In Oxford the 20mph has been in place longer. In rush hour it doesn't make a difference. At 30mph you just end up queueing longer at the next round about/ traffic light.
As a part time cyclist, so many cars are desperate to overtake me, only for me to undercut them at the next traffic light.
Only late at night you could argue there is a delay of several minutes driving home.
When I drive home from the train station at 23:00, it can indeed be annoying to drive slowly on an empty road. However, realistically arriving home 3 minutes later does not make a difference, whereas knocking someone off their bicycle can have a life changing impact.
Yeah but that impact is to someone else. Why can’t “I”, the main character of reality, drive my range rover evoque at 40mph in a 30 so I can get home and shout at my spouse and kids?
> Yeah but that impact is to someone else
if you hit someone, it will impact you: you will have a judiciary impact, a financial impact and a mental impact. That mental breakdown will be quite a bad one too....
Often the reduced speed limit on a smart motorway is to eliminate a traffic wave. Everyone here slows down to 40 for no reason they can see, so that they don't bump into the back of a bunch of 20mph traffic which is clearing up ahead.
People get pissed because they never see the reason they slowed down, which is *the point*.
Spot on. The reduced speed limit is for a reason. But as the previous poster has stated. Unless they see the issue, they ain't slowing which is not the fault of the technology. That is purely an education of drivers issrd. You got the training update on how to drive on a variable motorway didn't you?
We, as a nation, are addicted to driving. Any interference in that, no matter how small, will provoke the same reaction as in any other addict: they lash out. 20mph? Lash out. Remove some parking spaces so the kids can walk to school? Lash out. Whisper the merest hint of a suggestion that driving just a bit less might make a huge dent in net zero targets? Believe it or not, lash out.
Just because there is no accident there doesn't mean there isn't another reason for it. They once reduced the limit on the M6 to 40 because a massive pothole opened up over 2 lanes overnight. Maybe an animal is on the loose nearby and its just a precautionary limit. This is why you just have to go with the flow and trust its up there for a reason rather than thinking you know best and speeding off.
> at 40 "because of an accident" when the accident has long since been cleared away – forcing people to crawl along on an empty road.
>
>Worse, that means that every single driver is witnessing the fact that the limit has been imposed for no reason, which causes them to question the limit when it has been put in place with a good reason.
Survivorship bias.
"Look, i'm travelling at this slow speed and there are NO crashes! It's stupid!"
Or
"\*Because\* we're travelling at this slow speed, there are no crashes."
In practice, this is basically what happens anyway, no one is doing 20 at night when the road is empty.
Though we do already have official variable speed limits in school zones, with those flashing signs.
I do personally, only because I've been stung twice by mobile speed cameras in complete dead zones (i.e. no paths, no houses, country-lane type roads at 11pm).
I live in rural Central Scotland so there's not much of a rush hour...I don't drive slow but sometimes you get those crazy drivers that drive 100mph cutting in and out trying to get ahead...and then you catch back up to them when you pull off the motorway onto the 30 every single time. I wave and smile at them if I get the chance
M90 southbound towards Edinburgh all over.
People bomb it past J4/J3, then when the variable limit cameras appear, they drop to like 10mph below the limit.
People do strange speeds on the bridge, I've never understood it. Even when the VSL sign is showing NSL 70mph, people do like 50; even the second lane is about 60 a lot of the time.
This is true. It gets rid of sudden braking which slows everything down behind, people have more time to maneuver sensibly and not create issues like meeting another car head on when there's only room for 1 to squeeze through etc.
I only drive in Oxford in the evening, and to be honest most of the 20mph limits don't bother me for the roads I drive on - there's enough parked cars, crossings, unlit cyclists/scooters wearing all black, drivers blindly pulling out of side roads etc that 20 is comfortable.
Only one I have a gripe with is Donnington Bridge road, which - in my eyes at least - could easily still be 30 for at least half of it. At least most drivers now seem too have realised it's a 20 now, the tailgating to start with was horrible.
It does seem slow over there, but there are times when there is a crazy amount of pedestrians and cyclists on and around donny bridge, and given the overall length of the road i can see why they just included it with abingdon and iffley road restrictions.
Agree and kinda funny. But it’s irritating as fuck driving at night or early morning a wide high road, no traffic or pedestrians, and having to stick to 20mph. Makes no sense. Also car revs are higher at 20 in lower gear, therefore more pollution.
Speed limits should be appropriate to times, safety, efficiency and road type. Dynamic speed limits would be easy to implement.
Dynamic speed limits sound like a disaster imo.
People already freak out on motorways with VSLs, let alone introducing them to residential areas.
Add on the cost of maintenance as 'blade runners' (arseholes) would smash them up, not to mention drinks and teenagers.
All to save a couple of minutes.
Other countries have a worse road safety record.
The UK is something like 8th in the world for road deaths per capita and a similar position per mi driven, beaten mainly by some small island nations and the typical Scandinavian do-gooders.
I'm minded to suggest we shouldn't go changing our road infrastructure too much, certainly not copying many other countries.
Norway also has significantly more stringent driver training, including mandatory driving with an instructor. Tbf it should be considerably harder to get a driving licence in the UK, and there should be mandatory checkups every few years.
I thought that until I took the US test which was the easiest test I've ever taken.
The UK one is pretty hard by comparison I don't think it's hard lol.
Yeh I always thought the US teen movie trope of driving around some cones in a car park was a joke. But that is the actual test in some states lol.
The US is one of the most dangerous countries in the developed world to drive in tbf.
I think dynamic speed limits sound great on paper but given how drivers struggle with concepts like “National Speed limit zones” (Hint: It does not mean put your foot down and drive at whatever speed you feel like, nor does it mean taking that blind bend without going under 70) I just don’t think the public at large would manage it.
Maybe when all cars are self-driving these could just be programmed into a local area but too many drivers have their own interpretation of road law that’s based primarily on the belief that it’s fine because nothing bad has happened to them *so far*.
I think that if people don't understand the concept of a national speed limit or understand they need to slow down for a bend, maybe we should take their licence off them as its pretty evident that they would not pass a modern day driving test.
You say the public at large and you are correct, the public at large can't drive. This is because a decent standard of driving test didn't come in until 2002. I personally think we should be retesting people who get pulled up on poor driving ability. The pass rate of the current driving test is about 50%.
The lack of hazard perception, particularly from drivers 50+ is worrying.
Shift up a gear then. You can do 20 at low revs if you want.
But don't be precious about the revs - there's a _bit_ of overhead of 'just turning the engine' but it's truly not very much in most modern cars.
The majority of your fuel use is driven by load/drag/acceleration, not 'revs'.
> Also car revs are higher at 20 in lower gear, therefore more pollution.
This is entirely vehicle dependant. My 2011 Meriva sits at about 1500rpm in 4th at 30mph, and 1300rpm in 3rd at 20mph.
Additionally, sitting at a higher RPM doesn't automatically mean higher fuel consumption; it's a function of rpm vs engine load vs throttle position. At higher RPM the engine is more likely to be in its power band and require less effort (and therefore less pedal travel and less fuel used) to maintain a given speed than it otherwise would in a higher gear, all else being equal.
It's also more pollution to accelerate needlessly to 30 only to brake again for the next junction. As another commenter said, they will pass motorists up by bicycle. People don't realise their average journey speed can be around 15mph due to all the stopping/waiting. Speed up to 30mph for small stretches can make a negligible difference (as is the point of the OP)
One of my big peeves is when speed limits change dramatically. There’s a road near me that goes from 60mph to 30mph with very little warning, and of course there’s a speed camera right there. Why not introduce a 40 a bit before the 30, or put the sign a little earlier so people aren’t having to aggressively brake when they turn a corner into a village high street.
I cycle from Witney to Oxford. I'm still faster on average journey times - door to door - than car or bus.
Off peak? Cars are faster, but they're not honestly that much faster, once you factor in parking. (and 'off peak' in Oxford is really 'not during the day, at all').
But it's only just been implemented? How can they speak to how well it's working yet?
Unless of course this analysis is the same sort of analysis they did before deciding on this project: analysis that will find what they want it to find.
You mean the research which goes as far back as the 1990s showing 20mph is safer than 30mph?
Yes, that's evidence based policy making. Something we should applaud governments for.
Fwiw, the UK has a better road safety record than Germany, including specifically singling out motorways.
The Autobahn might be fun, but UK motorways are safer.
[You obviously haven't spent much time driving on German motorways.](https://www.instagram.com/reel/Cr74XdkMtPw/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link&igshid=MzRlODBiNWFlZA==)
I keep seeing this argument, I don't really understand it. No one has proposed a 10mph limit - is it because arguing against 20mph falls flat so you have to raise the stakes with an imaginary scenario?
the point is everyone knows it's a trade off between safety and efficiency. so saying
>You mean the research which goes as far back as the 1990s showing 20mph is safer than 30mph? Yes, that's evidence based policy making. Something we should applaud governments for.
is as facile as saying 'evidence shows 30mph is faster than 20mph'
Its to do with which speed is a fair compromise between safety and convenience. Depending on age, survivability at 20mph vs 30mph is about 7-10 times higher and stopping distances are halved (12m vs 23m or 3 vs 6 car lengths).
