When did 30mph become too fast?

Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.

Alex225

MB Enthusiast
Joined
Aug 23, 2015
Messages
2,368
Car
CLS63 AMG
Although I live in Easy Surrey, I have the misfortune of coming under Croydon Council. This is the council whom have decided to put in place 20mph speed limits on all residential roads in the borough.

Now I'm not averse to a 20mph limit in logical places, by schools or in built up areas. But to just put 20 zones on every residential road seems really illogical. It's apparently for safety which there is a small argument for but also to stop traffic cutting through and to encourage walking/cycling.

What they're failing to realise is that not only do some of these roads actually go somewhere, they're not just cut throughs, that walking/cycling miles is not going to work for a lot of people so that's out the window.

Ironically I'm not one for speeding, I don't go over 30mph if I can help it but even for me 20mph feels like you're just trickling along. Especially on wide, open residential streets with good visibility.

Is it just me that thinks this is illogical? Or is this a money spinner for the local authorities when they perch a traffic office and a speed gun on a corner knowing they'll catch a hardened criminal at 32mph!!
 
I appreciate the statistics but my point is that these residential roads are quiet, open and have good visibility. They're not packed with cars either side and very few pedestrians etc.

I mean if we're looking at nothing but pedestal safety, we'd have no traffic going faster than 20mph just in case but obviously it's not practical. My point is that on perfectly clear roads the limit has been reduced by default, not by the use of logic.
 
They've done the same in Islington. All residential streets are limited to 20mph. Yet no one, but no one, drives at 20 mph. No one but me, that is. And I get hooted at, flashed, tailgated, and aggressively overtaken. Regularly. I abide by the rules, but I think it's idiotic.
 
Although I live in Easy Surrey, I have the misfortune of coming under Croydon Council. This is the council whom have decided to put in place 20mph speed limits on all residential roads in the borough.

Now I'm not averse to a 20mph limit in logical places, by schools or in built up areas. But to just put 20 zones on every residential road seems really illogical. It's apparently for safety which there is a small argument for but also to stop traffic cutting through and to encourage walking/cycling.

What they're failing to realise is that not only do some of these roads actually go somewhere, they're not just cut throughs, that walking/cycling miles is not going to work for a lot of people so that's out the window.

Ironically I'm not one for speeding, I don't go over 30mph if I can help it but even for me 20mph feels like you're just trickling along. Especially on wide, open residential streets with good visibility.

Is it just me that thinks this is illogical? Or is this a money spinner for the local authorities when they perch a traffic office and a speed gun on a corner knowing they'll catch a hardened criminal at 32mph!!
All of these measures had to be voted in by locally elected councillors .

If the local residents don’t like these measures, they can make representations to their elected members and ask for them to be reversed .

A freedom of information request can be used to find out which councillors , or which party , voted for these measures .

That can be remembered come the next election.
 
They've done the same in Islington. All residential streets are limited to 20mph. Yet no one, but no one, drives at 20 mph. No one but me, that is. And I get hooted at, flashed, tailgated, and aggressively overtaken. Regularly. I abide by the rules, but I think it's idiotic.
Aside of road safety concerns, there is also the fact that by forcing cars into lower gears one increases the number of compression strokes per distance travelled , and therefore air pollution.

People ought to be protesting about this .

Urban areas want to improve air quality, not the opposite.
 
Pedestrians are almost 10 times more likely to be fatally wounded at 30 mph than at 20. At 20 there is a 2.5% chance of being killed, at 30 it rises to around 20%
The first question to be asked is what the crash statistics were before the changes : if zero KSI its hard to improve; and if not zero , can they show that excess speed was a factor ?
 
Aside of road safety concerns, there is also the fact that by forcing cars into lower gears one increases the number of compression strokes per distance travelled , and therefore air pollution.

People ought to be protesting about this .

Urban areas want to improve air quality, not the opposite.

How do engine revs affect pollution? Seems it might be counter-intuitive.....
Reducing traffic speeds below 40mph may increase toxic pollution, says Transport Research Laboratory report
 
Would it be cynical to also suggest that lower speed limits mean the local authorities can continue not bothering to maintain the roads? After all, the slower you're going the easier it is to spot and avoid the pothole that would swallow a supermini hole, plus it's less likely to do damage if you're crawling over it.
 
I am not opposed to speed limits. But when it makes no sense, no one abides by it. So in theory the 20mph limit makes the roads safer, but in practice it makes no difference.
 
We have potholes round here one could loose small children down. Even that doesn't seem to prompt action!
 
The statistics I quoted are not meant to show whether the speed of the vehicle was the cause of an accident, just that accidents are much more survivable for the pedestrian at lower speeds.
 
Pedestrians are almost 10 times more likely to be fatally wounded at 30 mph than at 20. At 20 there is a 2.5% chance of being killed, at 30 it rises to around 20%

I recall a thread from 9 years ago where these statistics were discussed.

I am a wanted man

Basically councils are not thinking this through to the point where pedestrians and traffic could cooperate a bit more productively to improve pedestrian safety when crossing the road and to increase traffic speeds.
 
All of these measures had to be voted in by locally elected councillors .

If the local residents don’t like these measures, they can make representations to their elected members and ask for them to be reversed .

A freedom of information request can be used to find out which councillors , or which party , voted for these measures .

That can be remembered come the next election.

This is the reason down to a T.

A lot of councillors use it as a way of winning votes. "I care so much about the safety of my constituents that I will lower the speed limit on your road to 20mph because it reduces your chances of being fatally injured from 20% to 2.5%"
 
The statistics I quoted are not meant to show whether the speed of the vehicle was the cause of an accident, just that accidents are much more survivable for the pedestrian at lower speeds.
Indeed .

But if there is no previous history of injury RTC’s ( the incidents are not accidents ) then there is no scope for improvement .

And , fast or slow , it is not always the driver at fault : viz the person wearing headphones who walks out into traffic , the cyclist on the footway , the turning lorry at 5mph which runs over the undertaking cyclist , the bin lorry which reverses over the old lady who didn’t hear the reversing alarm and walked behind it ...
 
This is the reason down to a T.

A lot of councillors use it as a way of winning votes. "I care so much about the safety of my constituents that I will lower the speed limit on your road to 20mph because it reduces your chances of being fatally injured from 20% to 2.5%"
Pity it increases their chances of contracting respiratory diseases thanks to poorer air quality, as well as peeving off the majority of voters who happen to be drivers too .
 
Pedestrians are almost 10 times more likely to be fatally wounded at 30 mph than at 20. At 20 there is a 2.5% chance of being killed, at 30 it rises to around 20%
Whats the chance of a pedestrian being fatally wounded at 5mph? I bet its a fair bit less than 2.5% so lets have 5mph speed limits. In fact lets employ someone to walk in front of our cars with a flag to warn everyone that we are on our way.....ohh hang on thats what used to happen back in 1890.
 
Whats the chance of a pedestrian being fatally wounded at 5mph? I bet its a fair bit less than 2.5% so lets have 5mph speed limits. In fact lets employ someone to walk in front of our cars with a flag to warn everyone that we are on our way.....ohh hang on thats what used to happen back in 1890.
If you are run over by a lorry at 5mph , the chances of death are pretty high .
 
Highest recorded fatality rate. 1941 9,169
Highest recorded peacetime fatality rate. 1966 7,985
Lowest death rate since records began. 2013 1,713
 
The first question to be asked is what the crash statistics were before the changes : if zero KSI its hard to improve; and if not zero , can they show that excess speed was a factor ?
“Lies, damn lies and statistics “
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom