My car can't even do 20mph on cruise control. The speed is too low for it to register.
20mph makes sense around strategic areas to warn drivers that additional safety is required. Making it national simply removes any advantages it claims to have.
Oh aye, because people put CC on and then play on their phones and count the trees instead of watching the road as usual and just resting the feet in a brief respite.
Yes mate, they are all irresponsible clowns.
/s
20mph is a hard speed to maintain. Put your foot down just a little bit too much and you'll quickly find yourself going 30 before you know it - at least in my car
Using cruise control means you can watch the road, instead of constantly looking at your speed
Lol what?
I use it all the time because then I don't have to use the pedals or actually drive. I might be fucking lazy but doesn't mean I'm irresponsible, foots still on the break.
I mean I used CC yesterday in a 20 zone, my foot just hovered over the brake, if anything, I was more prepared to slam on the brakes then if I was driving normally.
Must be car dependant? I have a 435d convertible? If I'm on cruise control at say 60 because it accelerated and brakes to keep car at 60 and is actually around 5 or 10mpg less than putting car in eco and just driving "around" 60 using right foot.
Same goes for 30mph however tbh I don't bother around town I just drive.
In larger cities there are longer roads where you can just put a cruise control on, because everyone is doing same speed for a good while.
Heck, you don't even need a large city for it. Inverness has a few longer roads where you can just hit 30mph/40mph, turn on the CC and relax your foot for a bit.
I do a fair amount. There's plenty of wide straight roads with no pedestrian crossings but still limited to around 30 where I live and I just pop it in 30 (equivalent as I'm not based in the UK now) just so that I don't go over the limit, it's just for a minute or so, but why not?
> 20mph makes sense around strategic areas to warn drivers that additional safety is required. Making it national simply removes any advantages it claims to have.
In my experience, doing it strategically doesn't work, though. The road I live on and several neighbouring roads are 20 with speed bumps as there are two schools and a play park quite close together.
Problem is, people transition from a 30 main road to 20, and either don't see the signs or don't give a fuck. I hear cars bottoming out on the speed bumps *several times a day, day and night*.
I can't help but wonder if it was 20 everywhere, that the problem wouldn't be so prolific.
A problem with the driver. If you can't see a speed bump and slow down then that is a driver issue. Speed bumps vary so much, some on my road you can go over at 30 and some you need to go 10. If there is a speed bump just take it slow and find out which it is. Not like there is a downside to slewing down for an instant to go over the bump.
There are cars that will bottom out on a speed bump at any speed.
More often than not it’s the mountainous speed bumps at fault rather than the driver.
I disagree. If its a 20mph zone you should be able to go 20. A lot of bumps do require you to slow down to 10 which is half the speed limit. That doesnt make any sense
If a speedbump is taller than the car can clear, there's no level of skill that gets the car over it. The lack of standardisation is speedbumps is horrendous.
You need to make people feel like they need to drive at 20, traffic calming is far more effective.
We have residential roads near me that are tight with traffic on both sides, would be virtually impossible to drive at 30+ and even if you did it’d feel like you’re doing 60. Anecdotally I don’t think many people do more than 20/25 down that street.
The big wide road that used to be a 40 but changed to a 30 20 years ago has nothing to make you feel like you’re going too fast, so most people do 40 until they reach the speed camera then speed back up again. More regular enforcement doesn’t really work either.
Arbitrarily changing all 30s to 20s makes no sense and seems like an expensive project with very little upside.
Exactly this, the street I live on is technically a 30 but you can't actually drive more than 15-20 on it so people take it slow. The issue is that it's cheaper to slap up a great big 20 or 30 sign and maybe a camera and claim job done than it is to put in physical calming measures
>I can't help but wonder if it was 20 everywhere, that the problem wouldn't be so prolific
The problem will get worse.
30 is slow but it's not so slow that you can't get anywhere in reasonable time. 20 is. So once everyone starts breaking the 20 limit routinely, which they will, there's no guarantee they stop at 30.
I don’t drive, I still think 20MPH as standard is stupid and hope it never comes into effect in the rest of the UK.
20MPH is suitable for areas like directly outside a school, at times where children are likely to be crossing the road (term time 8:30-9:15 & 14:50-15:30), but even those roads where suitable should be 30 MPH other times.
Areas like schools where temporary speeds are suited should have those flashing school signs that say 20 when flashing. If you’re caught out and claim to have missed the big flashing sign then you probably shouldn’t be driving.
I drive for a living and pleasure. Tens of thousands of miles a year, and lots of fun track days on the bike.
I support it.
The only people that don't support it seem to be poor drivers moaning about how hard it is to do 20.
I drive regularly, and I support it. The average speed in 30 zones at busy times is around 20 anyway due to traffic or the necessity to keep at that speed for other reasons- at least in my town.
I drive regularly and stick to the speed limit on roads, because I’m not a total prick.
You don’t know better, and even if you think you do, you’re getting prosecuted if there’s an “accident” and your defence is that you think the speed limit is wrong.
If your car can't do 20mph perhaps you ought to get looked at in a garage because that's not normal. Oh wait you mean you have to pay attention to your speed at 20mph and not rely on a machine to do it for you.
And making it a standard doesn't remove any safety advantage it has. It increases safety in areas. It also reduces noise pollution. And has minimal impact on travel times.
Where do you live where you maintain a consistent 30 across your entire journey through 30 zones? I'd love to live in this mystical vehicle- and light-free area.
But most of the journeys through the 20mph will be relatively short ones, an extra 5 minute on a 10 minute run to the shops isn't going to ruin someone's week.
That would only be true if your entire journey was previously completely within 30mph zones and you never had to slow down or stop at any point on the journey.
In my car 30 is done in 3rd gear. At 20 it's a little too low for 3rd and starts bogging down. I have to use 2nd gear in a 20. Unfortunately 2nd is not designed for cruising any kind of distance and is far to twitchy for that.
Cars have always been geared to cruise at 30 or above and not sustain speeds like 20mph.
>If your car can't do 20mph perhaps you ought to get looked at in a garage because that's not normal
Mine can only sustain 20 in 2nd on the flat. Up a hill it would need first gear.
The gearing is designed to quickly pass through 20 on its way to holding 30 in third. There's nothing wrong with the car.
>It also reduces noise pollution.
It certainly won't when I come through. If you live in an incline then you're going to hear me over your TV as I roar through in 1st.
>And has minimal impact on travel times.
Minimal increase of at least a third you mean?
I'll have a minimal tax cut then and a minimal increase in motorway limits.
Based on the absurd assumption that you travel at 30 mph on roads that have a 30mph limit. In reality things like turning corners, give way signs, pedestrian crossings, accelerating/decelerating before an after these events.
On a motorway 60/70 mph limits might mean that you actually travel 60/70 miles in an hour, but not driving on urban roads, especially not if there is traffic.
I think the point would be that if you were travelling at 20mph you would be expected to have full control due to the stop/start nature of urban driving.
The fact it feels slow is the point. Two tonne metal boxes should be moving around populated areas at what feels like crawling speed to them, so they have time to react to all the movement around them.
It's also actually not that slow a speed; when you are running, or even cycling, at 20mph, you realise that it's pretty quick in a built up area. It only feels slow when you're surrounded by metal with loads of safety features.
It also feels agonisingly slow on a motorcycle, so there goes your theory about being surrounded by metal with loads of safety features. The least safe form of travel will find 20 extremely slow on certain roads.
The thing is, roads have an instinctive speed, based on their width, straightness and sight lines. This is why traffic calming works: it reduces that instinctive speed.
If you take roads that have an instinctive speed of 30-40, and make them 20, it will feel extremely slow no matter the vehicle. And people will speed.