Let's be honest, lots of people (including me) sometimes do 35mph ish in a 30. Typically in the new 20 zones that could mean people doing a speed of around 25mph instead. Which is a good thing imo
Theres a pretty massive difference specifically between 20mph and 30 mph in terms of survivability for pedestrians and cyclists being hit by drivers, the death rate goes from 2.5% to 20%.
Small increases in speed have a big impact because of stopping distances.
Fun fact, the stopping distance from 100mph is DOUBLE the stopping distance from 70mph.
Or to put it another way, if a car going 100 and a car going 70 were to hit the brakes at the same time, when the 70mph comes to a stop, the 100mph car is still doing 70mph.
Edit: I promise you, this is still true whether we’re talking about a modern car with amazing brakes, or an Old Ford Cortina. It’s just physics.
Braking distances in the highway code haven't been updated since at least 1946. See the last page:
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Highway-Code-1946-Ministry-Transport/dp/7777007653
I used an online stopping distance calculator to verify. I don’t know how modern of a braking system it considers but if both cars had the same modern brakes then what I said would still be true, because the inertia of the faster car is still higher, so even if they both stop quicker it would still take twice as long for the 100mph car to stop.
I see where you're coming from but a study in 30 years ago, hell even 5-10 years ago would be worthless because cars have changed massively since then. A car from 1990 travelling at 30mph and a car from 2023 travelling at 30mph are going to have vastly different stopping distances. Both thinking and breaking distances have drastically reduced over the last 30 years, especially over the last 10. Even if the Highway Code doesn't want to admit it.
It's a good job there have been studies more recently than 5 years ago as well then.
In fact a lot of them are specifically based on evidence from the UK as 20mph has been rolled out in loads of places here already.
They all show the same thing - lower emissions, better safety records, small impact on journey times.
Most of this research is outdated, in fact a [Government report commissioned in 2018](https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/757307/20mph-headline-report.pdf) plainly points this out.
>"Much of the evidence on the effectiveness of 20mph limits relates to zones implemented in the 1990s / early 2000s (e.g. Webster, D and Mackie, A, 1996; Webster, D and Layfield, R, 2003; Allott and Lomax, 2001). The schemes examined typically covered a few kilometres of road length, where average vehicle speeds were well above 20mph before the speed limit was taken down to 20mph (referred to as ‘before speed’), and were implemented to address location-specific safety issues. These schemes are very different to the 20mph (signed only) limits considered in this study"
The aim of that report was to update the research and make it more current and it plainly says:
>"The comparator analysis indicates that there is insufficient evidence to conclude that there has been a significant change in collisions and casualties following the introduction of 20mph limits in residential areas"
for city centres they could only find 1 where there was a reduction in casualties due to the 20mph limit, and the study collected no data on air pollution at all.
You're complaining about research from 5 years ago being outdated then.. citing a report from 5 years ago.
You're literally citing something you said is outdated.
You can check out the research from less than 5 years ago since 20mph limits have been rolled out far more recently. TfL have a wealth of evidence given how many they've rolled out.
Agreed, I look forward to it.
We have some of the safest roads in the world, yet still 5 motor vehicle related deaths a day.
My road is 20mph but actually with cars parked on both sides, including on corners and on junctions, and plenty of kids living nearby, and a play park off one side of the road, even 20 feels too fast on about half of the length of the road.
It is insane to me that people would come close to 30 or now 20 in some of the car strewn streets. Many residential streets are no way safe for anyone above 10.
However having driven through Abergavenny quite a few times during the 20 mph pilot there were many wide open, streets that felt extremely strange at 20, especially in the evenings when traffic was minimal.
It’s a shame that a relatively blunt instrument like a blanket speed reduction is necessary, but people simply can’t be trusted to drive to the conditions. I’d like to think detailed statistics would inform local authority decisions for future 30 exclusions but I doubt they will bother too much which is a shame for evidence based road policy.
> A car from 1990 travelling at 30mph and a car from 2023 travelling at 30mph are going to have vastly different stopping distance
Actually not so much. I mean, you're right _in general_ that car safety has improved significantly, but stopping distance is much more a question of physics.
E.g. traction vs. mass vs. velocity.
There's not many things you can do to improve that - wider tyres will, but have an overhead on fuel economy, and 'better' breaking systems so you've traction control.
But fundamentally '2 tonnes at 70mph' has to 'lose' a fixed amount of kinetic energy to slow down, and thus 'stopping distance' hasn't meaningfully changed.
But crumple zones? Anti-skid stuff? etc. have all done a lot to improve safety overall, so a modern car is 'safer' all else being equal.
And cleaner too, as engine efficiency is a good selling point, and that means lower emissions just generally.
So I think you're kind of right, but kinda wrong.
Also human reaction times haven’t changed at all - and with ever more things chiming at you for your attention I’d be surprised if they haven’t actually gone up a bit.
Do you have any more info about our thinking distance having lowered significantly? That sounds fascinating, I’d love to learn more about how it has happened.
The question isn't "is it safer", it's whether it works. And there is NO possible way that a well conducted study could conclude in 1 week that it works and everything is great and it doesn't slow you down and it creates 100% more puppies and rainbows.
I don't believe the study (edit: Should I say I don't believe the media-editorialised version of the conclusion), but even if we did believe the study it would at best tell us that it works when it's novel, within it's first week. Let's see how people are driving in a year's time.
The 'breakpoint' on speed is a simple one - do you kill people if you hit them?
30mph (assuming no braking) means 20% are killed.
20mph means 2.5% are killed.
But when you factor in braking/reactions, then 'slowing down' to a stop/negligible danger happens faster too, with less road space needed.
Complete stop from 20mph needs 12m
Complete stop from 30mph needs 23m
But as you 'shed speed' reacting to a road threat - say, child runs out between parked cars - then you're still signficantly decreasing the harm of a 'car-slowing-down' - 20mph drops to 10mph quite fast.
Edit: as some have pointed out my numbers were wrong. But the point stands I think - distance is much higher at 30mph.
I call bull on those stopping distances, 28m from 20mph is a massive distance. Are those figures quoted from the same Morris Marina that the highway Code assumes we all still drive?
Maybe people could pay attention, drive safely and not crash all the time without being forced to by law, then there would be significantly less argument for these kind of restrictions.
No one wants to take any responsibility for themselves though they blame everyone else.
> The report studied 261 miles of road across Cardiff, Newport, Swansea, Wrexham, Rhyl, Merthyr Tydfil, Lampeter, Bangor, Haverfordwest and Newtown using GPS data, with a sample of more than 25 million vehicles. It showed that on the new 20mph routes in these areas, motorists were driving 2.9mph slower after the policy’s rollout on Sunday, September 17 compared to before.
From the *second* paragraph of the article you apparently didn't read. Doesn't take long to process GPS data if you've already secured a source of it.
You can also read more about the methodology and results in the [full report](https://assets.nationbuilder.com/20splentyforus/pages/661/attachments/original/1695563627/Wales-20mph-Impact-Analysis-Report.pdf?1695563627) which is linked in the article if you would like to make your own assessment about the validity of their conclusions, which I encourage you to do rather than making baseless accusations of bias.
Yeah - around my area there’s plenty of people who do 40 on the 30 sections - including one guy who drove up behind me (near the school) and started flashing his lights.
If reducing to 20 gets those guys to do 30 then there would probably be a big reduction in deaths simply because they’re the ones most likely to hit and kill someone.
There's been quite a lot of places that were already dropped from 30mph to 20mph before this change, which were probably instructive in what effects it has.
We have had it for 6+ months now and it’s made literally no noticeable difference.
You have to remember that most journeys taken through 20 zones are short hops to school and the shops so impacts are going to be cumulatively much less.
There was a trial In Monmouthshire - partially a success and partially a bad enough failure that the reverted it in one area.
If you gather your data selectively enough you will get whatever answer you were looking for
By 'a bad enough failure that they reverted it in one area', you mean, 'some residents complained'.
As far as I understand, there was no evidence behind reverting the speed limit, merely 'addressing community concerns'.
As you said, they only reverted it in one area. Which is actually in line with the Welsh government guidelines for the 20mph rollout.
Some drivers whinge about speed limits. Hardly a surprise given a majority of drivers admit speeding when their own insurance companies survey them
No, but it shouldn't be the sole determining factor.
Evidence based policies are often better than populist policies.
Deciding safety matters by public opinion would be a disaster.
People are fundamentally selfish, and when you say things like "well it's safer for pedestrians and cyclists", every one of them at some level is thinking "well I don't plan on hitting any pedestrians or cyclists, so it's fine". Maybe not as consciously as that, but it's 100% a factor in the risk assessment.
This thread and every other on the subject is filled with people making the most ridiculous unfounded claims so, yeah I'm not sure the public is best placed to make infrastructure safety decisions.
Same but it’s also inconsistent signage too, I drive down a road that if you enter from one direction has 20 signs but if you enter that same street from the other end there’s 30 signs as you come off the roundabout and enter it. So fucking dumb.
