle spent £750,000 of tax payer’s money on signage when the case for a mandatory 20mph limit off main roads is yet to be proved. It would be interesting to see how many people are killed or injured by a vehicle of any sort travelling between 20 and 30 mph.
Surely the tax payer’s money – and that specifically from Westminster would be better spent eradicating pot holes.
C MOR
If it’s so interesting why don’t you look it up? Because it’s already been done. The answer is 7x higher likelihood of death at a collision with a pedestrian at 30mph (45%) compared to 20mph (5%/
Marci grant
I think 20 miles an hour you are crawling and can cause accidents people beeping you, at times roads can be empty and you are crawling along. I think anything from 25 and over is fair amount of mileage.
Mr Kahn has got this wrong, it is unfair.
The ETA
There are significant safety benefits to 20mph limits
Dean Kavanagh
Looking at the comments so far and if we are a democracy then the majority so far don’t agree with a word your saying.lets just say your right, what then happens in a few years its found that 20mph is also a killer .Your only answer then is no cars.How about make a law instead like jay walking and put a bit of the responsibility on the idiots with there ear buds in just walking into roads with out looking !
Anon
Spot on. This isn’t about safety. The wider agenda is about making motoring intolerable to the point everyone gets bicycles. And then selling them cycle insurance.
The ETA
Not often we’re accused of being part of a New World Order lol
C MOR
Luckily the comments section of an article that’s drawing every petrolhead with a grievance is not how the democratic process works.
Also you don’t hold pedestrians and kids more responsible than drivers because pedestrians aren’t the ones piloting heavy machinery at speed right outside of where people live and go to work.
Jaywalking, really, you want to make it illegal for people to cross the road because you object to road sense and speed limits in built up areas. You’re just fine with tyranny, so long as it’s one that benefits you.
Vernon
20 m.p.h. causes more pollution as a vehicle is in lower gears and using higher engine revs 20 M.P.H.RESULTS IN 2000 ENGINE R.P.M.WHERE AS 30 M.P.H.IN TOP GEAR IS DOING 1500 ENGINE R.P.M. THIS IS A NO BRAINER 500 R.P.M. DIFFERENCE OVER A MILE PRODUCES MORE EMMISIONS AND BURNS MORE FUEL THAT IS BEING WASTED BY NOT BEING IN TOP GEAR THEN THE BLASTED SPEED HUMPS SLOW DOWN GO OVER THEN SPEED UP THEN SLOW DOWN THEN SPEED UP THEN SLOW DOWN ETC ETC ETC ETC MORE FUEL BEING WASTED MORE STRAIN ON ENGINES AND GEARBOXES PLUS THE BLASTED THING ALWAYS KNOCKS THE TRACKING OUT RESULTING IN MORE TYRE WEAR AND SUSPENSION DAMAGE AND ON SOME VEHICLES THE BLOOMING EXHAUST AND THE FRONT LOWER BUMPER SKIRTS ALSO SCRAPE ON THE BLASTED THINGS CAUSING MORE DAMAGE THEN KHAN AND BLASTED T.F.L.HAVE CHANGED ALL THE TRAFFIC LIGHT TIMING CREATING MORE TRAFFIC JAMS THEN USING UP A WHOLE LANE FOR BLASTED BICYCLES IS TOTALLY BLOODY RIDICULOUS CAUSING MORE BLASTED TRAFFIC JAMS THEN AS YOU CALL IT FLOATING BUS STOPS I GOT OFF A BUS IN CHISWICK AND NEARLY GOT RUN OVER BY AN ARSEHOLE ON A BLASTED BLODDY BICYCLE GOING FULL SPEED HE ONLY JUST BLOODY MISSED ME THE STUPID IDIOT WHO EVER THOUGHT UP THESE STUPID BUS STOPS IS A TOTAL BLOODY ARSEHOLE THEN BLASTED KHAN AND HIS WAR ON MOTORISTS HES TRYING TO INCLUDE ALL SURROUNDING AREAS AROUND LONDON BUT WHERE HE LIVES HIS STREET ISNT BLOODY U.L.E.Z.COMPLIANT AND THE VEHICLE HE USES ISNT BLOODY U.L.E.Z.COMPLIANT EITHER IN HIS CASE DO AS I SAY NOT AS I DO HE’S TOTALLY FXXXXD LONDON UP ALTOGETHER WAR ON MOTORISTS AND MAKING MORE MONEY FOR BLOOD T.F.L.PAY £ 12.50 TO USE A VEHICLE DOES THAT MEAN ITS LESS POLUTING NO HES NOT ONE BIT INTERESTED IN CLEAN AIR HE JUST WANTS £ 12.50 OFF OF ALL THE MOTORISTS ALSO WHATS HE DONE ABOUT CRIME IN LONDON SWEET FXXK ALL AS USUAL ITS ABOUT TIME HE LEFT THE MOTORISTS ALONE AND CONCENTRATED ON BLOODY STREET CRIME I.E KNIFE GANGS CAUGHT 1 A WARNING CAUGHT 2ND FIVE YEARS JAIL NO MESSING CAUGHT 3RD TIME TEN YEARS AND NO OUT ON GOOD BEHAVIOR OR ON TAG LET THEM DO THE FULL TERM IN PRISON WE NEED A HARSH DETERRENT KHAN IS BLOODY USELESS AS A MAYOR OF LONDON HES A TOTAL BLOODY ARSENAL HE REMINDS ME OF A DICTATOR IN THE SECOND WORLD WAR WITH A POSTAGE STAMP MOUTACHE
The ETA
u ok, hun?