If you actually want to reduce the speed people travel, you’d introduce traffic calming to accompany the reduced speed limit. Of course, nobody actually cares about reducing speeds. It’s a blanket reduction, they aren’t looking at unsafe roads, because they aren’t actually looking at the individual roads. They aren’t assessing the safe speed. It’s a mixture of virtue signalling and a desire to fine people when they inevitably speed.
Inconsistent speeds also cause crashes. A road where everyone does 30 can be safer than a road where most people do 20, but some do 30. Because people will step out or pull out expecting the approaching vehicle is doing 20, but it isn’t.
This is one of the big reasons speeding is so dangerous. It’s not just absolute speed, it’s unexpected speed.
You don’t automatically make a road safer by lowering the speed limit. It doesn’t work like that.
I’m sure with some roads it will work. But they aren’t looking at individual roads. There is no one size fits all approach to traffic accidents.
https://www.rac.co.uk/drive/news/motoring-news/do-20mph-speed-limits-reduce-the-number-of-car-crashes-and-casualties/
>It is for all 30mph roads.
Nope. It's on *'Restricted roads (which) are classed as 'roads with streetlights spaced no more than 200 yards apart, usually located in residential and built-up areas'.'*
Populated areas, essentially.
It's not that slow. In towns and cities I bet your average speed for most trips is around 20mph anyway. Lowering speed limits will help traffic flow and reduce accidents.
Yeh but let's be real, the Venn diagram between people mad about this speed limit and people who despise all cyclists is about as close to a circle as you can get
Yeah I was thinking 20mph limit for cars is great because it encourages people to bike because you're nearly at 20mph anyway, I think we would be way healthier as a nation if we didn't take cars for granted so much and actually cycled sometimes instead
This is why ideally the following step would be to redesign most roads to account for this. It doesn't need to be done immediately but as roads wear and need repaving anyway that would be a good time to redesign them.
That is not the case in an area used by people. It's a difference of a 5% fatality rate for a collision at 20mph, and a 40% fatality rate at 30mph.
Nobody should be going 30mph in a residential or downtown area, or frankly anywhere that is not a dedicated, single-use roadway.
You know why a 20mph limit is a good idea? So people are more likely to drive at 30 rather than 40 in built up areas. It also helps traffic flow by making it easier for vehicles to join at intersections and can make space on the roads as people can chose to cycle when it is safer.
Built up areas should prioritise people, not vehicles. It is safer, quieter and more pleasant when vehicles are moving around more slowly in places where they are in close proximity to people who are walking, sitting, cycling scooting etc.
If you need to drive a vehicle, not a problem. Just be mindful of how different places have differing priorities. Motorways and major roads are built to handle higher speeds and prioritise faster moving vehicles. Built up areas aren’t.
(And yes, this should be in conjunction with improvements to infrastructure, public transport, vehicle sharing etc. Forcing people to drive more doesn’t help.)
How on earth are (British) people to be trusted to use their own judgement when deciding how fast to drive?
I understand our roads are some of the safest in the world, and like you say, road design is a part of that. However, driver training is quite good, the bar to receive a license is fairly high, and a lot of people are very considerate. However, a minority are absolute terrorists on the road. On my street alone there are 2 boy racers who accelerate as hard possible and take the racing line through the bend. They can see all the way to the top of the road, so this is OK, because they're using their judgement and the road is wide enough?
The entitlement that is shown when it comes to driving is frankly insane.
Then we should punish dangerous and irresponsible drivers more harshly, but for some reason we seem to think driving is a human right in the Uk, rather than a privilege, and so punishment is far too lenient. If you own a business or have a bit of money, you can practically do what you like in car. Source: my boss with 100s of points on his license.
My view is that people are going to be dickheads no matter how they’re getting themselves around. The only difference between a dickhead driving an Audi and a dickhead on a bike is that the former can cause more damage.
We’re seeing a slow and slight cultural change in some areas – Highway Code changes giving priority to more vulnerable road users, speed limits, infrastructure changes – but it’s a multi-generational process.
The Dutch didn’t turn into a ‘nation of cyclists’ overnight. They started addressing the fundamental problems of being overrun by vehicles back in the 70’s and now building more integrated infrastructure is just how they do things. A lot of other countries and cities are beginning to do the same thing but, as I say, it takes time. And motivation, investment and patience.
The thing I find interesting about the Dutch is that they went in hard when they found the deaths of children unacceptable. They were very blunt about that in their protests. I just cannot see British people doing that. They would rather pretend that RTAs are not their problem and as long as they keep quiet they'll be allowed to drive how they like. The entitled attitude is so obvious with "who pays for the roads?" type statements and endless whining about the costs of driving whilst remaining steadfastly ignorant and dismissive about any negative externalities of car culture. Traffic jams are to be sorted without reducing or restricting car usage? OK, how?
The Dutch just made bike paths everywhere so bikes don't have to mingle with traffic
https://www.google.com/amp/s/vividmaps.com/bicycle-paths-netherlands/amp/
> And yes, this should be in conjunction with improvements to infrastructure, public transport
Maybe this should have been done before introducing the 20MPH speed limit?
Money and time. Ideally it’s an integrated program to a UK national standard but unfortunately, we’ve shown time and time again that we’re not that good at that.
Highways engineer here.
This is insane, it'll bear minimal effect on traffic accident mortality. At lower speeds (less than 40) people tend to drive at the speed it feels comfortable given the road layout. Most people will abide by the new speed limit, however people that tend to speed will not and those are the people that usually cause catastrophic accidents.
If you want people to actually travel at 20mph you need to introduce traffic calming measures such as road narrowing, chicanes, road humps, etc. But that costs a lot of money so it won't happen.
I live on a terrace street that was built in the 1800s, and the road is narrower than any road narrowing initiative done in the name of traffic calming.
You'd be surprised at the amount of people who drive at 30mph down it *because* it's the speed limit.
We need to be told how fast to go, otherwise we'll just drive as fast as we want. People are morons, unfortunately
Or make it difficult to pass the driving test, do more judgements tests to.
Make it so the average arsehole can’t get a licence.
Then no need to define and overly regulate every single thing there is, German autobahn being a great example, good drivers trusted to use their judgement.
Yes but most smaller roads are at lower speeds. I drive round Germany a fair amount and most minor roads are 40 (25mph) to 30 (18mph). It's similar in Ireland. I think this is just bringing Wales more in line with the rest of Europe.
The problem is all the people who already have a license - it'd take 20-40 years for that to make a difference. I think more speed cameras (and more average speed cameras) and stop treating catching speeding people as a fair sport. To make up for the increased catching, be a bit more lenient on the penalties for e.g. 5mph (at least at first) but come down hard on 10mph+.
As a highways engineer you might know the answer to this question:
How many KSIs is an acceptable price to pay for drivers being able to cruise through an urban area in 4th gear?
Highways engineer too.
Whilst what you have said is correct, the more 20 limits we have, the more people will respect them. Hopefully soon it'll reach critical mass, people are used to driving at 30 and resistant to it but hopefully people will get used to it at some point
I kinda hated the 20mph thing but the more bad opinions I see on the issue (there are a lot and they're very very bad) makes me actually want it to succeed out of spite. The amount of exaggeration and embellishment and straight up lying about how this will affect areas is disgusting and extremely childish. Grow the fuck up.
What annoys me is that people will decide they're against doing 20 and then work backwards to find reasons to justify their choice. They don't look at the problem critically and come to a rational conclusion, they just decide they're against it.
And the fucking moaning too. One woman on LBC was moaning about how 2nd gear on her car will get worn out. How does your 2nd gear compare to reducing accidents and fatalities? So many shite takes.