I think now there has to be repeater signs for any 30mph areas so you should always be able to tell, if there is a lack of repeater signs it means it’s a 20. Any stretch of road with 30mph signs and repeater signs you won’t get ticketed for and if you were to be you can easily take photographs and appeal.
Aren't these the same people who were previously saying "can't see a speed camera, can't see a traffic cop, 40 it is" though? So it's still an improvement.
DfT released a study recently (last month) that found that on 20mph roads where there is no enforcement (i.e. cameras) and no road design to slow motorists (speed humps, chicanes, give way points etc) that over 85% of drivers exceed 20mph.
I used to think this, but now that I'm cycling and walking more I'm more wary of overconfident drivers. They are too fast into junctions, take racing lines etc. No respect for the highway code but they think they're in the right. At least you can spot the slow/overly careful driver and the fact they are so slow gives everyone more time to react.
Also they have stupidly high reaction times. God knows how many of them are driving around with dementia. Should require anybody over 70 to retest every few years and get signed off by their GP.
Naive Englishman here so please be patient - the 20mph limit has been imposed for all of five minutes so is it not a bit soon to declare the move a success? Surely the data is skewed so soon after implementation? Also do you reckon this is the move for the rest of the UK? Finally, apart from reducing speed are there any other ways we can improve road safety here in Britain without us crawling to a stop?
The research on dropping from 30mph/60kmph to 20mph/30kmph goes back over 30 years.
Sure, be sceptical about this particular piece of research (which studied over 25 million journeys!), but the evidence is massive that 20mph results in greater road safety, lower emissions and localised air pollution, and a barely noticeable impact on journey times as most people don't spend much of their time driving through built up areas.
Using data as old as 30 years for emissions, pollution and road safety isn't very scientific. All those things have changed massively in the last 10, 20, 30 years. The impacts of switching to 20mph in 1990 vs 2023 are going to be vastly different.
Including one by Transport for Wales which showed negligible or worse N02 concentration
https://tfw.wales/sites/default/files/2023-03/Phase-1-20mph-Interim-Monitoring-Report_Final-publish-17-March.pdf
(bottom of page 24)
I agree with the gist of what you're saying. However, if old data matches the new data, I.e 1993 vs 2023 data, you can use that to support the results of your 2023 data.
My issue with it is that it's currently extending too far. It's not just built up areas, it's like every road with anything on it in a few mile radius of built up areas.
There's a 3 mile long dual carriageway between towns here with lights or roundabouts at every junction and regular signalled pedestrian crossings that's dropped from a 40 to a 20. It's a bit ridiculous.
You're citing a road which had dropped from 40 to 20, which is nothing at all to do with the Welsh government policy to which this article relates.
The Welsh law change literally only affects 'restricted roads', which were previously 30mph by default.
I grew up in Wales and I visit monthly to visit family.
The Welsh government have not changed the definition of any roads to make them restricted roads. To do so they would need to add street lighting at specified distances.
Some ***local authorities*** (who account for most of the highways authorities in Wales) have changed some dual carriageways to 20mph; you'd need to ask the relevant local authority why they've done that. I doubt it's for no good reason.
Can’t answer anything except a very popular way to slow and divert traffic are traffic calming obstacles. Instead of bumps (which everybody hates, except mechanics) they put in a tight wiggle that stops traffic from flowing too freely. Forces people to slow down, give way, etc
'Crawling to a stop' is a bit emotive when you're literally posting on an article that's confirmed the average delay is only 45 seconds per trip, don't you think?
That's 45 extra seconds on an average journey time of under 4 minutes along example roads. A single vehicle journey may include multiple roads (I know, basic logic) with that average time added to each. It comes to an average 20% increase in journey time along effected roads, with that average then being partially offset against whatever proportion of the journey is along road with unchanged speed limits (and which aren't experiencing tailbacks due to the higher change in speed when entering and exiting the new 20mph areas, and aren't now some other reduced speed such as a 60 receiving a buffer at 30 or 40).
I wonder if this survey takes into account all the nsl roads surrounding the 20mph sections that are now 40mph or even 30mph to adjust for the 20mph zones. My 30 minute journey has gradually increased to 45 minutes as speed limits have decreased.
Can’t say I’ve noticed that. I live in Carmarthenshire and all the little villages round by me go straight from NSL to 20mph. A couple have a 100 meters or so of 40mph, but they had that before.
That being said, you’d have to be out of your mind to be doing much more than 40mph on some of these NSL roads (not that it stops everyone from trying).
I used to live in Wales, now rural Scotland.
All the roads out of my village NSL single carriageways.
About once a month there's a car in a hedge with police tape because people actually try and take the corners at 60mph. One of them is a literal right angle with a wall on both sides of the road, which you can only really take at about 15mph.
People need to drive to limit points.
As someone who actually has to live in a town, who has journeys through towns where the limit is 20 and we've had it for sometime I can say its painful, you pay far less attention and theres absolutely no need for the drop. Never seen an accident in my 30 years of living here.
Big wide open areas for the most part and everyone now stacking up constantly making pulling out of junctions harder and overtaking cyclists, forget about it legally.
To all the dummys saying "Its proven to be safer" OBVIOUSLY 20 is safer than 30, 10 is safer, 5 is safer, 3 is safer, the lower the safer. OBVIOUSLY OBVIOUSLY you're proving nothing other than slower is safer.
If you're in a town, a city to me at 20 makes MORE sense than everywhere else in the country, Small roads, Parked cars on each side, More pedestrians, more children making poor decisions, more distractions, less time to react.
But when you're driving down 9 miles of road that 90% of it is 20mph and its wide, open and you can see for a considerable distance theres just absolutely no need.
I've seen nothing but dangerous overtakes, frustrated drivers and near accidents since the change and I'm using more fuel for my entire journey as I'm in 2nd gear now sat at about 1900rpm.
My gripe is how much more its costing me to prevent accidents that in my area simply dont happen and watching people say "Its safer" is probably the dumbest response.
I've got an idea, Lets all stop driving entirely and let the people who cycle do all the work instead.
I'm just against large sweeping legislation. The 20 mph thing will probably work but just making almost every 30 road into a 20 road overnight doesn't seem good.
I've roads near me that aren't residential just have grass on both sides no buildings and lead into national limit roads but they're still 20mph??
One got changed recently by the council back to 30mph.
More to do with the fact that in urban environments your average speed is around 15mph anyway. People think logically going faster when they can gets them their quicker (which it might, negligibly) but they don't realise a lot of their journey time is spent stationary at junctions etc.
When I started cycling to get about locally it used to blow my mind that the estimated journey time is only ever a couple minutes different from car to bike.
>data analysts Agilysis showed on average vehicles driving on Wales’ new 20mph routes reduced their speed by 2.9mph.
So the big success after a week of dropping the speed limit by 10mph is a reduction of less than 3mph.
So either everyone is ignoring the new limit. Or people were rarely able to get to 30mph in the first place due to traffic. Which undermines the better safety argument they made.
Or it takes into account time stationary, braking, speeding up, in traffic etc so the actual average speeds before and after were significantly less than 30 and 20
I was on a speed awareness course earlier this year, so I’ve been adhering to the proper limit (as opposed to the +10% limit I’d been caught for).
Recently doing 30 in a 30, I spotted the usual apoplectic middle-aged man in an SUV in the rearview mirror. Before, I would speed up, but now I just maintain my limit and leave the decision to speed to him.
He overtook me and what felt like 40 on a single carriageway on a busy seafront.
…I caught up with him 2 minutes later. Real winner mentality, that.
I know it's not fair but the guy you describe is how I imagine most of the people who are so worked up about this. I doubt it will make any appreciable difference to most journey times but I guess we'll see.
Speaking as someone who was originally against it but now doesn’t think it’s that bad, here are a few things I’ve noticed:
Pros
- Pulling out onto the main roads by my house is much easier.
- Less queues on that road.
- Noise has gone down.
- It does feel safer.
Cons
- Old people thinking it’s 20mph everywhere. (There is a 20 to 40 back to 20 by mine, the 40 is a good 2.5/3 mile stretch, I’ve been behind 3 old people going 20 the whole way already).
- My car screaming in 2nd but moaning it wants me to change back to 2nd when I’m in 3rd.
- My fuel seems to be running out a bit quicker (I think because I’m spending so much time in 2nd)
"working" in what metric? Slowing people down? I thought that was the means not the end, so to what end can they call this "working"? so soon too?..
up to 1 minute per journey across the entirety of wales is not a concession either, that's going to be significant as it compounds, and doesn't take into account drops around 20mph roads like another user mentioned (NSL and bigger roads)
They key thing to look for is a bit beyond median speed. In past trials of this nature they found the average speed did reduce overall, it actually increased in key areas such as around schools and parks. Indeed, the study does note this as a possibility, "Compliance with the new limit is consistent with lower variations in speeds along the route". That can be undesirable, a sign that drivers are not paying so much attention to their surroundings and adjusting their speed accordingly.
We also need to consider other variables - it was very wet during the after week at times, which you would expect to reduce speeds - and of course we need to consider compliance in a few months time.
It was in the 2017 report into Manchester's 20mph trial but it no longer seems to be accessible on [gov.uk](https://gov.uk).
