If you want an engineering justification on speed limits...
Reducing speeds from 30 to 20 roughly halves kinetic energy. But many cars have roughly doubled in mass since my youth- minis gave gone from 620 kg to about 1200 kg. So cutting the speed limit where pedestrians are likely to be around is just restoring survival chances to what they were.
So have a KE limit rather than a speed limit. Totally impractical, of course, but it utterly screws the use of SUVs on the road, which is how it should be.
Actually cars are almost certainly massively safer than they were in your youth.
In the 1970s the odds of a pedestrian dying if they were hit by a car was 20% at 30mph and 80% at 40mph.
Those figures are still misleadingly used quite often in safety campaigns.
In the 2020s the odds of a pedestrian dying if they are hit by a car are 6.8% at 30mph and 15.7% at 40mph.
If anything, speed limits should be going up not down. A car travelling today at 40mph is safer for pedestrians than a car travelling at 30mph in the past.
I did 159mph while checking the camber and toe-in on the R8 this morning. Perfectly safe.
But was it a 20 or a 30?
60. Straight to jail if caught. I don't think I'd like a regime with no speed limits. The transgression and evading capture are part of the appeal to me.
Tories are deluding themselves if they think being "pro-car" can save the election
It's fecking nonsense
The private car is slowly becoming history, it will take time, a lot of time, but it is inevitable. The external negatives that come with the private car are far too great, even if cars are fun (and they are fun, I've owned plenty). Besides, the car will be replaced with something similar, an autonomous e-car that is yours for the duration you need it, or something of that ilk
This is an inexorable historic process, like trains replacing horse drawn carriages. It will happen over decades. It is not going to alter invididual elections at any one moment
Is there any real value in making a judgement about a party's political fortunes based upon a decadal long view? Not imo.
More immediately, there is a non-trivial minority which is about to have its motoring costs increased dramatically and I have no doubt that any party opposing that will gain electorally.
I have no wish to diminish the impact on some individuals but is it actually a ‘non-trivial minority’ or is it in fact an extremely small minority?
AIUI about 36 constituencies (say 6% of 650) are impacted by the ULEZ expansion, 54% of London households have a car, and about 10% of car owners have a non-ULEZ compliant car. So the percentage of the electorate affected is: 6% * 54% * 10% = 0.324%.
So less than half a percent.
Unless the next Parliament is very well hung, it won't affect the arithmetic.
Of those 36 seats, about half are inner outer London (roughly those touching the North/South Circular). In those areas, ULEZ expansion is popular, because air pollution. So the expansion is only a political issue in outer outer London. Like Uxbridge.
So how many of those outer outer London seats are close enough to flipping for the ULEZ effect to make a difference?
Good evening
I would suggest ULEZ was the catalyst of the debate over climate change, and more specifically the transition and speed of it, rather than low emissions that are a separate subject
However, I expect it to be an election issue as it is likely the conservatives will say it is coming to a town near you just as it has under the labour Mayor of London
On the 17th September we have the abolition of the 30mph limit, replaced with 20mph right across Wales and if the conversations I am having with locals and family, and a recent online poll by North Wales News it is not going to be received well with over 3,100 out of near 3,500 rejecting it
I understand it is coming to Scotland next year and I expect the same angry response
The problem with this authoritarian edict is that the policy of 20mph zones by schools and congested areas is sensible and acceptable to most, but a blanket ban is ill thought through, much maybe as is Khan's implementation of the ULEZ scheme
I would be very surprised if speed limits change many votes. They may entrench some and prevent further leakage away from the Tories, but you're not going to build a great swing back of support on the basis of vowing to make them higher. The other problem is that once you say you oppose the reductions, you risk owning the fatalities that any increases might create. Grieving mothers on TV blaming Sunak for their kids' deaths would be a political nightmare.
Nobody is suggesting they are higher, but that they remain at 30mph and with 20mph zones by schools and other congested areas
Just imagine you drive into Wales on the 17th September and every single road in former 30mph zones are now 20mph and you try to drive at that speed
"These changes will affect most 30mph roads but not all.
This legislation changes the default speed limited on restricted roads. These are generally residential or busy pedestrian streets with streetlights.
But not all 30mph roads are restricted roads, and these remain at 30mph, and will be signed.
For restricted roads, local authorities and the 2 Trunk Road Agencies, can also make exceptions to the default speed limit in consultation with their communities.