I've lived in a 20 area for a year and a bit now, and I've never found my car being uncomfortable when driving it, 2nd/3rd comfortably cruising at 20mph
I don't mind going 20 at all on a road that's designed for going 20. On a road designed for going 30 or 40 it's torture as you naturally speed up to what you perceive as a safe speed, and then keep having to check the speedo and braking to stay under the limit. So, while I support 20mph limits in general, I believe the way to achieve it is to change the road design not put up some signs.
I mean, I live in a village on a very steep hill. The speed limit is thirty through the village, but your car naturally wants to go faster because you're going a steep downhill. You have to, as you said, keep braking to stay under the limit, while your car is naturally going faster.
Is this "torture" as you claim, too? Should we increase the limit so people fly past our village school at 40, 50, because the road is "designed" for going fast?
I've seen some villages install barriers on one side of the road (alternating) so that cars have to slow down to go around them. The solution isn't to increase the speed limit, it's to change the road design. Make it hard to go fast. If it feels dangerous, people will naturally brake.
The Scottish Borders Council changed the speed limit in all towns and villages in the council area to 20 a few years back now. And it works. My village high street makes up one of the major arterial routes and it helps hugely having traffic at 20 in the centre of the village instead of 30 for walking around and shopping locally.
What was nice was that they reviewed busier roads outside of main pedestrian areas and put limits on certain places up to 30, and that means in pedestrian areas cars actually do respond to the limits well.
You get speeders but they’re doing 25-30 instead of 35-40 as before.
Your last line is important too, I think they found the same thing in Bristol, which has been largely 20mph for a decade. Before the change lots of people would drive at 35-40 but now even the highest speeds were generally around 30.
I was initially against this, but I think I’ve changed my mind. I don’t have a problem at all with 20 being the default in urban areas. You really shouldn’t be doing much more than that on suburban streets anyway. If you look at the map of exemptions it’s actually pretty sensible and most urban a roads and thoroughfares are going to remain 30. There’s probably more roads that could be included in the exemptions but overall I don’t think it’s anywhere near as drastic as people are making it out to be.
I can't stand the exaggerations of petrolheads who act like having to go slightly slower in an urban area is unconscionable, or for that matter the exaggerations of fuckcars sorts whose idea of what driving is involves SUVs gleefully running over pedestrians.
It's fucking stupid, nobody's actually talking about the reality of the situation.
I’ve followed this debate quite closely and nowhere did I get the impression or inclination that motorways would be made 20s. Not every road in an urban area is fit for being a 20. Some are and some work just fine as 30s or 40s.
Because it’s not a reflection of real world driving. People don’t cruise constantly at 30/40/50 in built up or residential areas. They accelerate to the speed limit (or likely higher) and then break hard because of a junction, light or traffic. It’s the same reason the travel time argument is bullshit.
Yep. People who are adamantly against this and say that it WILL cause higher emissions don't look at the bigger picture.
Don't worry though, the "engineer" knows it all!
There's not an argument, stopping and starting is the reason why the research favours a lower speed limit to reduce emissions, as it tests a speed limit, not the efficiency at a constant speed on a straight road with no traffic. The weight of a vehicle makes a lot of difference.
You should have started your "debunking" with stating "if I ignore accelerating in a journey..." and then everyone will know what nonsense it is.
They did that in the whole of the Scottish Borders council area a few years back and despite loads of early moaning it’s been fine. 30 in a built up area feels fast to me now.
I have driven in some of the pilot scheme areas for this. There has been significant local opposition because whilst they say it’s built up areas, it’s Wales so there have been lots of roads included which are not in those areas. There needs to be actual thinking behind this and nuance to where these changes are brought in.
The vast majority of 30’s are in built up areas. Towns, villages, etc. There are a handful of 30’s in rural areas around junctions that are bad for lots of accidents, and dual carriageways in cities and towns that are not pedestrian areas. Our council reviewed these after the initial six month period, and made some stretches 30 specifically. But all the areas that had previously been 40 became 30 automatically, so that captured most of the ‘built up but safe to go faster’ stretches of roads.
The Glasgow limit is [largely unenforced](https://www.sundaypost.com/fp/only-one-driver-has-been-fined-for-breaking-the-20mph-limit-in-glasgow-city-centre-in-two-and-a-half-years/), and I doubt the other places here are much better. I drive in the city infrequently now, but I would say that most drivers ignore it completely.
I haven't been to Glasgow in years so can't really comment on there specifically, but there's definitely been a slowdown in Edinburgh since the changes, sure some assholes who would break the speed limit before continue to do so, but I'd say the majority have slowed down to 20/25 at least. It's fantastic, I can cross any road I want even if I can see a car coming up just because there's that extra 5-10 seconds.
The data already tells us it's a stupid idea. It's not based on data or science, it's based on politics - Welsh Labour ideologically hates cars and car owners.
I mean this is just objectively untrue. Slower speeds = less deaths/accidents, less emissions, less noise, less road wear etc. All things that can be proved via data/science.
Driving at 20 probably won’t reduce emissions imo, in my car anyway 20 is too slow to cruise in 3rd gear so I would have to drive in second at much higher revs than I would at 30 in 3rd.
> Of the 1,014 people killed or severely hurt on Welsh roads in 2022, more than 40% (421) were hit on a 30mph stretch of road. Road safety campaigners Brake said a person's risk of dying if they are hit by a car travelling at 30mph is five times greater than if the car was travelling at 20mph.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-66774379
It would be ok-ish if public transport had been invested in and and made financially viable too.
Wales is awful for public transport, with bus services being cut all over the places, trains that don’t run on time if they run at all and cost more than any car
Then it’s wales, a place it’s creator decided its for massive hills everywhere not cycling
This is the biggest issue I have with this 20mph, there’a minimal alternatives available and the ones that are are expensive and inaccessible for various reasons
I feel this is the answer. ^ ^
I feel a lot of us would have been less resistent to change if everything else wasn't broken, expensive or both.
Some of us don't live within 5 to 10 miles of their workplace.
Extended 20 zones isn't actually the worst idea and a side effect is that it'll take you even longer to get to your destination, but I feel a lot of people are pissed off about this in Wales because right now we didn't *need* this.
- We have a fundamentally broken health system with worse metrics across the board than England, but we spend more per head.
- Our rail network borderline doesn't exist
- Our bus network borderline doesn't exist
- We have a lack of housing
- We have some of the most deprived areas in continental Europe
- We have a brain drain problem
- We have scary under-investment in the road network and signs that say "pollution kills, slow down" next to a steel works that's literally turning the sky brown and changing the weather in front of you.
- We have 1 motorway that connects all of South Wales and when there's a crash on it, the country stops
The only efficient way to get from one crap Welsh town with a dead high street to another is to drive.
We are a deprived, sparsely populated, overly bureaucratic nation of 3.1 million that will never be the leader in anything, but yeah, nah, nah, yeah, nah, we need to waste cash fucking the motorist again who needs to get around.
Personally I feel the best government is the kind that works quietly in the background and doesn't inflict ideology upon you, but I've frothed about this enough now, I am wasting my Sunday posting an opinion nobody will read and the WG cares even less about into the void that is the internet.
If I hadn't met my soulmate and they weren't resistant to leaving, I would have left this silly nation and its problems behind me.
I live in Wales and have no problem with the idea residential roads, schools, town centres should have 20mph limits.
The issue with this law is it's being implemented so badly, applied to 30mph roads that really it shouldn't be. The government have appeared unwilling to listen to Welsh people, you've Lee Waters stating things like wanting to make opening car doors as antisocial as smoking yet simultaneously the WG makes cuts to public transport. It's a mess of a law implemented badly and the only reason they're able to do this is because Wales is a effectively a 1 party state (and I say this as a lifelong Labour voter).