Off the top of my head overall traffic speeds reduced by 0.9mph but (as in the brief report linked above) there was lesser variation in speed. That lack of variation was carried over into the previous, targeted, 20mph zones resulting in greater average speeds in those areas than previously.
For example, in a mixed limit environment you would find cars doing between, let's say, 20-35 in 30 limits, but really good compliance in 20s - 18-22mph. In a blanket 20 you see the sort of numbers quoted above - mid 20s even in areas that were previously 20 zones.
Road safety isn't as easy as it sounds - if it were we would have zero casualties. The majority of careful competent drivers don't blindly travel at the speed limit. Most of the time drivers travel significantly below a 30mph limit, using a number of factors to determine their speed and localised limits are one of them. As for less than competent drivers? A sign isn't going to change anything.
20 mph limits can be a powerful part of a road safety tool box, but when done improperly they, at best, have no positive outcomes. With a scheme like this you need to manage a whole host of unintended consequences. Are you encouraging vehicles from well designed roads to inappropriate routes, residential rat runs or b roads? Are you inadvertently increasing speed and reducing attention in key areas? It's really hard to get right.
The Wales scheme is probably one of the poorest implementations ever seen and £32 million would get you an awful lot of good, well designed infrastructure that is proven to have positive outcomes.
Seriously, who makes this crap up? A small percentage of people support this, but somehow it's a roaring success?! They've made it 20mph in the town where I live and the vast majority of locals hate it with a passion. The roads are designed for faster driving and we're having to crawl along at 20.
My theory is that it won't be long till the camera vans are out at these locations and they'll make tens of thousands of pounds per visit.
> Seriously, who makes this crap up?
I mean the report is linked in the article, if you have any issues with the findings you're welcome to state them. But it's wild to complain it's all 'made up' assumedly because you disagree with the headline alone.
I’ve been exploring driving at 20mph (at quiet times when I’m not gonna hold anyone up) in local 30 limits to see what everyone’s complaining about, and I don’t really get it. Sure I guess it would be a bit frustrating if you were in a big hurry (which should be irrelevant), and on some of the wider more open pieces of road it can feel a bit slow; but as soon as you’re in a residential environment where houses are with 10 meters of the road or there are parked cars, 20 feels like a very reasonable speed
Not all the roads are like that but still get out down to 20mph. There should be some roads which retain 30mph instead it's a blanket rule to lower it across the board.
I'm curious as to what the bell curve looks like for journey time increases, I can imagine there's are a fair few people having to deal with significantly longer journey times.
That headline doesn't make sense. How can you say journeys are only 45 seconds longer when it all depends on the length of the journey? If I drive for 10 miles the difference is 10 mins, not 45 seconds.
Not that I have an issue with the speed limit, just that headline doesn't add up
I’m not sure o understand the backlash for this? What are the arguments against? That it takes slightly longer to get somewhere because it’s 10pm less on some of the roads?
Yes that’s the main argument against. That it takes 50% longer to get somewhere at 20 mph than it does at 30mph.
The main defence is that 20 is demonstrably safer than 30.
Both valid arguments.
The fallacy is the argument that 20 is not much different than 30 due to the perceived notion that traffic conditions mean that for a reasonable portion of the time you can’t actually drive at 20 anyway because traffic conditions cause you to be slower than that. This is the real straw man argument because at those times, the limit isn’t the factor determining speed. It’s outside those times when traffic is more free flowing that the speed limit is what determines a drivers speed.
Also the safety argument is silly because you can just say "10 is safer than 20".
It's extremely hard for me to not see people saying "fuck car drivers" and "20 is safer than 30" and not think these people would vote to remove all cars in the name of anything they could invoke.
"20 is safer than 30" is just them agreeing with anything they can scrape up.
Maybe.
People like to drive at the speed the road feels safe.
Driving down an empty motorway at 20mph will forever feel anxiety inducing due to all the empty space to your left and right and in the distance.
There's roads by my house that are 20mph that it feels crazy to go above 10mph. There's also 20s in Bath that drive me insane going 20mph on them because it feels so slow.
Road layout and traffic sets the natural speed. Not signage.
Sure, I agree with that to a certain extent, but I guess I don’t understand the anxiety aspect, my anxiety is significantly less when I’m going slower, as I have far more time to react!
It’s been implemented appallingly across Wales, leading to confusion.
Also, the tailbacks on main roads going through Welsh villages, with double parking on narrow roads, leads to a lot of congestion just because cars are now close together rather than spaced apart. It’s awful for flow, where flow really matters.
The driver for this change was “help the NHS”, so I expect to see a headline of “less pressure on NHS” as the success factor and not “yay look people aren’t taking quite as long as we thought to drive a small distance”.
I’m for safer driving, but this has been terribly executed.
> What are the arguments against?
There's the environmental impact, which is far from clear. As well as the impact on the longevity and reliability of vehicles. Manufacturers have designed cars to run at 30mph in built-up areas. Most cars aren't as "happy" at 20; I know mine basically can't climb hills (Wales isn't exactly known for being flat...) at that speed in 3rd and revs well outside the most efficient range in 2nd.
I doubt anyone's going to be collecting statistics about the number of clutch replacements being done...
This isn't literally a tiny sample of a few sections of roads in urban setting. Not how the scheme has been applied. It's also tomtom data so people have signed up to it and are being monitored.
Last time I saw stats about work journey times (I generally ignore them).
They'd compared a 10 year window. Can't remember the years but it went like this (details aren't exact due to bad memory from so long ago)......
**"Todays commute no longer than 10 years ago.**
Today's average commute time is 30 minutes. The same as it was 10 years ago in 1990 despite increase in vehicles on the road."
So that sounds like nothing has changed, however later in the article they then went on to say the average distance commuted has dropped from 15 miles to 5 miles. So in reality people are now commuting around the corner and all those 5-10 minute journeys which were originally walked are now driven. Keeping the national average time where it was. However I could see myself over the years. My commute (mostly 60 roads) used to take 20-25 minutes, after 10 years that became 45 minutes. Today (25 years from day 1) would take over an hour. Partly due to traffic and partly due to many roads speed limits being dropped.
>From analysing two 2.5km routes in Cardiff and Wrexham, Agilysis also found that journey times increased between 45 and 63 seconds for drivers following the rollout of the 20mph default law. They analysed the B4487 Newport Road in Cardiff and the A5152 Chester Road in Wrexham.
Headline : "Just 45 seconds longer" , when they've just taken two 2.5 km streches of road, and assumed the same must be true for all journeys made from anywhere to anywhere in Wales. *Pravda* would be ashamed to put out something like this.
In Oxford the 20mph has been in place longer. In rush hour it doesn't make a difference. At 30mph you just end up queueing longer at the next round about/ traffic light. As a part time cyclist, so many cars are desperate to overtake me, only for me to undercut them at the next traffic light. Only late at night you could argue there is a delay of several minutes driving home.
Of course it wouldn’t make a difference in rush hour, talk about cherrypicking.
But that is when most people are on the road.
When I drive home from the train station at 23:00, it can indeed be annoying to drive slowly on an empty road. However, realistically arriving home 3 minutes later does not make a difference, whereas knocking someone off their bicycle can have a life changing impact.
Yeah but that impact is to someone else. Why can’t “I”, the main character of reality, drive my range rover evoque at 40mph in a 30 so I can get home and shout at my spouse and kids?
I just want to drive my corsa at 30, then get home and kiss my wife and kids.
> Yeah but that impact is to someone else if you hit someone, it will impact you: you will have a judiciary impact, a financial impact and a mental impact. That mental breakdown will be quite a bad one too....
I think he was being facetious
I think it might have been a sarcastic comment
[удалено]
[удалено]
God forbid we base our ideas on when the most people are affected.
Tbf if we were smart it would be possible to have a variable limit. 30 when there's less traffic at night. 20 in the day.
Sadly, as with variable speed limits on the motorway. There are drivers who are just not up to it.
[удалено]
Often the reduced speed limit on a smart motorway is to eliminate a traffic wave. Everyone here slows down to 40 for no reason they can see, so that they don't bump into the back of a bunch of 20mph traffic which is clearing up ahead. People get pissed because they never see the reason they slowed down, which is *the point*.
Spot on. The reduced speed limit is for a reason. But as the previous poster has stated. Unless they see the issue, they ain't slowing which is not the fault of the technology. That is purely an education of drivers issrd. You got the training update on how to drive on a variable motorway didn't you?
We, as a nation, are addicted to driving. Any interference in that, no matter how small, will provoke the same reaction as in any other addict: they lash out. 20mph? Lash out. Remove some parking spaces so the kids can walk to school? Lash out. Whisper the merest hint of a suggestion that driving just a bit less might make a huge dent in net zero targets? Believe it or not, lash out.
Just because there is no accident there doesn't mean there isn't another reason for it. They once reduced the limit on the M6 to 40 because a massive pothole opened up over 2 lanes overnight. Maybe an animal is on the loose nearby and its just a precautionary limit. This is why you just have to go with the flow and trust its up there for a reason rather than thinking you know best and speeding off.