Barry Taylor
It seems to me, these days, that our society is happy to allow minority opinions, pushed by small groups and organisations that do not represent the majority view, to prevail. The article suggests that 87% of drivers would, by choice, ignore a 20mph imposed speed limit. This suggests that the majority of drivers in the UK do not wish for the speed limit imposed, yet a minority view has pushed it onto the majority who don’t want it. One only needs to drive at 70mph on the motorway to discover that, apart from commercial vehicles restricted by tachograph, the majority of other drivers will overtake you. And those drivers represent a diverse cross section of society. It is a dangerous world when strategic pressure, from minority groups, impose unwanted restrictions and constraints on the majority, citing safety issues to ensure opposition appears irresponsible. Its a situation that is endemic across all walks of society. I fully agree that safety is important, but it is being used as a scapegoat for driving through minority wishes in many instances. We all want safe travel, but there is a balance that must be struck between safety and the practicalities associated with living. I’m sure the ETA would prefer we all go back to the horse and cart, for safety and environmental reasons, but that is obviously a step too far. Maybe not if the ETA got its way.
Alan Dinham
Been driving since 1972 known fact ..most economical speed is 57 m.p.h.,if you travel at 20 m.p.h. it will take longer in a lower gear to get to your destination thus using more fuel and more pollution, concentration is lost observing your speed at 20 m.p.h. thus more dangerous ,the fact of the matter is government is trying to reduce cost of repairing potholes by reducing drivers speed on all roads in the UK,nothing to do with safety or environmental issues.
The ETA
An evaluation of 20mph zones in London, carried out by Imperial College, showed slowing traffic had no net negative impact on exhaust emissions. However, in 20mph zones vehicles moved more smoothly, with fewer accelerations and decelerations, than in 30mph zones. This smoother driving style reduces particulate emissions from tyre and brake wear – which still represents a significant cause of air pollution from zero-emission vehicles.
The argument that driver are unable to maintain a constant speed without being glued to the speedo is nonsense.
C MOR
Only if you’re going at a constant speed, never slowing down or speeding up. I see drivers gunning it to reach 5 above the limit only to brake sharply at the next bit of traffic queue or set of already red lights 200 metres away constantly, that is definitely not more economical or less polluting.
hendy
you have no answered his concern. Why have you resorted to mockery instead of providing evidence that 20mph is no more polluting than 30mph (hint; you cant – vernon is absolutely right concerning the engine speed and gearing)
The ETA
An evaluation of 20mph zones in London, carried out by Imperial College, showed slowing traffic had no net negative impact on exhaust emissions. However, in 20mph zones vehicles moved more smoothly, with fewer accelerations and decelerations, than in 30mph zones. This smoother driving style reduces particulate emissions from tyre and brake wear – which still represents a significant cause of air pollution from zero-emission vehicles.
Djole George
Top man…like your style.
Dean Kavanagh
Looking at the comments so far and if we are a democracy then the majority so far don’t agree with a word your saying.lets just say your right, what then happens in a few years its found that 20mph is also a killer .Your only answer then is no cars.How about make a law instead like jay walking and put a bit of the responsibility on the idiots with there ear buds in just walking into roads with out looking !
C MOR
Majority of who? Petrolhead loudmouths with a grievance? Should they get a mandate over all society now?
The residents themselves complained about speeding drivers and the council put these enforcements in place with a democratic mandate. Who is really running roughshod over democracy here?
Noel Potter
Excellent comments
Paul Sams
We live in a society that relies upon the car 100% for every need and transport requirement.