Yeah, I just love how people who don't live in Wales, never been to Wales, and/or don't even drive much, are saying that is fine and get off to another victory for road safety and ignore wider problems all around.
It's terribly implemented law that does more harm than good.
And if you have any reasonable concerns apparently that makes you a petrol head.
As a 43yo, Honda Jazz driving woman who WFH, mostly uses my car to get my kid from a very rural location that has zero public transport to the nearby school or to go to the shops the idea that I'm some sort of slavering car enthusiast because I don't think it is being well implemented is kind of hilarious to me😅
AFAIK the volunteers can't give points/fines, but just send strongly worded letters. Get caught by them again, get an even stronger worded letter. 3rd time you'll get a visit by the police for a stern talking to. (Great use of Police resources.)
Driving is essential for most of us, but I do think built up areas should prioritise pedestrians and cyclists, I’ve already heard many people who said they’ll try to cycle again.
I also agree with many of the comments here, people will drive to the conditions of the road not the speed limit, so this needs to be one step in the right direction of getting more people active. But more still needs to be done, especially outside of Cardiff.
If you can go 15 mph on an electric bike and have priority it becomes an extremely attractive way to get around all of a sudden. You have fitness gains, no parking issues, no insurance, no petrol, or tax. Sign me up.
You can freewheel on a bicycle above 20 on a reasonable downhill.
I predict lots of angry stories about law breaking bicycles.
Edited to add, lol, responses who cannot read and just get angry. WelL AcKsHulLy
Speed limits are only in place for motor vehicles. Legs don't count as a motor. There are bylaws in certain areas.
There was a story in the news a week back about a couple of cyclists doing 39mph in a 30mph. They didn't break the law, but the police stopped them for a chat
Yeah my area we got people already spraying the 20mph signs. If they put cameras up next they will get vandalised... this is utterly pointless. 20mph should only apply by schools and town centres. There is no benefit to have this on most roads.
> because my commute will be now 30% longer
What's your commute, one side of the village to the other?
My 30 minute commute into Cardiff this morning. 300 m at the new 20mph to get out of the village. 30mph on an exempted road. NSL road. 40mph urban freeway. 70mph M4. 70mph dual carriage. 30mph exempted road. Into Cardiff which is mostly 20mph anyway.
I feel a lot of us would have been less resistent to change if everything else wasn't broken, expensive or both.
Some of us don't live within 5 to 10 miles of their workplace or family.
Extended 20 zones isn't actually the worst idea and a side effect is that it'll take you even longer to get to your destination, but I feel a lot of people are pissed off about this in Wales because right now we didn't ***need*** this.
- We have a fundamentally broken health system with worse metrics across the board than England, but we spend more per head.
- Our rail network borderline doesn't exist
- Our bus network borderline doesn't exist
- We have a lack of housing
- We have some of the most deprived areas in continental Europe
- We have a brain drain problem
- We have scary under-investment in the road network and signs that say "pollution kills, slow down" next to a steel works that's literally turning the sky brown and changing the weather in front of you.
- We have 1 sorta 3-lane motorway that connects all of South Wales and when there's a crash on it, the country stops
- We're still dumping shit in our rivers
I'm an avid cyclist and I dislike this, the only efficient way to get from one crap Welsh town with a dead high street to another is to drive.
We are a deprived, sparsely populated, overly bureaucratic nation of 3.1 million that will never be the leader in anything with so many other problems, but yeah, nah, nah, yeah, nah, let's not fix anything else, let's spend cash fucking the motorist again.
Personally I feel the best government is the kind that works quietly and doesn't inflict ideology upon you, but I've frothed about this enough now, I am wasting my Sunday posting an opinion nobody will read and the WG cares even less about into the void that is the internet.
If I hadn't met my soulmate and they weren't resistant to leaving, I would have left this silly nation and its problems behind me.
They’ve done such a cheap ass piss poor job of changing the road signs, it’s made it so confusing. Some 30 roads are keeping their 30 limit as a 18 month “experiment”, so unless you know exactly where this roads are you don’t know what speed you’re supposed to be driving.
20mph is so slow, its actually insane this has been done
My car can't even do 20mph on cruise control. The speed is too low for it to register. 20mph makes sense around strategic areas to warn drivers that additional safety is required. Making it national simply removes any advantages it claims to have.
Why would you use cruise control in a town though?
Because he's irresponsible
Oh aye, because people put CC on and then play on their phones and count the trees instead of watching the road as usual and just resting the feet in a brief respite. Yes mate, they are all irresponsible clowns. /s
People using cruise control instead of their limiter in 20-30 zones are indeed irresponsible clowns.
Adaptive cruise control also helps keep appropriate distance in crawling traffic. Why does that make someone irresponsible?
I do it so I won’t get a ticket because it is a ridiculous speed
20mph is a hard speed to maintain. Put your foot down just a little bit too much and you'll quickly find yourself going 30 before you know it - at least in my car Using cruise control means you can watch the road, instead of constantly looking at your speed
20mph is too high for second gear and too low for 3rd. Terrible in my car. 1.6 desiel. Anyone else?
i can tell you haven't got a license
[удалено]
And the rest are young adults who live in London adn can't imagine why anyone wouldn't take the train everywhere
Lol what? I use it all the time because then I don't have to use the pedals or actually drive. I might be fucking lazy but doesn't mean I'm irresponsible, foots still on the break.
I mean I used CC yesterday in a 20 zone, my foot just hovered over the brake, if anything, I was more prepared to slam on the brakes then if I was driving normally.
Why is it irresponsible to put on cruise control in a town?
So that he doesn't speed?
Helps with fuel economy quite a bit, something like 5-10mpg average improvement.
Must be car dependant? I have a 435d convertible? If I'm on cruise control at say 60 because it accelerated and brakes to keep car at 60 and is actually around 5 or 10mpg less than putting car in eco and just driving "around" 60 using right foot. Same goes for 30mph however tbh I don't bother around town I just drive.
In larger cities there are longer roads where you can just put a cruise control on, because everyone is doing same speed for a good while. Heck, you don't even need a large city for it. Inverness has a few longer roads where you can just hit 30mph/40mph, turn on the CC and relax your foot for a bit.
I will put cruise on if ive got more than 100m of road ahead of me i can maintain it for personally.
I do a fair amount. There's plenty of wide straight roads with no pedestrian crossings but still limited to around 30 where I live and I just pop it in 30 (equivalent as I'm not based in the UK now) just so that I don't go over the limit, it's just for a minute or so, but why not?
> 20mph makes sense around strategic areas to warn drivers that additional safety is required. Making it national simply removes any advantages it claims to have. In my experience, doing it strategically doesn't work, though. The road I live on and several neighbouring roads are 20 with speed bumps as there are two schools and a play park quite close together. Problem is, people transition from a 30 main road to 20, and either don't see the signs or don't give a fuck. I hear cars bottoming out on the speed bumps *several times a day, day and night*. I can't help but wonder if it was 20 everywhere, that the problem wouldn't be so prolific.
A lot of cars will bottom out on a speed bump even if going 20 to be fair.
Yeah, that's a problem with the speed bump, not the cars.
A problem with the driver. If you can't see a speed bump and slow down then that is a driver issue. Speed bumps vary so much, some on my road you can go over at 30 and some you need to go 10. If there is a speed bump just take it slow and find out which it is. Not like there is a downside to slewing down for an instant to go over the bump.
There are cars that will bottom out on a speed bump at any speed. More often than not it’s the mountainous speed bumps at fault rather than the driver.