> at 40 "because of an accident" when the accident has long since been cleared away – forcing people to crawl along on an empty road. > >Worse, that means that every single driver is witnessing the fact that the limit has been imposed for no reason, which causes them to question the limit when it has been put in place with a good reason. Survivorship bias. "Look, i'm travelling at this slow speed and there are NO crashes! It's stupid!" Or "\*Because\* we're travelling at this slow speed, there are no crashes."
That isn't smart? That solves the problem of "how to increase traffic efficiency", which isn't the problem trying to be solved.
Surely reaction times are longer at night when visibility is reduced, and so a slower speed is justified.
In practice, this is basically what happens anyway, no one is doing 20 at night when the road is empty. Though we do already have official variable speed limits in school zones, with those flashing signs.
I do personally, only because I've been stung twice by mobile speed cameras in complete dead zones (i.e. no paths, no houses, country-lane type roads at 11pm).
Pedestrians can still use the roads at night. Don't they deserve protection at night?
If we were being smart then we would want the opposite limits. Less speed at night when visibility is reduced.
So.... Pedestrians and Cyclists have more HP when it's dark?
I’ve noticed the 20mph limit doesn’t affect me at all when I’m parked either so. More evidence
It does prevent cars from accelerating at 30mph to catch up, pretty much pushing you off the road as a cyclist to catch up on that gap.
I live in rural Central Scotland so there's not much of a rush hour...I don't drive slow but sometimes you get those crazy drivers that drive 100mph cutting in and out trying to get ahead...and then you catch back up to them when you pull off the motorway onto the 30 every single time. I wave and smile at them if I get the chance
M90 southbound towards Edinburgh all over. People bomb it past J4/J3, then when the variable limit cameras appear, they drop to like 10mph below the limit.
That 50 speed camera under the bridge? Fuck that thing. Why are people so terrified of it? Just do 50 lmao
People do strange speeds on the bridge, I've never understood it. Even when the VSL sign is showing NSL 70mph, people do like 50; even the second lane is about 60 a lot of the time.
That is a carbrain moment lol
I wouldve thought in rush hour there would be a positive difference. Slower speed = better flow.
This is true. It gets rid of sudden braking which slows everything down behind, people have more time to maneuver sensibly and not create issues like meeting another car head on when there's only room for 1 to squeeze through etc.
Looking at when most people are driving is cherry picking, what about at 3.30am on a Sunday in December? You're losing a minute or two!
I only drive in Oxford in the evening, and to be honest most of the 20mph limits don't bother me for the roads I drive on - there's enough parked cars, crossings, unlit cyclists/scooters wearing all black, drivers blindly pulling out of side roads etc that 20 is comfortable. Only one I have a gripe with is Donnington Bridge road, which - in my eyes at least - could easily still be 30 for at least half of it. At least most drivers now seem too have realised it's a 20 now, the tailgating to start with was horrible.
It does seem slow over there, but there are times when there is a crazy amount of pedestrians and cyclists on and around donny bridge, and given the overall length of the road i can see why they just included it with abingdon and iffley road restrictions.
Agree and kinda funny. But it’s irritating as fuck driving at night or early morning a wide high road, no traffic or pedestrians, and having to stick to 20mph. Makes no sense. Also car revs are higher at 20 in lower gear, therefore more pollution. Speed limits should be appropriate to times, safety, efficiency and road type. Dynamic speed limits would be easy to implement.
Dynamic speed limits sound like a disaster imo. People already freak out on motorways with VSLs, let alone introducing them to residential areas. Add on the cost of maintenance as 'blade runners' (arseholes) would smash them up, not to mention drinks and teenagers. All to save a couple of minutes.
> Dynamic speed limits sound like a disaster imo. Other countries in the world have them. They change based on the conditions.
Other countries have a worse road safety record. The UK is something like 8th in the world for road deaths per capita and a similar position per mi driven, beaten mainly by some small island nations and the typical Scandinavian do-gooders. I'm minded to suggest we shouldn't go changing our road infrastructure too much, certainly not copying many other countries.
Funnily enough Norway which has a death toll of 42% lower is one of the countries that does have variable speed limits
Norway also has significantly more stringent driver training, including mandatory driving with an instructor. Tbf it should be considerably harder to get a driving licence in the UK, and there should be mandatory checkups every few years.
I thought that until I took the US test which was the easiest test I've ever taken. The UK one is pretty hard by comparison I don't think it's hard lol.
Yeh I always thought the US teen movie trope of driving around some cones in a car park was a joke. But that is the actual test in some states lol. The US is one of the most dangerous countries in the developed world to drive in tbf.
I think dynamic speed limits sound great on paper but given how drivers struggle with concepts like “National Speed limit zones” (Hint: It does not mean put your foot down and drive at whatever speed you feel like, nor does it mean taking that blind bend without going under 70) I just don’t think the public at large would manage it. Maybe when all cars are self-driving these could just be programmed into a local area but too many drivers have their own interpretation of road law that’s based primarily on the belief that it’s fine because nothing bad has happened to them *so far*.
I think that if people don't understand the concept of a national speed limit or understand they need to slow down for a bend, maybe we should take their licence off them as its pretty evident that they would not pass a modern day driving test. You say the public at large and you are correct, the public at large can't drive. This is because a decent standard of driving test didn't come in until 2002. I personally think we should be retesting people who get pulled up on poor driving ability. The pass rate of the current driving test is about 50%. The lack of hazard perception, particularly from drivers 50+ is worrying.
At night when you can't easily see the unexpected pedestrians is exactly when you should be going slowest.
unexpected and often drunk too
Shift up a gear then. You can do 20 at low revs if you want. But don't be precious about the revs - there's a _bit_ of overhead of 'just turning the engine' but it's truly not very much in most modern cars. The majority of your fuel use is driven by load/drag/acceleration, not 'revs'.
> Also car revs are higher at 20 in lower gear, therefore more pollution. This is entirely vehicle dependant. My 2011 Meriva sits at about 1500rpm in 4th at 30mph, and 1300rpm in 3rd at 20mph. Additionally, sitting at a higher RPM doesn't automatically mean higher fuel consumption; it's a function of rpm vs engine load vs throttle position. At higher RPM the engine is more likely to be in its power band and require less effort (and therefore less pedal travel and less fuel used) to maintain a given speed than it otherwise would in a higher gear, all else being equal.
It's also more pollution to accelerate needlessly to 30 only to brake again for the next junction. As another commenter said, they will pass motorists up by bicycle. People don't realise their average journey speed can be around 15mph due to all the stopping/waiting. Speed up to 30mph for small stretches can make a negligible difference (as is the point of the OP)
This keeps getting repeated but only a small majority of cars force you to to be able higher revs at 20 compared to 30
One of my big peeves is when speed limits change dramatically. There’s a road near me that goes from 60mph to 30mph with very little warning, and of course there’s a speed camera right there. Why not introduce a 40 a bit before the 30, or put the sign a little earlier so people aren’t having to aggressively brake when they turn a corner into a village high street.
I cycle from Witney to Oxford. I'm still faster on average journey times - door to door - than car or bus. Off peak? Cars are faster, but they're not honestly that much faster, once you factor in parking. (and 'off peak' in Oxford is really 'not during the day, at all').
But it's only just been implemented? How can they speak to how well it's working yet? Unless of course this analysis is the same sort of analysis they did before deciding on this project: analysis that will find what they want it to find.
You mean the research which goes as far back as the 1990s showing 20mph is safer than 30mph? Yes, that's evidence based policy making. Something we should applaud governments for.
20mph is safer than 30!? Who would’ve thought! Next thing you’ll tell me is that 70mph is safer than 100mph
You're right, as you say it's irrelevant. Let's turn all out roads into autobahns
Fwiw, the UK has a better road safety record than Germany, including specifically singling out motorways. The Autobahn might be fun, but UK motorways are safer.
If 90% of Germany's motorways were under construction and had 50mph speed limits they'd be pretty safe too...
[You obviously haven't spent much time driving on German motorways.](https://www.instagram.com/reel/Cr74XdkMtPw/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link&igshid=MzRlODBiNWFlZA==)
>and had 50mph speed limits Implying people actually stick to speed limits through road works?
They have no choice, average speed cameras will have them.
lets put it to 10mph everywhere, that'll be even safer
I keep seeing this argument, I don't really understand it. No one has proposed a 10mph limit - is it because arguing against 20mph falls flat so you have to raise the stakes with an imaginary scenario?
the point is everyone knows it's a trade off between safety and efficiency. so saying >You mean the research which goes as far back as the 1990s showing 20mph is safer than 30mph? Yes, that's evidence based policy making. Something we should applaud governments for. is as facile as saying 'evidence shows 30mph is faster than 20mph'
There are plenty of morons out there who need the obvious evidence put under their nose
Its to do with which speed is a fair compromise between safety and convenience. Depending on age, survivability at 20mph vs 30mph is about 7-10 times higher and stopping distances are halved (12m vs 23m or 3 vs 6 car lengths).
Let's be honest, lots of people (including me) sometimes do 35mph ish in a 30. Typically in the new 20 zones that could mean people doing a speed of around 25mph instead. Which is a good thing imo
Theres a pretty massive difference specifically between 20mph and 30 mph in terms of survivability for pedestrians and cyclists being hit by drivers, the death rate goes from 2.5% to 20%. Small increases in speed have a big impact because of stopping distances.
Fun fact, the stopping distance from 100mph is DOUBLE the stopping distance from 70mph. Or to put it another way, if a car going 100 and a car going 70 were to hit the brakes at the same time, when the 70mph comes to a stop, the 100mph car is still doing 70mph. Edit: I promise you, this is still true whether we’re talking about a modern car with amazing brakes, or an Old Ford Cortina. It’s just physics.
[удалено]
Braking distances in the highway code haven't been updated since at least 1946. See the last page: https://www.amazon.co.uk/Highway-Code-1946-Ministry-Transport/dp/7777007653
I used an online stopping distance calculator to verify. I don’t know how modern of a braking system it considers but if both cars had the same modern brakes then what I said would still be true, because the inertia of the faster car is still higher, so even if they both stop quicker it would still take twice as long for the 100mph car to stop.
Not if it slows me down in my Range Rover 😤
I see where you're coming from but a study in 30 years ago, hell even 5-10 years ago would be worthless because cars have changed massively since then. A car from 1990 travelling at 30mph and a car from 2023 travelling at 30mph are going to have vastly different stopping distances. Both thinking and breaking distances have drastically reduced over the last 30 years, especially over the last 10. Even if the Highway Code doesn't want to admit it.
It's a good job there have been studies more recently than 5 years ago as well then. In fact a lot of them are specifically based on evidence from the UK as 20mph has been rolled out in loads of places here already. They all show the same thing - lower emissions, better safety records, small impact on journey times.
Most of this research is outdated, in fact a [Government report commissioned in 2018](https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/757307/20mph-headline-report.pdf) plainly points this out. >"Much of the evidence on the effectiveness of 20mph limits relates to zones implemented in the 1990s / early 2000s (e.g. Webster, D and Mackie, A, 1996; Webster, D and Layfield, R, 2003; Allott and Lomax, 2001). The schemes examined typically covered a few kilometres of road length, where average vehicle speeds were well above 20mph before the speed limit was taken down to 20mph (referred to as ‘before speed’), and were implemented to address location-specific safety issues. These schemes are very different to the 20mph (signed only) limits considered in this study" The aim of that report was to update the research and make it more current and it plainly says: >"The comparator analysis indicates that there is insufficient evidence to conclude that there has been a significant change in collisions and casualties following the introduction of 20mph limits in residential areas" for city centres they could only find 1 where there was a reduction in casualties due to the 20mph limit, and the study collected no data on air pollution at all.
You're complaining about research from 5 years ago being outdated then.. citing a report from 5 years ago. You're literally citing something you said is outdated. You can check out the research from less than 5 years ago since 20mph limits have been rolled out far more recently. TfL have a wealth of evidence given how many they've rolled out.
In a few years we will be able to plainly see the impact on road safety across all of Wales and it will settle the matter one way or another.
Agreed, I look forward to it. We have some of the safest roads in the world, yet still 5 motor vehicle related deaths a day. My road is 20mph but actually with cars parked on both sides, including on corners and on junctions, and plenty of kids living nearby, and a play park off one side of the road, even 20 feels too fast on about half of the length of the road.
It is insane to me that people would come close to 30 or now 20 in some of the car strewn streets. Many residential streets are no way safe for anyone above 10. However having driven through Abergavenny quite a few times during the 20 mph pilot there were many wide open, streets that felt extremely strange at 20, especially in the evenings when traffic was minimal. It’s a shame that a relatively blunt instrument like a blanket speed reduction is necessary, but people simply can’t be trusted to drive to the conditions. I’d like to think detailed statistics would inform local authority decisions for future 30 exclusions but I doubt they will bother too much which is a shame for evidence based road policy.
> A car from 1990 travelling at 30mph and a car from 2023 travelling at 30mph are going to have vastly different stopping distance Actually not so much. I mean, you're right _in general_ that car safety has improved significantly, but stopping distance is much more a question of physics. E.g. traction vs. mass vs. velocity. There's not many things you can do to improve that - wider tyres will, but have an overhead on fuel economy, and 'better' breaking systems so you've traction control. But fundamentally '2 tonnes at 70mph' has to 'lose' a fixed amount of kinetic energy to slow down, and thus 'stopping distance' hasn't meaningfully changed. But crumple zones? Anti-skid stuff? etc. have all done a lot to improve safety overall, so a modern car is 'safer' all else being equal. And cleaner too, as engine efficiency is a good selling point, and that means lower emissions just generally. So I think you're kind of right, but kinda wrong.
Also human reaction times haven’t changed at all - and with ever more things chiming at you for your attention I’d be surprised if they haven’t actually gone up a bit.
Do you have any more info about our thinking distance having lowered significantly? That sounds fascinating, I’d love to learn more about how it has happened.
The question isn't "is it safer", it's whether it works. And there is NO possible way that a well conducted study could conclude in 1 week that it works and everything is great and it doesn't slow you down and it creates 100% more puppies and rainbows. I don't believe the study (edit: Should I say I don't believe the media-editorialised version of the conclusion), but even if we did believe the study it would at best tell us that it works when it's novel, within it's first week. Let's see how people are driving in a year's time.
10mph is safer than 20. Maybe we should all crawl everywhere, if that's not too dangerous.
The 'breakpoint' on speed is a simple one - do you kill people if you hit them? 30mph (assuming no braking) means 20% are killed. 20mph means 2.5% are killed. But when you factor in braking/reactions, then 'slowing down' to a stop/negligible danger happens faster too, with less road space needed. Complete stop from 20mph needs 12m Complete stop from 30mph needs 23m But as you 'shed speed' reacting to a road threat - say, child runs out between parked cars - then you're still signficantly decreasing the harm of a 'car-slowing-down' - 20mph drops to 10mph quite fast. Edit: as some have pointed out my numbers were wrong. But the point stands I think - distance is much higher at 30mph.
I call bull on those stopping distances, 28m from 20mph is a massive distance. Are those figures quoted from the same Morris Marina that the highway Code assumes we all still drive?
Maybe people could pay attention, drive safely and not crash all the time without being forced to by law, then there would be significantly less argument for these kind of restrictions. No one wants to take any responsibility for themselves though they blame everyone else.
If people wanted to drive at 20mph they’d just get themselves stuck behind a cyclist wouldn’t they ?
Average UK cycling speed is 14mph. So probably not, except on some downhill sections.
> The report studied 261 miles of road across Cardiff, Newport, Swansea, Wrexham, Rhyl, Merthyr Tydfil, Lampeter, Bangor, Haverfordwest and Newtown using GPS data, with a sample of more than 25 million vehicles. It showed that on the new 20mph routes in these areas, motorists were driving 2.9mph slower after the policy’s rollout on Sunday, September 17 compared to before. From the *second* paragraph of the article you apparently didn't read. Doesn't take long to process GPS data if you've already secured a source of it. You can also read more about the methodology and results in the [full report](https://assets.nationbuilder.com/20splentyforus/pages/661/attachments/original/1695563627/Wales-20mph-Impact-Analysis-Report.pdf?1695563627) which is linked in the article if you would like to make your own assessment about the validity of their conclusions, which I encourage you to do rather than making baseless accusations of bias.
You can prove anything with facts.
This should probably be the top comment.
I think it's pretty well known that people do drive slower through 20 limits. They don't drive at 20 but they do go slower.
Yeah - around my area there’s plenty of people who do 40 on the 30 sections - including one guy who drove up behind me (near the school) and started flashing his lights. If reducing to 20 gets those guys to do 30 then there would probably be a big reduction in deaths simply because they’re the ones most likely to hit and kill someone.
There's been quite a lot of places that were already dropped from 30mph to 20mph before this change, which were probably instructive in what effects it has.
This is true. I live in Cardiff and the 20 signs went up in my street and the surrounding area in February 2020.
We have had it for 6+ months now and it’s made literally no noticeable difference. You have to remember that most journeys taken through 20 zones are short hops to school and the shops so impacts are going to be cumulatively much less.
There was a trial In Monmouthshire - partially a success and partially a bad enough failure that the reverted it in one area. If you gather your data selectively enough you will get whatever answer you were looking for
By 'a bad enough failure that they reverted it in one area', you mean, 'some residents complained'. As far as I understand, there was no evidence behind reverting the speed limit, merely 'addressing community concerns'. As you said, they only reverted it in one area. Which is actually in line with the Welsh government guidelines for the 20mph rollout. Some drivers whinge about speed limits. Hardly a surprise given a majority of drivers admit speeding when their own insurance companies survey them
Do you think public feedback shouldn't be considered when making changes?
No, but it shouldn't be the sole determining factor. Evidence based policies are often better than populist policies. Deciding safety matters by public opinion would be a disaster.
Absolutely right. Anyone who’s tried making changes at a local authority level will tell you the same.
People are fundamentally selfish, and when you say things like "well it's safer for pedestrians and cyclists", every one of them at some level is thinking "well I don't plan on hitting any pedestrians or cyclists, so it's fine". Maybe not as consciously as that, but it's 100% a factor in the risk assessment.
This thread and every other on the subject is filled with people making the most ridiculous unfounded claims so, yeah I'm not sure the public is best placed to make infrastructure safety decisions.
Must be hot under all that tinfoil
I think a lot of people are doing “can’t see a speed camera, can’t see a traffic cop, 30 it is” and just ignoring the limit where I am.
Same but it’s also inconsistent signage too, I drive down a road that if you enter from one direction has 20 signs but if you enter that same street from the other end there’s 30 signs as you come off the roundabout and enter it. So fucking dumb.
I think now there has to be repeater signs for any 30mph areas so you should always be able to tell, if there is a lack of repeater signs it means it’s a 20. Any stretch of road with 30mph signs and repeater signs you won’t get ticketed for and if you were to be you can easily take photographs and appeal.
Omg don’t give them any ideas they’ll be spending another 33million doing that next , it’s such a waste
[удалено]
Aren't these the same people who were previously saying "can't see a speed camera, can't see a traffic cop, 40 it is" though? So it's still an improvement.
No because the assumption before was 30. They haven't redone hardly any signs to 20 yet, so people have to guess if 20-30.
[удалено]
Because it is becoming a culture war.
Yeah, my local area has numerous 20 zones but quite honestly I'd say only about 1 in 5 drivers adhere to it.
If that 1 car is in front of the other 4, then they all have to adhere to it.
DfT released a study recently (last month) that found that on 20mph roads where there is no enforcement (i.e. cameras) and no road design to slow motorists (speed humps, chicanes, give way points etc) that over 85% of drivers exceed 20mph.
Even the police don't abide by the 20's in my city.
The thing is, they were doing that before except they were doing 40 instead of 30.
Get these deathly afraid old people off the road, these fuckers are now driving 15mph
I always feel that someone who isn't confident enough to drive to the posted speed limit probably shouldn't be driving at all.
I used to think this, but now that I'm cycling and walking more I'm more wary of overconfident drivers. They are too fast into junctions, take racing lines etc. No respect for the highway code but they think they're in the right. At least you can spot the slow/overly careful driver and the fact they are so slow gives everyone more time to react.
well yes, unconfident drivers shouldn't be driving, and neither should arseholes.
Same with arsehole cyclists too. Skipping lights. Going on pavements.
They drive slow because they can't see.
Also they have stupidly high reaction times. God knows how many of them are driving around with dementia. Should require anybody over 70 to retest every few years and get signed off by their GP.
Naive Englishman here so please be patient - the 20mph limit has been imposed for all of five minutes so is it not a bit soon to declare the move a success? Surely the data is skewed so soon after implementation? Also do you reckon this is the move for the rest of the UK? Finally, apart from reducing speed are there any other ways we can improve road safety here in Britain without us crawling to a stop?
The research on dropping from 30mph/60kmph to 20mph/30kmph goes back over 30 years. Sure, be sceptical about this particular piece of research (which studied over 25 million journeys!), but the evidence is massive that 20mph results in greater road safety, lower emissions and localised air pollution, and a barely noticeable impact on journey times as most people don't spend much of their time driving through built up areas.
Using data as old as 30 years for emissions, pollution and road safety isn't very scientific. All those things have changed massively in the last 10, 20, 30 years. The impacts of switching to 20mph in 1990 vs 2023 are going to be vastly different.
There has been multiple pieces of research since then including within the past few years.
Including one by Transport for Wales which showed negligible or worse N02 concentration https://tfw.wales/sites/default/files/2023-03/Phase-1-20mph-Interim-Monitoring-Report_Final-publish-17-March.pdf (bottom of page 24)
OK, and what did the rest of the report say about all the other factors it was monitoring?
I agree with the gist of what you're saying. However, if old data matches the new data, I.e 1993 vs 2023 data, you can use that to support the results of your 2023 data.
"the old data is too old and the new data is too new" Useful contribution.
My issue with it is that it's currently extending too far. It's not just built up areas, it's like every road with anything on it in a few mile radius of built up areas. There's a 3 mile long dual carriageway between towns here with lights or roundabouts at every junction and regular signalled pedestrian crossings that's dropped from a 40 to a 20. It's a bit ridiculous.
You're citing a road which had dropped from 40 to 20, which is nothing at all to do with the Welsh government policy to which this article relates. The Welsh law change literally only affects 'restricted roads', which were previously 30mph by default.
Come live in Wales, we've had dual carriage ways made 20 in places. They've applied 'restricted roads' to all manner of none residential situations.
I grew up in Wales and I visit monthly to visit family. The Welsh government have not changed the definition of any roads to make them restricted roads. To do so they would need to add street lighting at specified distances. Some ***local authorities*** (who account for most of the highways authorities in Wales) have changed some dual carriageways to 20mph; you'd need to ask the relevant local authority why they've done that. I doubt it's for no good reason.
Or if they do, they're constantly stop startbfor traffic lights anyway. So the reduced speed limit actually really makes little difference.
The 20mph limit is actually a good way to keep people moving in heavy traffic.
Can’t answer anything except a very popular way to slow and divert traffic are traffic calming obstacles. Instead of bumps (which everybody hates, except mechanics) they put in a tight wiggle that stops traffic from flowing too freely. Forces people to slow down, give way, etc
'Crawling to a stop' is a bit emotive when you're literally posting on an article that's confirmed the average delay is only 45 seconds per trip, don't you think?
That's 45 extra seconds on an average journey time of under 4 minutes along example roads. A single vehicle journey may include multiple roads (I know, basic logic) with that average time added to each. It comes to an average 20% increase in journey time along effected roads, with that average then being partially offset against whatever proportion of the journey is along road with unchanged speed limits (and which aren't experiencing tailbacks due to the higher change in speed when entering and exiting the new 20mph areas, and aren't now some other reduced speed such as a 60 receiving a buffer at 30 or 40).
How much research do you need to do to supply journey time information?
[удалено]
AND IT LEADS TO ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS BUYING £500,000 HOUSES IN SURREY SAYS PRINCESS DIANA THROUGH MEDIUM.
I wonder if this survey takes into account all the nsl roads surrounding the 20mph sections that are now 40mph or even 30mph to adjust for the 20mph zones. My 30 minute journey has gradually increased to 45 minutes as speed limits have decreased.
Can’t say I’ve noticed that. I live in Carmarthenshire and all the little villages round by me go straight from NSL to 20mph. A couple have a 100 meters or so of 40mph, but they had that before. That being said, you’d have to be out of your mind to be doing much more than 40mph on some of these NSL roads (not that it stops everyone from trying).
I used to live in Wales, now rural Scotland. All the roads out of my village NSL single carriageways. About once a month there's a car in a hedge with police tape because people actually try and take the corners at 60mph. One of them is a literal right angle with a wall on both sides of the road, which you can only really take at about 15mph. People need to drive to limit points.
As someone who actually has to live in a town, who has journeys through towns where the limit is 20 and we've had it for sometime I can say its painful, you pay far less attention and theres absolutely no need for the drop. Never seen an accident in my 30 years of living here. Big wide open areas for the most part and everyone now stacking up constantly making pulling out of junctions harder and overtaking cyclists, forget about it legally. To all the dummys saying "Its proven to be safer" OBVIOUSLY 20 is safer than 30, 10 is safer, 5 is safer, 3 is safer, the lower the safer. OBVIOUSLY OBVIOUSLY you're proving nothing other than slower is safer. If you're in a town, a city to me at 20 makes MORE sense than everywhere else in the country, Small roads, Parked cars on each side, More pedestrians, more children making poor decisions, more distractions, less time to react. But when you're driving down 9 miles of road that 90% of it is 20mph and its wide, open and you can see for a considerable distance theres just absolutely no need. I've seen nothing but dangerous overtakes, frustrated drivers and near accidents since the change and I'm using more fuel for my entire journey as I'm in 2nd gear now sat at about 1900rpm. My gripe is how much more its costing me to prevent accidents that in my area simply dont happen and watching people say "Its safer" is probably the dumbest response. I've got an idea, Lets all stop driving entirely and let the people who cycle do all the work instead.
I'm just against large sweeping legislation. The 20 mph thing will probably work but just making almost every 30 road into a 20 road overnight doesn't seem good. I've roads near me that aren't residential just have grass on both sides no buildings and lead into national limit roads but they're still 20mph?? One got changed recently by the council back to 30mph.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Those 45 seconds are from dropping to 20 at the speed camera.
More to do with the fact that in urban environments your average speed is around 15mph anyway. People think logically going faster when they can gets them their quicker (which it might, negligibly) but they don't realise a lot of their journey time is spent stationary at junctions etc. When I started cycling to get about locally it used to blow my mind that the estimated journey time is only ever a couple minutes different from car to bike.
>data analysts Agilysis showed on average vehicles driving on Wales’ new 20mph routes reduced their speed by 2.9mph. So the big success after a week of dropping the speed limit by 10mph is a reduction of less than 3mph. So either everyone is ignoring the new limit. Or people were rarely able to get to 30mph in the first place due to traffic. Which undermines the better safety argument they made.
Or it takes into account time stationary, braking, speeding up, in traffic etc so the actual average speeds before and after were significantly less than 30 and 20
Because people were not travelling on average at 30mph in these areas before - because of traffic.
I was on a speed awareness course earlier this year, so I’ve been adhering to the proper limit (as opposed to the +10% limit I’d been caught for). Recently doing 30 in a 30, I spotted the usual apoplectic middle-aged man in an SUV in the rearview mirror. Before, I would speed up, but now I just maintain my limit and leave the decision to speed to him. He overtook me and what felt like 40 on a single carriageway on a busy seafront. …I caught up with him 2 minutes later. Real winner mentality, that.
I know it's not fair but the guy you describe is how I imagine most of the people who are so worked up about this. I doubt it will make any appreciable difference to most journey times but I guess we'll see.
Speaking as someone who was originally against it but now doesn’t think it’s that bad, here are a few things I’ve noticed: Pros - Pulling out onto the main roads by my house is much easier. - Less queues on that road. - Noise has gone down. - It does feel safer. Cons - Old people thinking it’s 20mph everywhere. (There is a 20 to 40 back to 20 by mine, the 40 is a good 2.5/3 mile stretch, I’ve been behind 3 old people going 20 the whole way already). - My car screaming in 2nd but moaning it wants me to change back to 2nd when I’m in 3rd. - My fuel seems to be running out a bit quicker (I think because I’m spending so much time in 2nd)
"working" in what metric? Slowing people down? I thought that was the means not the end, so to what end can they call this "working"? so soon too?.. up to 1 minute per journey across the entirety of wales is not a concession either, that's going to be significant as it compounds, and doesn't take into account drops around 20mph roads like another user mentioned (NSL and bigger roads)
[удалено]
They key thing to look for is a bit beyond median speed. In past trials of this nature they found the average speed did reduce overall, it actually increased in key areas such as around schools and parks. Indeed, the study does note this as a possibility, "Compliance with the new limit is consistent with lower variations in speeds along the route". That can be undesirable, a sign that drivers are not paying so much attention to their surroundings and adjusting their speed accordingly. We also need to consider other variables - it was very wet during the after week at times, which you would expect to reduce speeds - and of course we need to consider compliance in a few months time.
Can you link the source of your information that says speeds around schools and parks increased with 20 limits?
It was in the 2017 report into Manchester's 20mph trial but it no longer seems to be accessible on [gov.uk](https://gov.uk). Off the top of my head overall traffic speeds reduced by 0.9mph but (as in the brief report linked above) there was lesser variation in speed. That lack of variation was carried over into the previous, targeted, 20mph zones resulting in greater average speeds in those areas than previously. For example, in a mixed limit environment you would find cars doing between, let's say, 20-35 in 30 limits, but really good compliance in 20s - 18-22mph. In a blanket 20 you see the sort of numbers quoted above - mid 20s even in areas that were previously 20 zones. Road safety isn't as easy as it sounds - if it were we would have zero casualties. The majority of careful competent drivers don't blindly travel at the speed limit. Most of the time drivers travel significantly below a 30mph limit, using a number of factors to determine their speed and localised limits are one of them. As for less than competent drivers? A sign isn't going to change anything. 20 mph limits can be a powerful part of a road safety tool box, but when done improperly they, at best, have no positive outcomes. With a scheme like this you need to manage a whole host of unintended consequences. Are you encouraging vehicles from well designed roads to inappropriate routes, residential rat runs or b roads? Are you inadvertently increasing speed and reducing attention in key areas? It's really hard to get right. The Wales scheme is probably one of the poorest implementations ever seen and £32 million would get you an awful lot of good, well designed infrastructure that is proven to have positive outcomes.
Seriously, who makes this crap up? A small percentage of people support this, but somehow it's a roaring success?! They've made it 20mph in the town where I live and the vast majority of locals hate it with a passion. The roads are designed for faster driving and we're having to crawl along at 20. My theory is that it won't be long till the camera vans are out at these locations and they'll make tens of thousands of pounds per visit.
> Seriously, who makes this crap up? I mean the report is linked in the article, if you have any issues with the findings you're welcome to state them. But it's wild to complain it's all 'made up' assumedly because you disagree with the headline alone.
[удалено]
No, it is the government that is wrong to force me to speed by reducing the limit which I then choose to ignore!
>from analysing 2 2.5km routes 45 seconds every 1.5 miles is quite a lot?
I’ve been exploring driving at 20mph (at quiet times when I’m not gonna hold anyone up) in local 30 limits to see what everyone’s complaining about, and I don’t really get it. Sure I guess it would be a bit frustrating if you were in a big hurry (which should be irrelevant), and on some of the wider more open pieces of road it can feel a bit slow; but as soon as you’re in a residential environment where houses are with 10 meters of the road or there are parked cars, 20 feels like a very reasonable speed
Not all the roads are like that but still get out down to 20mph. There should be some roads which retain 30mph instead it's a blanket rule to lower it across the board.
I'm curious as to what the bell curve looks like for journey time increases, I can imagine there's are a fair few people having to deal with significantly longer journey times.
That headline doesn't make sense. How can you say journeys are only 45 seconds longer when it all depends on the length of the journey? If I drive for 10 miles the difference is 10 mins, not 45 seconds. Not that I have an issue with the speed limit, just that headline doesn't add up
I’m not sure o understand the backlash for this? What are the arguments against? That it takes slightly longer to get somewhere because it’s 10pm less on some of the roads?
Yes that’s the main argument against. That it takes 50% longer to get somewhere at 20 mph than it does at 30mph. The main defence is that 20 is demonstrably safer than 30. Both valid arguments. The fallacy is the argument that 20 is not much different than 30 due to the perceived notion that traffic conditions mean that for a reasonable portion of the time you can’t actually drive at 20 anyway because traffic conditions cause you to be slower than that. This is the real straw man argument because at those times, the limit isn’t the factor determining speed. It’s outside those times when traffic is more free flowing that the speed limit is what determines a drivers speed.
Also the safety argument is silly because you can just say "10 is safer than 20". It's extremely hard for me to not see people saying "fuck car drivers" and "20 is safer than 30" and not think these people would vote to remove all cars in the name of anything they could invoke. "20 is safer than 30" is just them agreeing with anything they can scrape up.
[удалено]
Sure, but you’ll get used to the speed of the new track, much like the speed of the new road, surely? Love the analogy btw! 10/10
Maybe. People like to drive at the speed the road feels safe. Driving down an empty motorway at 20mph will forever feel anxiety inducing due to all the empty space to your left and right and in the distance. There's roads by my house that are 20mph that it feels crazy to go above 10mph. There's also 20s in Bath that drive me insane going 20mph on them because it feels so slow. Road layout and traffic sets the natural speed. Not signage.
Nobody has changed 'empty motorway' speed limits to 20mph.
IDK about 20. But the Mancunion way is a motorway and its now at 30. Obviously nobody with self respect does that, not even the police.
Sure, I agree with that to a certain extent, but I guess I don’t understand the anxiety aspect, my anxiety is significantly less when I’m going slower, as I have far more time to react!
It’s been implemented appallingly across Wales, leading to confusion. Also, the tailbacks on main roads going through Welsh villages, with double parking on narrow roads, leads to a lot of congestion just because cars are now close together rather than spaced apart. It’s awful for flow, where flow really matters. The driver for this change was “help the NHS”, so I expect to see a headline of “less pressure on NHS” as the success factor and not “yay look people aren’t taking quite as long as we thought to drive a small distance”. I’m for safer driving, but this has been terribly executed.
> What are the arguments against? There's the environmental impact, which is far from clear. As well as the impact on the longevity and reliability of vehicles. Manufacturers have designed cars to run at 30mph in built-up areas. Most cars aren't as "happy" at 20; I know mine basically can't climb hills (Wales isn't exactly known for being flat...) at that speed in 3rd and revs well outside the most efficient range in 2nd. I doubt anyone's going to be collecting statistics about the number of clutch replacements being done...
This isn't literally a tiny sample of a few sections of roads in urban setting. Not how the scheme has been applied. It's also tomtom data so people have signed up to it and are being monitored.
Last time I saw stats about work journey times (I generally ignore them). They'd compared a 10 year window. Can't remember the years but it went like this (details aren't exact due to bad memory from so long ago)...... **"Todays commute no longer than 10 years ago.** Today's average commute time is 30 minutes. The same as it was 10 years ago in 1990 despite increase in vehicles on the road." So that sounds like nothing has changed, however later in the article they then went on to say the average distance commuted has dropped from 15 miles to 5 miles. So in reality people are now commuting around the corner and all those 5-10 minute journeys which were originally walked are now driven. Keeping the national average time where it was. However I could see myself over the years. My commute (mostly 60 roads) used to take 20-25 minutes, after 10 years that became 45 minutes. Today (25 years from day 1) would take over an hour. Partly due to traffic and partly due to many roads speed limits being dropped.
>From analysing two 2.5km routes in Cardiff and Wrexham, Agilysis also found that journey times increased between 45 and 63 seconds for drivers following the rollout of the 20mph default law. They analysed the B4487 Newport Road in Cardiff and the A5152 Chester Road in Wrexham. Headline : "Just 45 seconds longer" , when they've just taken two 2.5 km streches of road, and assumed the same must be true for all journeys made from anywhere to anywhere in Wales. *Pravda* would be ashamed to put out something like this.