To slow the maximum speed to 20mph and sell it to the public on safety grounds is wrong. It is all about control. Whilst I do not object to a lower limit in certain high pedestrian traffic areas, such as shopping streets etc. To make us all drive at such a ridiculous speed 24 hours a day is totally wrong and will encourage retaliation. Vote out the councils that try to control us, don’t be afraid of what they say, it is not about safety at all. Shame on you councils, you’ll be making us have a man with a flag walking in front of our cars soon.
The ETA
“We live in a society that relies upon the car 100% for every need and transport requirement” – that’s precisely what we need to change and 20mph limits will help
hend
why do we “need” to change this? If so the option is PT – expensive, smelly, dirty, inconvenient and often downright dangerous. A friend recently took the bus to work and sat in a seat that had been urinated on… on his way TO work. That alone justifies me never using PT. Hardly surprising people prefer their own transport.
The ETA
Cars are not a rational way to get about in cities. No reason why we can’t make public transport, cycling and walking safe, clean and efficient ways of getting about
Anon
It’s chicken and egg. Government should make public transport so damn amazing that people are drawn away from their cars. I would be very happy to no longer need a car. Problem with all UK policy making at present is it all revolves around forcing people to make life changes and then delaying provision of alternative options further into the future, or never at all.
The ETA
Things won’t improve until people demand change. The Dutch literally turned cars over in the streets in the early 1970s because they were sick and tired of road danger. They now have town planning and public transport provision that’s the envy of the world.
Philip mayes
The sooner those people who make decisions in government just to line their own pockets the better we the people of this country do not want brain dead people running our lives or should I say ruining our lives why don’t we make a law to ban all vehicles off the road including planes trains bicycles or any mechanical way of travelling except for government leaders they need planes to travel home from parliament
Tim B
As a cyclist, I detest having to negotiate 20mph zones where drivers are more compliant with the limit, because I have to endure more slow overtakes by other vehicles, and conflicts then arising approaching parked vehicles or other hazards. I would far rather vehicles passed me safely and went on their way, and I will do what I can to facilitate that, but 20mph limits erode that ability.
JustAnObservation
Many cyclists in my area have raised the same concern, and it’s one I share. I rarely cycle now since my local council put in place blanket 20MPH zones. I am no professional or keen cyclist, purely hobby. I tend to manage between 12 to 15 MPH on the flat. Vehicles trying to pass me at 20MPH spend way too long alongside me now, I feel very unsafe as a result. It’s far better when they can do 30MPH and get past much quicker.
The ETA
If you’re travelling at 15mph, there’s no good reason for following traffic to overtake. In such situations, and to prevent inappropriate overtaking, you can take a primary position in your lane
Ronald Kelly
Total green rubbish, where is the proof of child fatalities? Now drivers have to watch the speedo more than the road!! The 30mph limit was introduced years ago when there was drum and cable breaks modern cars are far better equipped the 30 mph limit should be reinstalled everywhere asap and stop all this woke stupidity or we will end up, as years ago, having a man with a red flag walking in front of vehicles again
The ETA
If you’re unable to drive at 20mph without your eyes glued to the speedo, you should hand in your licence
Tom Crawford
“…. the needs of people above those of cars ….”????
What utter piffle! Cars do not move unaided, it is people who have needs to get somewhere that make them move.
The ETA
It’s piffle to suggest car-centric urban design isn’t hugely detrimental to the needs of people
Steve Wallis
The blanket 24hr application of 20mph limits is crazy, more about getting in income than safety. Prosecuting motorists for doing 24mph on a 20mph limit at 2am on a 2 lane road when there’s hardly any people or other cars around is not about safety
Seve Howard
The enforcement is in the wrong places; large main roads have cameras where a 20 limit is not necessary but in small residential streets drivers can drive fast with impunity, This indicates to me that it is more about revenue than safety, also when driving at twenty on roads with bus lanes, the buses are flying past me on the near side, does this mean that buses are exempt from the limit? Speaking as a car driver, and a cyclist.
Cris Neagu
No. 20 is not plenty. The fact that so many people break 20mph limits all the time without incident proves that the speed limit is absurd. And it makes sense. 20mph is unsafely slow. Yes, you read that right. It is such a slow speed that drivers must force themselves to drive so slow, and thus spend more time looking at their dash than they spend looking outside.
And finally, a civilised, sane society doesn’t impose limits because it can, or because some think it’s ok or “plenty”, or because “it makes sense”. Only a tyrannical, totalitarian society does that, one that hates freedom.
The ETA
“20mph is unsafely slow”….we’ve heard it all now
StevePYork
You have had your say so let others have theirs without your clever remarks. Your professionalism evades you.
The ETA
Hard not to appear clever when many of the comments are so mindless, Steve
hendy
you don’t look clever, stop patting yourself on the back – you are actually coming across as petty, condescending and a bit desperate with your increasingly vapid arguments
The ETA
Nice of you to say so, but don’t forget we’re responding to a comment so unhinged it likens the London mayor to Hitler
Lee
20 mph is archaic and bloody stupid. We need to raise all speed limits not lower them. Cars now have much better braking systems than cars of old yet our speeds are being lowered. Lets have 40 mph instead of 30 and 30 instead of 20. Or do away with limits and fine drivers for poor driving or undue care not for going 5 mph over the damn limit
The ETA
What’s archaic about 20mph limits, Lee?
Keith Siddle
20 mph May be justified at School entrance zones At entrance and Leaving times.
Elsewhere they are Not.
Pedestrians and Cyclists All have equal responsibility for avoiding accidents, and their own safety, As do Motorists including electric Scooter riders
Councils, should look to their Reason for existence.
Not for ways to become dictators, and Fines collectors.
They are there to look after
Community Facilities and Services, Paid for by The Public, including Motorists.
Sowerbob
If you look at the stats then it is car drivers who are overwhelmingly responsible for collisions. To suggest otherwise is merely a distraction from the fundamental issue. Slowing car drivers down reduces risks on many levels
Ability to stop
Ability to evade
Speed of collision
Awareness of driver to risk
Etc and as such improves safety. You simply want to drive faster at the expense of everyone else’s safety.
Decidendi
So tired of green warriors like you lot. Most people don’t drive fast in London because roads are so congested made even worse by the stupid LTN’s. If people in London want to go live in a village they should and leave the rest of us alone. I bet you are in favour of 15 minute cities as well. As a disabled person who was cured by the dwp of my spinal stenosis and crumbling facet joints in just call me daves drive to pay for austerity off the backs of the poor I was stripped of my blue badge and mobility allowance. I can barely afford to drive as it is and am now a virtual prisoner in my home. I’m not the only person who has had enough we are growing by the day…you can only push people so far.
The ETA
Yes, we’re big fans of 15-minute cities. Who wouldn’t want shops, parks and the GP on their doorstep?
hendy
finally, you reveal your spots…
Sowerbob
What has your many gripes to do with 20 limits?
Jon Bliss
Many years ago, I think it was the1970s,the body deciding on vehicle safety proposed that all cars should have a frontal crumple zone and the front edge of the vehicle low enough so in the case of pedestrian impact only the lower limbs would suffer breakage and the pedestrian would roll up and over. However the likes of manufacturers such as Land Rover protested that their sales would be limited to off road users ,so it was decided that 4wheel drive vehicles be exempt from the new regulations and consequently the sale of Ranggy Rovvers and the like proliferated because the posh gits wives viewed them as being safer, even now I see these fillies transporting their offspring to school in these trucks.
CCHRISTOF
Another bunch proclaiming the benefits of 20mph limits. What a load of bull! No stats have shown accidents to be reduced by 20mph limits. No stats on injuries have proven that 20mph limits reduce injuries. In fact I have never seen any proof that these limits do anything but increase pollution and anger drivers, making it unsafe to drive in an area with 20mph limits.
The ETA
“no stats have proven 20mph limits reduce injuries” – you haven’t read the article have you?
Derek Wilson
As usual the stupid fact ignoring prats think that simply saying that they don’t believe that the information provided by the universities and the government trumps the facts that are easily checked. The fact that lower speeds result in less injury and death is a no brainer but still the idiot minority still shout that they should be paid attention to . As they are probably the smoking overweight bunch they will be going the same way as the dinosaurs.
No driver has the right to kill children
C MOR
“no stats have proven a reduction in injury & death” yes they have, definitively.
“I haven’t seen any proof” you haven’t ever looked it up.
Barry Warner
Speed limits don’t work I live in tredington Stratford upon Avon Warwickshire lots of villages and lots of speeders .in 30 limits. From cars buses tractors lorry’s motorcycles etc . the only way is that lovely high leavel yellow cameras they work well in studley Alcester area need them in our villages and other areas around the country.
The ETA
Yes, speed cameras have been shown to dramatically reduce law breaking – unfortunately many were removed under the current administration
Bobby
What you don’t think about is the fact that to keep to 20mph motorists have to constantly monitor the speedometer. If you measure the length of time not watching the road (and playing children Etc) . Sadly not as simple as you imply
The ETA
How do you manage to keep to 30mph without constantly monitoring the speedometer?