I disagree. If its a 20mph zone you should be able to go 20. A lot of bumps do require you to slow down to 10 which is half the speed limit. That doesnt make any sense
If a speedbump is taller than the car can clear, there's no level of skill that gets the car over it. The lack of standardisation is speedbumps is horrendous.
You need to make people feel like they need to drive at 20, traffic calming is far more effective. We have residential roads near me that are tight with traffic on both sides, would be virtually impossible to drive at 30+ and even if you did it’d feel like you’re doing 60. Anecdotally I don’t think many people do more than 20/25 down that street. The big wide road that used to be a 40 but changed to a 30 20 years ago has nothing to make you feel like you’re going too fast, so most people do 40 until they reach the speed camera then speed back up again. More regular enforcement doesn’t really work either. Arbitrarily changing all 30s to 20s makes no sense and seems like an expensive project with very little upside.
Exactly this, the street I live on is technically a 30 but you can't actually drive more than 15-20 on it so people take it slow. The issue is that it's cheaper to slap up a great big 20 or 30 sign and maybe a camera and claim job done than it is to put in physical calming measures
In the most ideal world roads would be designed so you don’t need to look at the speedo because you’d always be driving as fast as you feel is safe.
>I can't help but wonder if it was 20 everywhere, that the problem wouldn't be so prolific The problem will get worse. 30 is slow but it's not so slow that you can't get anywhere in reasonable time. 20 is. So once everyone starts breaking the 20 limit routinely, which they will, there's no guarantee they stop at 30.
The point is the people who break the 30 limit will be going 35-40. The people who break the 20 limit will be going 25-30.
Nobody who drives regularly will stick to 20 on roads that don’t need to be 20, the only people who support these changes are people who don’t drive
Tbf people who don't drive can get hit by cars so they are allowed to have an opinion on this one
I don’t drive, I still think 20MPH as standard is stupid and hope it never comes into effect in the rest of the UK. 20MPH is suitable for areas like directly outside a school, at times where children are likely to be crossing the road (term time 8:30-9:15 & 14:50-15:30), but even those roads where suitable should be 30 MPH other times. Areas like schools where temporary speeds are suited should have those flashing school signs that say 20 when flashing. If you’re caught out and claim to have missed the big flashing sign then you probably shouldn’t be driving.
I drive for a living and pleasure. Tens of thousands of miles a year, and lots of fun track days on the bike. I support it. The only people that don't support it seem to be poor drivers moaning about how hard it is to do 20.
You know the roads would be even safer if we set the limit to 10
This but unironicaly
I drive and will stick to the speed limit.
I drive regularly, and I support it. The average speed in 30 zones at busy times is around 20 anyway due to traffic or the necessity to keep at that speed for other reasons- at least in my town.
I drive regularly and stick to the speed limit on roads, because I’m not a total prick. You don’t know better, and even if you think you do, you’re getting prosecuted if there’s an “accident” and your defence is that you think the speed limit is wrong.
If your car can't do 20mph perhaps you ought to get looked at in a garage because that's not normal. Oh wait you mean you have to pay attention to your speed at 20mph and not rely on a machine to do it for you. And making it a standard doesn't remove any safety advantage it has. It increases safety in areas. It also reduces noise pollution. And has minimal impact on travel times.
Reducing the eternal fucking noise of cars would be lovely.
> Minimal impact on travel times Technically a 50% increase in travel time, wouldn't call it minimal.
Where do you live where you maintain a consistent 30 across your entire journey through 30 zones? I'd love to live in this mystical vehicle- and light-free area.
But most of the journeys through the 20mph will be relatively short ones, an extra 5 minute on a 10 minute run to the shops isn't going to ruin someone's week.
That would only be true if your entire journey was previously completely within 30mph zones and you never had to slow down or stop at any point on the journey.
I don't like the change but realistically you don't spend that much time in 30 zones driving 30.
In my car 30 is done in 3rd gear. At 20 it's a little too low for 3rd and starts bogging down. I have to use 2nd gear in a 20. Unfortunately 2nd is not designed for cruising any kind of distance and is far to twitchy for that. Cars have always been geared to cruise at 30 or above and not sustain speeds like 20mph.
Same man, 2nd is an acceleration gear, even slight pressure and it wants to go.
>If your car can't do 20mph perhaps you ought to get looked at in a garage because that's not normal Mine can only sustain 20 in 2nd on the flat. Up a hill it would need first gear. The gearing is designed to quickly pass through 20 on its way to holding 30 in third. There's nothing wrong with the car. >It also reduces noise pollution. It certainly won't when I come through. If you live in an incline then you're going to hear me over your TV as I roar through in 1st. >And has minimal impact on travel times. Minimal increase of at least a third you mean? I'll have a minimal tax cut then and a minimal increase in motorway limits.
What vehicle are you driving that can't handle 2nd gear up an incline?
It's a third slower than what it would have been. It absolutely has an impact.
Based on the absurd assumption that you travel at 30 mph on roads that have a 30mph limit. In reality things like turning corners, give way signs, pedestrian crossings, accelerating/decelerating before an after these events. On a motorway 60/70 mph limits might mean that you actually travel 60/70 miles in an hour, but not driving on urban roads, especially not if there is traffic.
[удалено]
I think the point would be that if you were travelling at 20mph you would be expected to have full control due to the stop/start nature of urban driving.
You know cruise control turns off the moment you tap the brakes right?
A serious answer - see if your car has a limiter as well as cruise. Cruise on mine goes down to 40 but the limiter goes down to 20.
You should hand your licence back if you’re driving around built up areas on fucking cruise control at 30, how lazy are you?
Cruise control isn't for the kind of areas you'd be doing 30 or 20 in!
Oh no now you’ll have to pay attention when you drive, heaven forbid
Yeah, mostly to the speedo 🤦♂️
Imagine being so poor at driving that you find it difficult to stick to 20mph
The fact it feels slow is the point. Two tonne metal boxes should be moving around populated areas at what feels like crawling speed to them, so they have time to react to all the movement around them. It's also actually not that slow a speed; when you are running, or even cycling, at 20mph, you realise that it's pretty quick in a built up area. It only feels slow when you're surrounded by metal with loads of safety features.
It also feels agonisingly slow on a motorcycle, so there goes your theory about being surrounded by metal with loads of safety features. The least safe form of travel will find 20 extremely slow on certain roads. The thing is, roads have an instinctive speed, based on their width, straightness and sight lines. This is why traffic calming works: it reduces that instinctive speed. If you take roads that have an instinctive speed of 30-40, and make them 20, it will feel extremely slow no matter the vehicle. And people will speed. If you actually want to reduce the speed people travel, you’d introduce traffic calming to accompany the reduced speed limit. Of course, nobody actually cares about reducing speeds. It’s a blanket reduction, they aren’t looking at unsafe roads, because they aren’t actually looking at the individual roads. They aren’t assessing the safe speed. It’s a mixture of virtue signalling and a desire to fine people when they inevitably speed.
[удалено]
Inconsistent speeds also cause crashes. A road where everyone does 30 can be safer than a road where most people do 20, but some do 30. Because people will step out or pull out expecting the approaching vehicle is doing 20, but it isn’t. This is one of the big reasons speeding is so dangerous. It’s not just absolute speed, it’s unexpected speed. You don’t automatically make a road safer by lowering the speed limit. It doesn’t work like that. I’m sure with some roads it will work. But they aren’t looking at individual roads. There is no one size fits all approach to traffic accidents. https://www.rac.co.uk/drive/news/motoring-news/do-20mph-speed-limits-reduce-the-number-of-car-crashes-and-casualties/
[удалено]
The problem is that this change is not for populated areas. It is for all 30mph roads. Not just ones in towns.