Dean Kavanagh
So in 1934 30mph was plucked out the air when cars were less safe and far more dangerous. So now you have plucked 20mph out the air ? SOD IT let’s just do 5mph at this rate. Idiots !
The ETA
It’s based on science, Dean. Your mother, father, sibling or child is far more likely to survive being hit by a driver at 20mph
A motorist
Where as my children are likely to survive, fullstop
Why
Cos they’ve been bought up to have common sense, to think for themselves, to not be stupidly woke
And guess what, they know how to check before crossing a road, how to listen for vehicles, how to spot idiots on pushbikes with no road sense, and best of all, they’re not gender obsessed
The ETA
“Only ‘woke’ and ‘gender-obsessed’ kids get run over.” lol
The ETA
The 20mph limit makes sense if we want to reduce road danger as people are far less likely to die when struck by drivers at that speed
Dean Kavanagh
So on that basis then every urban road I the uk should be 20mph or again less and that logic is flawed.
The ETA
Yes, there’s a strong argument that most streets in urban areas should be 20mph. There’s an approach to road danger reduction pioneered in Sweden called Vision Zero that aims for not a single road death. When it’s done properly it has amazing results. The reason we mention it is that it involves much more than simply reducing speed limits. For example, roads are engineered to promote appropriate speeds.
Reg
At the rate we are going horse pulled coachs will be the quickest way….
James Heywood
Use your gears 2nd in twenty 3rd in thirty of course you will probably be polluting more
The ETA
20mph limits are principally about reducing death and serious injury on our roads
Alex
You guys are so condescending, yes you’re more likely to survive being hit at 20mph – though you stand a better chance at 10, or 5mph, or maybe just stay in?
So I’m now forced to drive at 20mph, which a large number of drivers find mentally excruciating, with frustration building in the traffic behind me, whilst (electric) bikes comes flying past me because even they don’t enjoy going that slow.
You’re as bad as Khan, pitching the whole story to look like the motorist is some kind of villain who wants to go around hurting people. Reality is we are all just trying to get around with ever increasing road works and closures, trying to either get to a job with tools and materials that I can’t get on a bloody cycle, or just use my car for my own reasons based on the fact I pay a lot of money for the privilege.
Why don’t we do more ro promote road safety for pedestrians – more teaching in schools, more advertising on platforms that morons who step out into the road without a 2nd thought might look at?
Instead of this constant bleating about trying to create a utopian society where we all run around in sandals holding flowers.
The other poster is correct, we may not be as active as the French, but keep pushing and people will revolt.
The ETA
People revolted in The Netherlands in the early 1970s – they literally turned cars over in the street to demand an end to road danger. Vive la revolution!
Sowerbob
You should get help if you get angered by a speed limit. You have a carcentric view that suggests that everyone else is subjugated to the needs of the car driver. That is not how society works. What about considering others. For example in London 40% of households do not have use of a car. So when designing use of communal space, roads, pavements etc we should consider pedestrians, cyclists and users of public transport as much as we do drivers. Remember drive at or below the limit and take care around vulnerable road users, the Highway Code says they have priority over you.
Red flag man
You say 30mph was “plucked out of the air” but what’s so special about 20? Why not make it 10 mph, or 3mph and have someone walk in front with a red flag? I mean, it’s not like anyone has to actually get anywhere in a reasonable timeframe!
The ETA
Remind us – Why did we lose the man with the rad flag in the first place?
Mike
Research by experts at Queen’s University last year found that although speed limits reduce traffic they do little to stop accidents. It compared four different years before and after 20mph zones were brought in and showed little change in short or long-term outcomes for road traffic collisions, casualties or driver speed.
The ETA
Can you post a link to that research please, Mike? The results you quote appear to contradict the basic laws of physics
Paul Harding
It would be interesting to see the outcomes on individuals at the different speeds – you can’t get away from Energy being proportional to the square of speed. So presumably even if incident rates were observed to remain the same, *serious* injuries must have been much reduced.
So that Belfast study is actually be one of the most powerful arguments there is for a much wider reduction in speed limits.
Ordinary Joe
The 30mph speed limit for urban roads is correct and totally justified. 20 mph is too slow and has now benefits whatsoever. Teaching everyone the Green Cross Code so that they know how to cross roads safely is the best way of reducing pedestrian injuries and deaths. We shouldn’t be wasting money on these schemes!
The ETA
Where speeds are reduced to 20mph, casualties fall by around two-fifths
Marcel
Its all a sham to tax more and force people out of cars. Diesel prices. Car tax increases. Excruciating speed limits. Low emission zones. Speed cameras. Dpfs that are not fit for purpose. I could go on.
Problem is the media are in on it. Spouting statistical lies. Public arent falling for it, like the uptake of electric cars and ground source heat pumps.
Yes we need to go more green but need fit for purpose alternatives. Synthetic fuel maybe. Hydrogen maybe.
Wales looking to implement 20 nationally. No true public consultation. They have applied 50 average limits on most stretches of the m4 under the banner of pollution control, the allow a huge steel factory in port talbot to pump out endless crap. M4 sometimes covered in smog from it, and cars of residents covered in soot…..yet thats ok and its the cars causing all the pollution.
All a load of bull.
Time for public revolt.
The ETA
We’d be interested to learn more about those ‘statistical lies’, Marcel
Tom
How odd to read in the comment above calls for a revolution against traffic calming measures. Can’t think of a better reflection of mindless Brexit Britain than calls for higher speeds on the kinds of roads where our kids go to school. Interesting juxtaposition with another revolution that took place on Dutch streets in the early 70s. Protesters literally turned cars into their roofs to demand an end to car supremacy in urban areas.
Marcel
Where did i state higher speeds? 30 has been fine for the last century. Obviously our ancesters had it so wrong!
Revolution against the political madness that has gripped this country.
Harry
Bring back the tufty club and the green cross code and educate Pedestrians on road safety.
There are probably low numbers of Cars mounting the pavement And Injuring pedestrians, But pedestrians being in the road Is bound to cause accidents Whatever the speed limit is.
The ETA
Over 40 pedestrians are killed every year in the UK by drivers on footpaths or road verges
AlexK
It’s interesting that out of 40 comments I can’t see anyone agreeing with your position, suggesting that you are likely the minority. However like any self centered, higher than mighty entity,(see Fascist) you dismiss everyone and only maintain your point of view is correct insisting there is only 1 “correct” view. What a load of crap.
The ETA
The introduction of 20mph speed limits in London has contributed towards a 50 per cent reduction in the number of children killed or seriously injured on the roads. Would be interesting to know what you find so objectionable about that
Eli
And even fewer would be killed if the speed limit was only 10mph. But it’s not a price worth paying.
The ETA
Would you feel the same if it was your child who was killed?
Steve P
Please tell me where it says the ‘National Speed Limit’ for roads in the UK is 30mph?. Sorry but anyone who says that is not a credible professional. Whenever I drive in a 20mph zone I find my eyes glued to the Speedo of the car not on the road so how is that safe? It’s pretty well proven too that the majority of people speeding on most roads live locally. All in all I see 20mph limits as a ‘placebo’ that only really works to raise cash.
The ETA
Unable to maintain a constant speed without staring at the speedo? Sounds like driving might not be for you, Steve.
If you need to brush up on national speed limits and won’t take our word for it, take a look at the government’s own website https://www.gov.uk/speed-limits
Ben Graham
20’s have a place in specific areas; I’m not convinced blanket 20’s are safer, particularly on through routes – and they do nothing for air quality. Upper Thames Street and the underpass at Hyde Park Corner in London where there are no cyclists or pedestrians sharing the road are probably the most ludicrous examples of this policy.
When cycling I would far rather a motorist gave room and got on with an overtake – the driver is far more likely to find themselves having to squeeze back in again if trying to maintain 20mph.
I would much rather deal with an alert driver within (not necessarily at) a 30mph limit than a comatosed driver travelling blindly at 20mph using a speed limiter or cruise control – some drivers will either find something else to do whilst driving, others will risk fatigue which is another killer.
I am of course well aware of impact speed versus survival rates; however, road safety is about avoiding collisions all together.
I would far rather the nation focused energy on getting all those sharing the road to raise their standards, and always allow for errors in self and others. There is so much that could be achieved with periodical training for motorists and some training for active travellers.
Wendy Cheetham
Thank god I live outside London, our local roads are usually 30 around town and 40 to 50 on the main roads,
Steven Smith
Personaly i think 20 mph is just two slow, i liken it to sitting whatching paint dry !!! The 30 limit alowes the driver to asses road conditions and to drive at an accordingly safe speed. All to often you’ll get 20 limits impossed on long stretch’es of road where there is no need for it and the afect of this is to rub everybody up the wrong way and is going to generate a general air of none complyence. The only place i think that the 20 limit is justfied is outside schools in the morning and evening when the children are leaving to go home. There needs to be more emfaciss on training pedestrians and perticularly cyclists to take due care when on the roads and fewer car’s parked on the road side would greatly help road safety. These people in the local councils need to be kept in check with the imposition of these hair brain idears, they are in the process of bringing Bury town centre to a standstill with crazy road sceems aimed at providing a safe envirenment for pedestrians and cyclists. I wouldent mind but i carnt think when i last saw a single cyclist on the roads round Bury (as in riding to and from work ) it is going to be interesting to see how emergensy vehicles are going to cope at peak trafic times when everything is in a state of gridlock, unless they are all going to be set up on push bike’s !!! Sure’ly all this money waisted on trafic calming and cycle lanes would have been better spent just repairing the roads, pot holes, and tidying up road marking. Finaly, if your local council start to try and set up ulez and conjestion charge’s it is important that we all stand together and dont pay, because in most instances they are the root cause of the problem’s, simply by retiming the trafic lights they could greatly improve trafic flow which also greatly reduce air polution. They used to call this THE GREEN WAVE. wear vehicles would get a run of six or more sets of lights withont stopping. Anyway thats inuf tor now, POWER TO THE PEOPLE, Steve Smith. ✊
Johnny
Why not go the whole hog and just lock people in their houses and ban them from travelling……oh the government has done that already.
No way to go
20s too slow
The ETA
We’re not sure it’s as binary as that. Lowering urban traffic speeds to 20mph reduces the dominance of motor vehicles and makes streets safer, more inviting, less polluted and more attractive for walking, cycling and public transport trips.
Marcel
Less polluted….you couldnt make it up lol. Lets see the ‘stats’ on that then.
Anon
I’m sure The ETA is also in favour of 15 minute cities and CDBCs that stop working 5 miles away from your home.
The ETA
Absolutely in favour of having shops, parks and GPs etc close to where we live – who wouldn’t be?
Bugsy
Cars can stop far more quickly now, than they could when 30mph speed limits were created. Just as the ULEZ is nothing more than a stealth tax so is reducing the the speed to a ridiculous 20mph. OK for a cul-de-sac or dead end road, but impractical for any where else. It is also bad for the environment running at such low speeds. It is all a plan to remove our freedom to travel around, limiting our lifestyles and choices. Fake traffic lights where nothing gets done for days or weeks. Your government working against you whilst making you poorer and reducing quality of life. Government engineered poverty and a broken NHS.
Wilf Forrow
Well we’ve heard what drivers think (at least this self-selecting sample) – what do non-drivers think, over 50% of the population, who also have to use roads, if only to cross them?
Including kids, old people, people who can’t afford a car, or people who aren’t allowed to drive, like my mate with glaucoma who’s going to lose his licence? Don’t they have the right to speak?
20mph seems slow until you get used to it, then you realise you’re only racing to the next holdup.
Mohammed ABDULLAH
87% of drivers break a 20 mph speed limit when they have an opportunity; 20 is clearly not plenty and at least 87% of the population think so.
The ETA
There are lots of reasons for low rates of compliance. Enforcement is low if it happens at all, penalties are slight, and many urban roads are currently engineered for 30mph or more. All these factors need to be addressed if we are to enjoy the many benefits of widespread 20mph limits.
JustAnObservation
You have repeatedly referenced the Imperial College research in London in an attempt to debunk the people who say that a vehicle driving at a constant 20MPH emits more exhaust emission than a vehicle driving at a constant 30MPH. The thing is, when you actually read that research, it backs up that each individual vehicle is emitting more. IC concluded no overall increase in emissions, but they also note a statistically significant number less vehicle journeys. Less vehicles leaving the same emissions means each vehicle has to be emitting more, it’s basic maths. What IC did not consider is the modal switch over that time from full ICE to hybrid, full battery, and even just to cleaner ICE, which should have reduced the emissions further… but didn’t.
I would also point out that the top ten leading causes of incidents in the UK involving pedestrians and vehicles are due to pedestrian behaviours: walking into the road without looking is a leading cause. If you truly want to reduce injuries then you do more to educate people not to wander into the road without first assessing the road to ensure it is clear. One byproduct of 20MPH zones in my experience is that pedestrians are MORE likely to walk into the road without looking. Perhaps it’s because the slower vehicles are quieter and therefore pedestrians don’t hear them coming, or perhaps it’s complacency driven by the belief that they are safer because vehicles are travelling slower. Whatever it is, 20MPH limits increase the very behaviour that is the leading cause of incidents between vehicles and pedestrians, thereby increasing the likelihood of incidents occurring.