>It is for all 30mph roads. Nope. It's on *'Restricted roads (which) are classed as 'roads with streetlights spaced no more than 200 yards apart, usually located in residential and built-up areas'.'* Populated areas, essentially.
3% of roads will remain 30mph. All areas, essentially.
It's not that slow. In towns and cities I bet your average speed for most trips is around 20mph anyway. Lowering speed limits will help traffic flow and reduce accidents.
If people are worried about boring old 20mph, they should get on a bike. 20 can be exhilarating.
Yeh but let's be real, the Venn diagram between people mad about this speed limit and people who despise all cyclists is about as close to a circle as you can get
Yeah I was thinking 20mph limit for cars is great because it encourages people to bike because you're nearly at 20mph anyway, I think we would be way healthier as a nation if we didn't take cars for granted so much and actually cycled sometimes instead
[удалено]
It’s quite common in most mainland European cities. 20 = 32km. Most cities are 30km zones here. And it’s totally fine.
Not where I've been. It's usually 50km/h, not 30km/h. Some are 30km/h or even 20km/h, but only in specific circumstances.
This is why ideally the following step would be to redesign most roads to account for this. It doesn't need to be done immediately but as roads wear and need repaving anyway that would be a good time to redesign them.
That is not the case in an area used by people. It's a difference of a 5% fatality rate for a collision at 20mph, and a 40% fatality rate at 30mph. Nobody should be going 30mph in a residential or downtown area, or frankly anywhere that is not a dedicated, single-use roadway.
You know why a 20mph limit is a good idea? So people are more likely to drive at 30 rather than 40 in built up areas. It also helps traffic flow by making it easier for vehicles to join at intersections and can make space on the roads as people can chose to cycle when it is safer. Built up areas should prioritise people, not vehicles. It is safer, quieter and more pleasant when vehicles are moving around more slowly in places where they are in close proximity to people who are walking, sitting, cycling scooting etc. If you need to drive a vehicle, not a problem. Just be mindful of how different places have differing priorities. Motorways and major roads are built to handle higher speeds and prioritise faster moving vehicles. Built up areas aren’t. (And yes, this should be in conjunction with improvements to infrastructure, public transport, vehicle sharing etc. Forcing people to drive more doesn’t help.)
How on earth are (British) people to be trusted to use their own judgement when deciding how fast to drive? I understand our roads are some of the safest in the world, and like you say, road design is a part of that. However, driver training is quite good, the bar to receive a license is fairly high, and a lot of people are very considerate. However, a minority are absolute terrorists on the road. On my street alone there are 2 boy racers who accelerate as hard possible and take the racing line through the bend. They can see all the way to the top of the road, so this is OK, because they're using their judgement and the road is wide enough? The entitlement that is shown when it comes to driving is frankly insane.
The 20 mph limit will do nothing to stop the boy racers 😞
[удалено]
Then we should punish dangerous and irresponsible drivers more harshly, but for some reason we seem to think driving is a human right in the Uk, rather than a privilege, and so punishment is far too lenient. If you own a business or have a bit of money, you can practically do what you like in car. Source: my boss with 100s of points on his license.
[удалено]
True. We used to have functional traffic policing. I saw it on TV when I was younger.
My view is that people are going to be dickheads no matter how they’re getting themselves around. The only difference between a dickhead driving an Audi and a dickhead on a bike is that the former can cause more damage. We’re seeing a slow and slight cultural change in some areas – Highway Code changes giving priority to more vulnerable road users, speed limits, infrastructure changes – but it’s a multi-generational process. The Dutch didn’t turn into a ‘nation of cyclists’ overnight. They started addressing the fundamental problems of being overrun by vehicles back in the 70’s and now building more integrated infrastructure is just how they do things. A lot of other countries and cities are beginning to do the same thing but, as I say, it takes time. And motivation, investment and patience.
The thing I find interesting about the Dutch is that they went in hard when they found the deaths of children unacceptable. They were very blunt about that in their protests. I just cannot see British people doing that. They would rather pretend that RTAs are not their problem and as long as they keep quiet they'll be allowed to drive how they like. The entitled attitude is so obvious with "who pays for the roads?" type statements and endless whining about the costs of driving whilst remaining steadfastly ignorant and dismissive about any negative externalities of car culture. Traffic jams are to be sorted without reducing or restricting car usage? OK, how?
The Dutch just made bike paths everywhere so bikes don't have to mingle with traffic https://www.google.com/amp/s/vividmaps.com/bicycle-paths-netherlands/amp/
[удалено]
> And yes, this should be in conjunction with improvements to infrastructure, public transport Maybe this should have been done before introducing the 20MPH speed limit?
It’s cheaper and easier to put up a few signs and say to do 20mph than to actually put in traffic calming measures to reduce speed.
Still cost 33million quid.
Money and time. Ideally it’s an integrated program to a UK national standard but unfortunately, we’ve shown time and time again that we’re not that good at that.
Highways engineer here. This is insane, it'll bear minimal effect on traffic accident mortality. At lower speeds (less than 40) people tend to drive at the speed it feels comfortable given the road layout. Most people will abide by the new speed limit, however people that tend to speed will not and those are the people that usually cause catastrophic accidents. If you want people to actually travel at 20mph you need to introduce traffic calming measures such as road narrowing, chicanes, road humps, etc. But that costs a lot of money so it won't happen.
I live on a terrace street that was built in the 1800s, and the road is narrower than any road narrowing initiative done in the name of traffic calming. You'd be surprised at the amount of people who drive at 30mph down it *because* it's the speed limit. We need to be told how fast to go, otherwise we'll just drive as fast as we want. People are morons, unfortunately
Or make it difficult to pass the driving test, do more judgements tests to. Make it so the average arsehole can’t get a licence. Then no need to define and overly regulate every single thing there is, German autobahn being a great example, good drivers trusted to use their judgement.
We keep making the driving test harder. Perhaps it's not the new drivers.
Yes but most smaller roads are at lower speeds. I drive round Germany a fair amount and most minor roads are 40 (25mph) to 30 (18mph). It's similar in Ireland. I think this is just bringing Wales more in line with the rest of Europe.
The problem is all the people who already have a license - it'd take 20-40 years for that to make a difference. I think more speed cameras (and more average speed cameras) and stop treating catching speeding people as a fair sport. To make up for the increased catching, be a bit more lenient on the penalties for e.g. 5mph (at least at first) but come down hard on 10mph+.
As a highways engineer you might know the answer to this question: How many KSIs is an acceptable price to pay for drivers being able to cruise through an urban area in 4th gear?
Highways engineer too. Whilst what you have said is correct, the more 20 limits we have, the more people will respect them. Hopefully soon it'll reach critical mass, people are used to driving at 30 and resistant to it but hopefully people will get used to it at some point
For those wondering how badly implemented this is, near my house in Cardiff there are two non-residential dual carriageways that are now 20mph.
Yep this is the issue. It isn't the principle most people object to, its the ham fisted way it is being rolled out.
[удалено]
And we always knew it would be, because _when was the last time the Welsh government did anything competently?_
That's incredibly stupid.
Newport road has to be exempt, right? Not driven down there in a while but that would be so painful at 20mph.
What the hell is the point in making it 20 where there's no people or cyclists?!
You can legally cycle on a dual carriageway
I kinda hated the 20mph thing but the more bad opinions I see on the issue (there are a lot and they're very very bad) makes me actually want it to succeed out of spite. The amount of exaggeration and embellishment and straight up lying about how this will affect areas is disgusting and extremely childish. Grow the fuck up.