Whatever happened to stop, look and listen? Pedestrians who stop, look and listen, ensuring the road is clear before entering the road have a 100% chance of not being hit by a moving vehicle.
The ETA
20mph limits tend to be introduced for casualty reduction, reduction of rat running through residential areas, reduction of the negative impact of cars in urban centres (congestion, pressure on parking availability, severance issues, poor walking / cycling environment), community concerns about speeds, and to encourage active travel.
John Ball
I’m fascinated by your use of the Dutch civil disobedience/rioting behavior as a good thing, but the 80 per cent disobedience (of drivers) to the 20 is plenty scheme as bad and deserving of punishment. Is civil disobedience ok, or not?
The ETA
If you’re having difficulty recognising a difference between the two, take a look at the film we made https://vimeo.com/361286029
Johnboy
My God, why are drivers such snowflakes? Just stick to the 20mph limit, you cry babies 😭
Jonathan
Blooming right
Gordon Bavis
ETA – You’re entitled to your own opinions but absolutely not entitled to your own facts. “The benefits of 20 are indisputable”…. Says who? Evidence? If you’re unaware, the main ideologies of introducing 20’s were car hating local counsellors and Governments, both Con and Lab. Also a sudden increase in imbeciles who gave birth to the idea that it is their right to cross any road, anytime, especially whilst looking at a mobile phone. In England in the 70’s, we simply didn’t have these issues. People were in a general sense, self disciplined, had common sense and had respect for their own lives as well as the lives of others
The ETA
Setting aside the basic laws of physics that determine that a person struck by a car at 20mph is far more likely to surrvive, there’s no shortage of evidence at https://www.20splenty.org/
Pioneers Greatness
From the 20mph point I do understand, because people do a average of 26mph in a 20 zone and 36mph in a 30 zone.
So I do understand these speeds may comes across slower than our normal 30mph and 40mph, but hitting a child at 20mph he or she stands 80% chance of living, but has the speed increase the chance someone being ok decrease💯
We don’t appreciate something until on incident happens to us or close to home, then it’s normally too late.
Thanks
Jonathan
No points were given but how many speed awareness courses were issued as a penalty
Larry
20 mph on my London residential road is probably too fast with all the parked cars etc. I get that 20mph could be impossed not that the residents would care as they drive slower after exiting the main road. Only the ‘nutters’ drive at great speed and no amount of signs will stop them; only a driving ban or prison time.
However when the speed limit on the A40 western ave in London was dropped to 30mph that made driving on a 6 lane dual carriage way a terrifying experience.
So remember that 20 mph is not the cure, for every road. Drivers need to be taught common sense and be able to drive at a speed suitable for differing roads. Everything in life is a compromise and so is speed restrictions. One speed fits all is not the solution.
Derek
Why is it always down to the motorists? The cyclists and pedestrians especially need to be more careful and aware of their surroundings rather than listening to music etc through their earbuds or constantly looking at their mobile phones and ‘jay walking’ whilst crossing the road etc. All pedestrians need to be educated for the problems THEY are causing.
The ETA
Moral considerations aside, a duty of care to vulnerable road users now forms part of the Highway Code. It’s referred to as the hierarchy of responsibility
Ray Clamp
The anti 20mph lobby on here don’t half talk a load of rubbish. One clown even mentioned old brake systems to indicate vehicle technology had moved on but the idiot couldn’t even spell “brake” properly. The same argument was used to back an increase in the national speed limit from 70mph to 80mph on motorways. What these idiots fail to understand is, yes technology has improved in vehicle design and safety features, but one thing that has NOT improved is driving standards. Stand at a roundabout for 10 mins and watch how many people use indicators, not many! People are taught how to pass a driving test rather than being taught to drive. So I would back more 20mph zones to make things safer for more vulnerable road users and pedestrians. Driving standards are poor nowadays particularly amongst the younger drivers.
David
Just because you say the benefits of 20mph are indisputable doesn’t make it so. A very obvious disadvantage is that it takes people longer to go where they want to go. You might say that safer roads are worth that (to you). But why stop there? Why not just block driving entirely (which I know is probably your aim, selling cycling insurance)? But bikes also cause accidents. Why not block them too? Maybe we should only be alowed to walk everywhere. Avoids all accidents. But then someone might look at me funny and I might be offended. Let’s just legislate that everyone has to stay in their own houses and the government will come round one a wee with a fresh supply of bread and water.
Driversfirst
I don’t think I’ve ever obeyed a 20mph speed limit, nor do I know anyone who does. What a load of rubbish this article is.
The ETA
Best hand in your licence – driving’s not for you