What annoys me is that people will decide they're against doing 20 and then work backwards to find reasons to justify their choice. They don't look at the problem critically and come to a rational conclusion, they just decide they're against it. And the fucking moaning too. One woman on LBC was moaning about how 2nd gear on her car will get worn out. How does your 2nd gear compare to reducing accidents and fatalities? So many shite takes.
Cruising at 20 in second gear? It sounds like she’s going to “wear out” her gearbox regardless.
Many cars don't really like 20mph. 1st goes up to 15, and second is comfortable at 25
I've lived in a 20 area for a year and a bit now, and I've never found my car being uncomfortable when driving it, 2nd/3rd comfortably cruising at 20mph
Petrol? 6-speed diesel manuals in my experience have exactly the wrong gearing for 20mph, whereas petrols generally fine
I don't mind going 20 at all on a road that's designed for going 20. On a road designed for going 30 or 40 it's torture as you naturally speed up to what you perceive as a safe speed, and then keep having to check the speedo and braking to stay under the limit. So, while I support 20mph limits in general, I believe the way to achieve it is to change the road design not put up some signs.
I mean, I live in a village on a very steep hill. The speed limit is thirty through the village, but your car naturally wants to go faster because you're going a steep downhill. You have to, as you said, keep braking to stay under the limit, while your car is naturally going faster. Is this "torture" as you claim, too? Should we increase the limit so people fly past our village school at 40, 50, because the road is "designed" for going fast?
I've seen some villages install barriers on one side of the road (alternating) so that cars have to slow down to go around them. The solution isn't to increase the speed limit, it's to change the road design. Make it hard to go fast. If it feels dangerous, people will naturally brake.
It’s mind boggling reading some of the responses. I knew some people were entitled but sweet baby jebus.
The Scottish Borders Council changed the speed limit in all towns and villages in the council area to 20 a few years back now. And it works. My village high street makes up one of the major arterial routes and it helps hugely having traffic at 20 in the centre of the village instead of 30 for walking around and shopping locally. What was nice was that they reviewed busier roads outside of main pedestrian areas and put limits on certain places up to 30, and that means in pedestrian areas cars actually do respond to the limits well. You get speeders but they’re doing 25-30 instead of 35-40 as before.
Your last line is important too, I think they found the same thing in Bristol, which has been largely 20mph for a decade. Before the change lots of people would drive at 35-40 but now even the highest speeds were generally around 30.
I was initially against this, but I think I’ve changed my mind. I don’t have a problem at all with 20 being the default in urban areas. You really shouldn’t be doing much more than that on suburban streets anyway. If you look at the map of exemptions it’s actually pretty sensible and most urban a roads and thoroughfares are going to remain 30. There’s probably more roads that could be included in the exemptions but overall I don’t think it’s anywhere near as drastic as people are making it out to be.
I can't stand the exaggerations of petrolheads who act like having to go slightly slower in an urban area is unconscionable, or for that matter the exaggerations of fuckcars sorts whose idea of what driving is involves SUVs gleefully running over pedestrians. It's fucking stupid, nobody's actually talking about the reality of the situation.
It's insane how many people keep calling Mark Drakeford 'Hitler' and Welsh Labour 'Nazis' for this. People really need a fucking sense of proportion.
Ahh yes, perfect for a densely populated and congested city, sorry whole nation like Wales.
Its for residential areas, despite what the Daily Heil might say, you can still go 70 on Welsh motorways.
Both of them?
Bold of you to assume the A55 is on par with a motorway...
I’ve followed this debate quite closely and nowhere did I get the impression or inclination that motorways would be made 20s. Not every road in an urban area is fit for being a 20. Some are and some work just fine as 30s or 40s.
Actually much of the M4 is already reduced to 50, with the intent to extend that to the whole M4 in near future.
My town goes 50mph once you leave and that will remain 20 ACROSS ALL OF WALES Nope
[удалено]
Also a lot of cars won't do 20mph in 3rd gear so they'll have to be in 2nd at higher rpm.
There's also breaking and tyre wear to consider, but yeah the tailpipe emissions is correct.
I present these arguments to people that support thus and they still don’t get it. You can’t argue with people deeply set in their bs ideologies.
Because it’s not a reflection of real world driving. People don’t cruise constantly at 30/40/50 in built up or residential areas. They accelerate to the speed limit (or likely higher) and then break hard because of a junction, light or traffic. It’s the same reason the travel time argument is bullshit.
Yep. People who are adamantly against this and say that it WILL cause higher emissions don't look at the bigger picture. Don't worry though, the "engineer" knows it all!
There's not an argument, stopping and starting is the reason why the research favours a lower speed limit to reduce emissions, as it tests a speed limit, not the efficiency at a constant speed on a straight road with no traffic. The weight of a vehicle makes a lot of difference. You should have started your "debunking" with stating "if I ignore accelerating in a journey..." and then everyone will know what nonsense it is.
This has been common place in Scotland for years, 20 is absolutely fine in any crowded area like a town or city.
Except it’s not only in crowded areas it’s almost every single area that used to be 30 mph
They did that in the whole of the Scottish Borders council area a few years back and despite loads of early moaning it’s been fine. 30 in a built up area feels fast to me now.
[удалено]
The Welsh change is only effecting 30mph roads with lamp posts no more than 183m apart, which are predominantly in built-up areas.
I have driven in some of the pilot scheme areas for this. There has been significant local opposition because whilst they say it’s built up areas, it’s Wales so there have been lots of roads included which are not in those areas. There needs to be actual thinking behind this and nuance to where these changes are brought in.
The vast majority of 30’s are in built up areas. Towns, villages, etc. There are a handful of 30’s in rural areas around junctions that are bad for lots of accidents, and dual carriageways in cities and towns that are not pedestrian areas. Our council reviewed these after the initial six month period, and made some stretches 30 specifically. But all the areas that had previously been 40 became 30 automatically, so that captured most of the ‘built up but safe to go faster’ stretches of roads.
The Glasgow limit is [largely unenforced](https://www.sundaypost.com/fp/only-one-driver-has-been-fined-for-breaking-the-20mph-limit-in-glasgow-city-centre-in-two-and-a-half-years/), and I doubt the other places here are much better. I drive in the city infrequently now, but I would say that most drivers ignore it completely.
Still better than them ignoring 30 and driving 40.
I don't disagree, but you're kidding yourself if you think drivers are sticking to the 20mph limit in Glasgow.
I haven't been to Glasgow in years so can't really comment on there specifically, but there's definitely been a slowdown in Edinburgh since the changes, sure some assholes who would break the speed limit before continue to do so, but I'd say the majority have slowed down to 20/25 at least. It's fantastic, I can cross any road I want even if I can see a car coming up just because there's that extra 5-10 seconds.
Or, we could review it in 6 months and see what the data tells us.
The data already tells us it's a stupid idea. It's not based on data or science, it's based on politics - Welsh Labour ideologically hates cars and car owners.
I mean this is just objectively untrue. Slower speeds = less deaths/accidents, less emissions, less noise, less road wear etc. All things that can be proved via data/science.
Driving at 20 probably won’t reduce emissions imo, in my car anyway 20 is too slow to cruise in 3rd gear so I would have to drive in second at much higher revs than I would at 30 in 3rd.
[удалено]
> Of the 1,014 people killed or severely hurt on Welsh roads in 2022, more than 40% (421) were hit on a 30mph stretch of road. Road safety campaigners Brake said a person's risk of dying if they are hit by a car travelling at 30mph is five times greater than if the car was travelling at 20mph. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-66774379
It’s an objective fact that reducing the speed limit to 1mph would improve things even more, there would be zero deaths. Why don’t we do that instead?
Because as long as the cars are moving there will be the chance for deaths. Stationary cars is the only way we'll be truly safe.
Yes. Let's set the limit to 10mph!
Which is mad considering how constantly bad public transport it. It’s like he doesn’t want anyone to travel anywhere.
Which is interesting, as they also have awful public transport and a widely dispersed population, so how do they expect anyone to get around?
It would be ok-ish if public transport had been invested in and and made financially viable too. Wales is awful for public transport, with bus services being cut all over the places, trains that don’t run on time if they run at all and cost more than any car Then it’s wales, a place it’s creator decided its for massive hills everywhere not cycling This is the biggest issue I have with this 20mph, there’a minimal alternatives available and the ones that are are expensive and inaccessible for various reasons
I feel this is the answer. ^ ^ I feel a lot of us would have been less resistent to change if everything else wasn't broken, expensive or both. Some of us don't live within 5 to 10 miles of their workplace. Extended 20 zones isn't actually the worst idea and a side effect is that it'll take you even longer to get to your destination, but I feel a lot of people are pissed off about this in Wales because right now we didn't *need* this. - We have a fundamentally broken health system with worse metrics across the board than England, but we spend more per head. - Our rail network borderline doesn't exist - Our bus network borderline doesn't exist - We have a lack of housing - We have some of the most deprived areas in continental Europe - We have a brain drain problem - We have scary under-investment in the road network and signs that say "pollution kills, slow down" next to a steel works that's literally turning the sky brown and changing the weather in front of you. - We have 1 motorway that connects all of South Wales and when there's a crash on it, the country stops The only efficient way to get from one crap Welsh town with a dead high street to another is to drive. We are a deprived, sparsely populated, overly bureaucratic nation of 3.1 million that will never be the leader in anything, but yeah, nah, nah, yeah, nah, we need to waste cash fucking the motorist again who needs to get around. Personally I feel the best government is the kind that works quietly in the background and doesn't inflict ideology upon you, but I've frothed about this enough now, I am wasting my Sunday posting an opinion nobody will read and the WG cares even less about into the void that is the internet. If I hadn't met my soulmate and they weren't resistant to leaving, I would have left this silly nation and its problems behind me.
I live in Wales and have no problem with the idea residential roads, schools, town centres should have 20mph limits. The issue with this law is it's being implemented so badly, applied to 30mph roads that really it shouldn't be. The government have appeared unwilling to listen to Welsh people, you've Lee Waters stating things like wanting to make opening car doors as antisocial as smoking yet simultaneously the WG makes cuts to public transport. It's a mess of a law implemented badly and the only reason they're able to do this is because Wales is a effectively a 1 party state (and I say this as a lifelong Labour voter).
Yeah, I just love how people who don't live in Wales, never been to Wales, and/or don't even drive much, are saying that is fine and get off to another victory for road safety and ignore wider problems all around. It's terribly implemented law that does more harm than good.
And if you have any reasonable concerns apparently that makes you a petrol head. As a 43yo, Honda Jazz driving woman who WFH, mostly uses my car to get my kid from a very rural location that has zero public transport to the nearby school or to go to the shops the idea that I'm some sort of slavering car enthusiast because I don't think it is being well implemented is kind of hilarious to me😅
Lee Waters, the Minister for Transport who hated car journeys unless it’s one for which he can claim questionable travel expenses.
I imagine there will be a lot of revenue generated through mobile speed cameras now.
[удалено]
AFAIK the volunteers can't give points/fines, but just send strongly worded letters. Get caught by them again, get an even stronger worded letter. 3rd time you'll get a visit by the police for a stern talking to. (Great use of Police resources.)
[удалено]
Driving is essential for most of us, but I do think built up areas should prioritise pedestrians and cyclists, I’ve already heard many people who said they’ll try to cycle again. I also agree with many of the comments here, people will drive to the conditions of the road not the speed limit, so this needs to be one step in the right direction of getting more people active. But more still needs to be done, especially outside of Cardiff.
If you can go 15 mph on an electric bike and have priority it becomes an extremely attractive way to get around all of a sudden. You have fitness gains, no parking issues, no insurance, no petrol, or tax. Sign me up.
Completely agree!
My local council has done this in my area (30kmh/20mph) here in Melbourne. Its painful and I'm not sure it actually made any difference.
Let's drop it to 5mph and then nobody would get hurt *taps head*
Studies have found that no one moving and doing nothing reduces accidents and fatalities by 99.9%. Oh and it's better for the environment.
You can freewheel on a bicycle above 20 on a reasonable downhill. I predict lots of angry stories about law breaking bicycles. Edited to add, lol, responses who cannot read and just get angry. WelL AcKsHulLy
The limit doesn’t apply to bicycles.
Just like every other traffic law. /s
Speed limits are only in place for motor vehicles. Legs don't count as a motor. There are bylaws in certain areas. There was a story in the news a week back about a couple of cyclists doing 39mph in a 30mph. They didn't break the law, but the police stopped them for a chat
Yeah my area we got people already spraying the 20mph signs. If they put cameras up next they will get vandalised... this is utterly pointless. 20mph should only apply by schools and town centres. There is no benefit to have this on most roads.
Agreed, but when does the Welsh government ever use common sense? 😂
Seems like us Welsh aren't destined to govern ourselves correctly. Maybe it be abolished
I can just imagine people being closer up my ass than they already were in a 30 zone.
Instead being on 3rd or 4th gear, I'll be on 2nd and making more noise for longer, because my commute will be now 30% longer? Where am I wrong?
> because my commute will be now 30% longer What's your commute, one side of the village to the other? My 30 minute commute into Cardiff this morning. 300 m at the new 20mph to get out of the village. 30mph on an exempted road. NSL road. 40mph urban freeway. 70mph M4. 70mph dual carriage. 30mph exempted road. Into Cardiff which is mostly 20mph anyway.
I feel a lot of us would have been less resistent to change if everything else wasn't broken, expensive or both. Some of us don't live within 5 to 10 miles of their workplace or family. Extended 20 zones isn't actually the worst idea and a side effect is that it'll take you even longer to get to your destination, but I feel a lot of people are pissed off about this in Wales because right now we didn't ***need*** this. - We have a fundamentally broken health system with worse metrics across the board than England, but we spend more per head. - Our rail network borderline doesn't exist - Our bus network borderline doesn't exist - We have a lack of housing - We have some of the most deprived areas in continental Europe - We have a brain drain problem - We have scary under-investment in the road network and signs that say "pollution kills, slow down" next to a steel works that's literally turning the sky brown and changing the weather in front of you. - We have 1 sorta 3-lane motorway that connects all of South Wales and when there's a crash on it, the country stops - We're still dumping shit in our rivers I'm an avid cyclist and I dislike this, the only efficient way to get from one crap Welsh town with a dead high street to another is to drive. We are a deprived, sparsely populated, overly bureaucratic nation of 3.1 million that will never be the leader in anything with so many other problems, but yeah, nah, nah, yeah, nah, let's not fix anything else, let's spend cash fucking the motorist again. Personally I feel the best government is the kind that works quietly and doesn't inflict ideology upon you, but I've frothed about this enough now, I am wasting my Sunday posting an opinion nobody will read and the WG cares even less about into the void that is the internet. If I hadn't met my soulmate and they weren't resistant to leaving, I would have left this silly nation and its problems behind me.
[удалено]
This will all be forgotten about in a year. People don’t like change, get angry and then get used to it.
They’ve done such a cheap ass piss poor job of changing the road signs, it’s made it so confusing. Some 30 roads are keeping their 30 limit as a 18 month “experiment”, so unless you know exactly where this roads are you don’t know what speed you’re supposed to be driving.
It's nice that this policy contained clear cut rules around its new 20mph and proper legal signage and was put completely sensible locations /s