We have published a map on DataMapWales that shows which roads would stay at 30mph."
And in our area the ones remaining at 30mph are minimal
Most of my village remains at 30. Between the two central village pubs, about 300 yards it is due to go to 20, also past the school. The rest is due to remain at 30. Retired villagers are up in arms demanding the Vale of Glamorgan council designate the entire current 30 becomes 20.
When St Brides Major went entirely 20 in the pilot, I thought the idea ridiculous, but it does focus the mind. I believe 20 out in the country is unnecessary but 20 in central villages and city side streets, particularly past schools makes perfect sense.
Lafur have sold the idea poorly. RT promising when he becomes FM he will restore restriction-free roads might be successful electorally, but I believe it as mad from the opposite scale as a blanket 20.
Drakeford is following the Khan playbook of poor implementation of a policy that has merits when applied sensibly but will enrage many by its blanket nature
You'd rather see Drakeford lose votes and children lose lives than the opposite, then?
Utter nonsense - of course not but a blanket 20mph is just unnecessary
Okay, tell me in your opinion where it's OK to kill children in an average Welsh village. If it's 30mph limit now, then the improved survival rate makes it a no-brainer (so to speak) to make it 20mph. Simple as that.
Bit odd of you to support the RNLI but ...
This has to be one of the dumbest things I've ever read on this site, that wasn't from Leon.
No, improved survival rates do not make it a no-brainer to make it 20mph. Survival isn't the be all and end all.
Thousands of children die annually from flu. Lockdown prevented the spread of flu, as well as Covid19. So is it a no-brainer we need to go back into lockdown to prevent children from dying from flu?
The fact that life has an element of risk does not make it worth shutting down life, or going to ridiculous extremes to eliminate all risk. It is about getting the balance right.
Dropping to 20 and ensuring people pay extra attention around high risk areas like school zones is a far more sensible balance of risk than the moronic idea of having a blanket 20.
2019 deaths from flu (influenza only, no other causes of death), under 20 in England & Wales was 30. Thousands of children do not die annually from flu.
And children would die in much higher numbers from cars if not kept at home for fear of traffic. Presumably Barty regards that as an externality ans so not his problem.
Why not 20mph speed limit on motorways?
The prohibition of cyclists and pedestrians from motorways is a woke-socialist agenda, organised by WEF to ensure their control of the population with ANPR cameras.
Something something Magna Carta. FREEDOM.
(Am I doing this right?)
The aim of the 20mph speed limit is presumably to lower traffic fatalities. Are you saying that those on motorways shouldn't be likewise protected?
I think drivers in general would benefit from driving in a calmer manner at somewhat slower speeds in general. Not 20mph on a motorway, but generally a bit more relaxed.
The drivers who are always racing about that they will drive so close behind you that their number plate isn't visible can't be doing their stress levels much good.
As someone who likes to work on the practise of driving in a calmer way I can't find it in myself to be upset at urban 20mph speed limits. The only issue I had with them in Edinburgh was that the signage was often poor, which was a problem on those roads that were sometimes treated as arterial roads with a 30mph limit, but would change to being treated as residential roads with a 20mph limit for a poorly signposted stretch.
20mph is a stupidly low speed limit. Its unnatural for the engine which can run at a higher gear and smoother at 30mph.
Since there's no high risk for any of the roads being changed to 20 in this stupid move, its an utterly unjustified move too.
30mph is a much better balance of risk and speed. At 30mph drivers can stop if someone steps into the road, which doesn't really happen much anyway since most accidents happen at even lower speed at intersections.
In the very rare event of an accident, 93.2% of pedestrians hit at 30mph will survive.
I don't know whether it's simply poor gearing design of VAG cars, but my experience is that 20mph and 30mph are both awkwardly at the crossover point between two gears. Too fast for the low gear, too slow for the higher gear.
It's one of the (many) things I dislike about urban driving.
Tories are deluding themselves if they think being "pro-car" can save the election
It's fecking nonsense
The private car is slowly becoming history, it will take time, a lot of time, but it is inevitable. The external negatives that come with the private car are far too great, even if cars are fun (and they are fun, I've owned plenty). Besides, the car will be replaced with something similar, an autonomous e-car that is yours for the duration you need it, or something of that ilk
This is an inexorable historic process, like trains replacing horse drawn carriages. It will happen over decades. It is not going to alter invididual elections at any one moment
Is there any real value in making a judgement about a party's political fortunes based upon a decadal long view? Not imo.
More immediately, there is a non-trivial minority which is about to have its motoring costs increased dramatically and I have no doubt that any party opposing that will gain electorally.
I have no wish to diminish the impact on some individuals but is it actually a ‘non-trivial minority’ or is it in fact an extremely small minority?
AIUI about 36 constituencies (say 6% of 650) are impacted by the ULEZ expansion, 54% of London households have a car, and about 10% of car owners have a non-ULEZ compliant car. So the percentage of the electorate affected is: 6% * 54% * 10% = 0.324%.
So less than half a percent.
Unless the next Parliament is very well hung, it won't affect the arithmetic.
Of those 36 seats, about half are inner outer London (roughly those touching the North/South Circular). In those areas, ULEZ expansion is popular, because air pollution. So the expansion is only a political issue in outer outer London. Like Uxbridge.
So how many of those outer outer London seats are close enough to flipping for the ULEZ effect to make a difference?
Good evening
I would suggest ULEZ was the catalyst of the debate over climate change, and more specifically the transition and speed of it, rather than low emissions that are a separate subject
However, I expect it to be an election issue as it is likely the conservatives will say it is coming to a town near you just as it has under the labour Mayor of London
On the 17th September we have the abolition of the 30mph limit, replaced with 20mph right across Wales and if the conversations I am having with locals and family, and a recent online poll by North Wales News it is not going to be received well with over 3,100 out of near 3,500 rejecting it
I understand it is coming to Scotland next year and I expect the same angry response
The problem with this authoritarian edict is that the policy of 20mph zones by schools and congested areas is sensible and acceptable to most, but a blanket ban is ill thought through, much maybe as is Khan's implementation of the ULEZ scheme
I would be very surprised if speed limits change many votes. They may entrench some and prevent further leakage away from the Tories, but you're not going to build a great swing back of support on the basis of vowing to make them higher. The other problem is that once you say you oppose the reductions, you risk owning the fatalities that any increases might create. Grieving mothers on TV blaming Sunak for their kids' deaths would be a political nightmare.
Nobody is suggesting they are higher, but that they remain at 30mph and with 20mph zones by schools and other congested areas
Just imagine you drive into Wales on the 17th September and every single road in former 30mph zones are now 20mph and you try to drive at that speed
"These changes will affect most 30mph roads but not all.
This legislation changes the default speed limited on restricted roads. These are generally residential or busy pedestrian streets with streetlights.
But not all 30mph roads are restricted roads, and these remain at 30mph, and will be signed.
For restricted roads, local authorities and the 2 Trunk Road Agencies, can also make exceptions to the default speed limit in consultation with their communities.
We have published a map on DataMapWales that shows which roads would stay at 30mph."
And in our area the ones remaining at 30mph are minimal
Most of my village remains at 30. Between the two central village pubs, about 300 yards it is due to go to 20, also past the school. The rest is due to remain at 30. Retired villagers are up in arms demanding the Vale of Glamorgan council designate the entire current 30 becomes 20.
When St Brides Major went entirely 20 in the pilot, I thought the idea ridiculous, but it does focus the mind. I believe 20 out in the country is unnecessary but 20 in central villages and city side streets, particularly past schools makes perfect sense.
Lafur have sold the idea poorly. RT promising when he becomes FM he will restore restriction-free roads might be successful electorally, but I believe it as mad from the opposite scale as a blanket 20.
Drakeford is following the Khan playbook of poor implementation of a policy that has merits when applied sensibly but will enrage many by its blanket nature
You'd rather see Drakeford lose votes and children lose lives than the opposite, then?
Utter nonsense - of course not but a blanket 20mph is just unnecessary
Okay, tell me in your opinion where it's OK to kill children in an average Welsh village. If it's 30mph limit now, then the improved survival rate makes it a no-brainer (so to speak) to make it 20mph. Simple as that.
Bit odd of you to support the RNLI but ...
This has to be one of the dumbest things I've ever read on this site, that wasn't from Leon.
No, improved survival rates do not make it a no-brainer to make it 20mph. Survival isn't the be all and end all.
Thousands of children die annually from flu. Lockdown prevented the spread of flu, as well as Covid19. So is it a no-brainer we need to go back into lockdown to prevent children from dying from flu?
The fact that life has an element of risk does not make it worth shutting down life, or going to ridiculous extremes to eliminate all risk. It is about getting the balance right.
Dropping to 20 and ensuring people pay extra attention around high risk areas like school zones is a far more sensible balance of risk than the moronic idea of having a blanket 20.
2019 deaths from flu (influenza only, no other causes of death), under 20 in England & Wales was 30. Thousands of children do not die annually from flu.
And children would die in much higher numbers from cars if not kept at home for fear of traffic. Presumably Barty regards that as an externality ans so not his problem.
Why not 20mph speed limit on motorways?
The prohibition of cyclists and pedestrians from motorways is a woke-socialist agenda, organised by WEF to ensure their control of the population with ANPR cameras.
Something something Magna Carta. FREEDOM.
(Am I doing this right?)
The aim of the 20mph speed limit is presumably to lower traffic fatalities. Are you saying that those on motorways shouldn't be likewise protected?
I think drivers in general would benefit from driving in a calmer manner at somewhat slower speeds in general. Not 20mph on a motorway, but generally a bit more relaxed.
The drivers who are always racing about that they will drive so close behind you that their number plate isn't visible can't be doing their stress levels much good.
As someone who likes to work on the practise of driving in a calmer way I can't find it in myself to be upset at urban 20mph speed limits. The only issue I had with them in Edinburgh was that the signage was often poor, which was a problem on those roads that were sometimes treated as arterial roads with a 30mph limit, but would change to being treated as residential roads with a 20mph limit for a poorly signposted stretch.
20mph is a stupidly low speed limit. Its unnatural for the engine which can run at a higher gear and smoother at 30mph.
Since there's no high risk for any of the roads being changed to 20 in this stupid move, its an utterly unjustified move too.
30mph is a much better balance of risk and speed. At 30mph drivers can stop if someone steps into the road, which doesn't really happen much anyway since most accidents happen at even lower speed at intersections.
In the very rare event of an accident, 93.2% of pedestrians hit at 30mph will survive.
But almost 100% at 20mph. And with much less risk of life-altering injuries. I get it that you think they are externalities, externalities.
So let's have a 20mph speed limit on motorways. My original point. You would save lives and reduce injury. What's not to like.
As Foxy says, not many pedestrians ... who are what the 20 vs 40 argument is all about.
Tories are deluding themselves if they think being "pro-car" can save the election
It's fecking nonsense
The private car is slowly becoming history, it will take time, a lot of time, but it is inevitable. The external negatives that come with the private car are far too great, even if cars are fun (and they are fun, I've owned plenty). Besides, the car will be replaced with something similar, an autonomous e-car that is yours for the duration you need it, or something of that ilk
This is an inexorable historic process, like trains replacing horse drawn carriages. It will happen over decades. It is not going to alter invididual elections at any one moment
Is there any real value in making a judgement about a party's political fortunes based upon a decadal long view? Not imo.
More immediately, there is a non-trivial minority which is about to have its motoring costs increased dramatically and I have no doubt that any party opposing that will gain electorally.
I have no wish to diminish the impact on some individuals but is it actually a ‘non-trivial minority’ or is it in fact an extremely small minority?
AIUI about 36 constituencies (say 6% of 650) are impacted by the ULEZ expansion, 54% of London households have a car, and about 10% of car owners have a non-ULEZ compliant car. So the percentage of the electorate affected is: 6% * 54% * 10% = 0.324%.
So less than half a percent.
Unless the next Parliament is very well hung, it won't affect the arithmetic.
Of those 36 seats, about half are inner outer London (roughly those touching the North/South Circular). In those areas, ULEZ expansion is popular, because air pollution. So the expansion is only a political issue in outer outer London. Like Uxbridge.
So how many of those outer outer London seats are close enough to flipping for the ULEZ effect to make a difference?
Good evening
I would suggest ULEZ was the catalyst of the debate over climate change, and more specifically the transition and speed of it, rather than low emissions that are a separate subject
However, I expect it to be an election issue as it is likely the conservatives will say it is coming to a town near you just as it has under the labour Mayor of London
On the 17th September we have the abolition of the 30mph limit, replaced with 20mph right across Wales and if the conversations I am having with locals and family, and a recent online poll by North Wales News it is not going to be received well with over 3,100 out of near 3,500 rejecting it
I understand it is coming to Scotland next year and I expect the same angry response
The problem with this authoritarian edict is that the policy of 20mph zones by schools and congested areas is sensible and acceptable to most, but a blanket ban is ill thought through, much maybe as is Khan's implementation of the ULEZ scheme
I would be very surprised if speed limits change many votes. They may entrench some and prevent further leakage away from the Tories, but you're not going to build a great swing back of support on the basis of vowing to make them higher. The other problem is that once you say you oppose the reductions, you risk owning the fatalities that any increases might create. Grieving mothers on TV blaming Sunak for their kids' deaths would be a political nightmare.
Nobody is suggesting they are higher, but that they remain at 30mph and with 20mph zones by schools and other congested areas
Just imagine you drive into Wales on the 17th September and every single road in former 30mph zones are now 20mph and you try to drive at that speed
"These changes will affect most 30mph roads but not all.
This legislation changes the default speed limited on restricted roads. These are generally residential or busy pedestrian streets with streetlights.
But not all 30mph roads are restricted roads, and these remain at 30mph, and will be signed.
For restricted roads, local authorities and the 2 Trunk Road Agencies, can also make exceptions to the default speed limit in consultation with their communities.
We have published a map on DataMapWales that shows which roads would stay at 30mph."
And in our area the ones remaining at 30mph are minimal
Most of my village remains at 30. Between the two central village pubs, about 300 yards it is due to go to 20, also past the school. The rest is due to remain at 30. Retired villagers are up in arms demanding the Vale of Glamorgan council designate the entire current 30 becomes 20.
When St Brides Major went entirely 20 in the pilot, I thought the idea ridiculous, but it does focus the mind. I believe 20 out in the country is unnecessary but 20 in central villages and city side streets, particularly past schools makes perfect sense.
Lafur have sold the idea poorly. RT promising when he becomes FM he will restore restriction-free roads might be successful electorally, but I believe it as mad from the opposite scale as a blanket 20.
Drakeford is following the Khan playbook of poor implementation of a policy that has merits when applied sensibly but will enrage many by its blanket nature
You'd rather see Drakeford lose votes and children lose lives than the opposite, then?
Utter nonsense - of course not but a blanket 20mph is just unnecessary
Okay, tell me in your opinion where it's OK to kill children in an average Welsh village. If it's 30mph limit now, then the improved survival rate makes it a no-brainer (so to speak) to make it 20mph. Simple as that.
Bit odd of you to support the RNLI but ...
This has to be one of the dumbest things I've ever read on this site, that wasn't from Leon.
No, improved survival rates do not make it a no-brainer to make it 20mph. Survival isn't the be all and end all.
Thousands of children die annually from flu. Lockdown prevented the spread of flu, as well as Covid19. So is it a no-brainer we need to go back into lockdown to prevent children from dying from flu?
The fact that life has an element of risk does not make it worth shutting down life, or going to ridiculous extremes to eliminate all risk. It is about getting the balance right.
Dropping to 20 and ensuring people pay extra attention around high risk areas like school zones is a far more sensible balance of risk than the moronic idea of having a blanket 20.
2019 deaths from flu (influenza only, no other causes of death), under 20 in England & Wales was 30. Thousands of children do not die annually from flu.
And children would die in much higher numbers from cars if not kept at home for fear of traffic. Presumably Barty regards that as an externality ans so not his problem.
Why not 20mph speed limit on motorways?
The prohibition of cyclists and pedestrians from motorways is a woke-socialist agenda, organised by WEF to ensure their control of the population with ANPR cameras.
Something something Magna Carta. FREEDOM.
(Am I doing this right?)
The aim of the 20mph speed limit is presumably to lower traffic fatalities. Are you saying that those on motorways shouldn't be likewise protected?
I think drivers in general would benefit from driving in a calmer manner at somewhat slower speeds in general. Not 20mph on a motorway, but generally a bit more relaxed.
The drivers who are always racing about that they will drive so close behind you that their number plate isn't visible can't be doing their stress levels much good.
As someone who likes to work on the practise of driving in a calmer way I can't find it in myself to be upset at urban 20mph speed limits. The only issue I had with them in Edinburgh was that the signage was often poor, which was a problem on those roads that were sometimes treated as arterial roads with a 30mph limit, but would change to being treated as residential roads with a 20mph limit for a poorly signposted stretch.
20mph is a stupidly low speed limit. Its unnatural for the engine which can run at a higher gear and smoother at 30mph.
Since there's no high risk for any of the roads being changed to 20 in this stupid move, its an utterly unjustified move too.
30mph is a much better balance of risk and speed. At 30mph drivers can stop if someone steps into the road, which doesn't really happen much anyway since most accidents happen at even lower speed at intersections.
In the very rare event of an accident, 93.2% of pedestrians hit at 30mph will survive.
But almost 100% at 20mph. And with much less risk of life-altering injuries. I get it that you think they are externalities, externalities.
The majority of drivers (including many police cars I've followed) appear to exceed the speed limits, by a good 5mph, so you've to allow for that, too.
That's why I've always like the 25mph urban limit. It pretty effectively keep the vast majority of traffic to no more than 30 mph, and is much less onerous to obey. But I recognise this is a minority view which will get no traction.
Put these people in prison for a long time. This is horrible and outright criminal damage - to the national memory, to the people of the Black Country - in plain sight. Unbelievable. DO IT
Marston's also need to come under scrutiny. Who did they sell to, and why?
Every time I read an article on this, it reads like a story about something which happened fifty years ago. Can't believe it's happening now.
The underlying problem is that are very few effective controls on demolition of unlisted buildings outside of conservation areas - there are lots of interesting buildings that fall within this description.
If you want an engineering justification on speed limits...
Reducing speeds from 30 to 20 roughly halves kinetic energy. But many cars have roughly doubled in mass since my youth- minis gave gone from 620 kg to about 1200 kg. So cutting the speed limit where pedestrians are likely to be around is just restoring survival chances to what they were.
So have a KE limit rather than a speed limit. Totally impractical, of course, but it utterly screws the use of SUVs on the road, which is how it should be.
Pedestrian deaths, serious injuries and injuries have all roughly halved over the last 20 years. Tax those SUVs out of the mainstream though.
On topic, I agree with Mike that the economy and the related CoL issues will determine the next election. The problem Rishi has is that there is not much good that can be said about these at the moment. They have to wait for inflation to fall and for real wages to grow.
There are some good aspects of the UK economy. We are still very good at job creation and we have nothing like the unemployment that scarred my youth. We have avoided a recession (albeit it at a cost) and have substantially mitigated both the disruption of a pandemic and a major European war.
The speed with which the UK has built its vast windfarms to make renewables our largest single source of power is commendable and remarkable (far fewer NIMBYs when its 40 fathoms deep). But our growth record has been poor to disastrous, we are not investing nearly enough and our balance of payments remains a huge source of long term damage. Not really a pass mark at the moment so talk about something else.
People prefer extra consumption over extra investment.
And why bother investing if you're a business - if it works and higher profits results you'll be condemned for being greedy and you might be taxed more.
The only profitable investment which is admired is through property ownership and its increase in price.
That's not always true, a recent machinery investment we made has paid off tax wise with the new super-capital 130% allowance. But we're a manufacturer and export globally, including TO China, so probably an outlier when it comes to the UK economy.
Tories are deluding themselves if they think being "pro-car" can save the election
It's fecking nonsense
The private car is slowly becoming history, it will take time, a lot of time, but it is inevitable. The external negatives that come with the private car are far too great, even if cars are fun (and they are fun, I've owned plenty). Besides, the car will be replaced with something similar, an autonomous e-car that is yours for the duration you need it, or something of that ilk
This is an inexorable historic process, like trains replacing horse drawn carriages. It will happen over decades. It is not going to alter invididual elections at any one moment
Is there any real value in making a judgement about a party's political fortunes based upon a decadal long view? Not imo.
More immediately, there is a non-trivial minority which is about to have its motoring costs increased dramatically and I have no doubt that any party opposing that will gain electorally.
I have no wish to diminish the impact on some individuals but is it actually a ‘non-trivial minority’ or is it in fact an extremely small minority?
AIUI about 36 constituencies (say 6% of 650) are impacted by the ULEZ expansion, 54% of London households have a car, and about 10% of car owners have a non-ULEZ compliant car. So the percentage of the electorate affected is: 6% * 54% * 10% = 0.324%.
So less than half a percent.
Unless the next Parliament is very well hung, it won't affect the arithmetic.
Of those 36 seats, about half are inner outer London (roughly those touching the North/South Circular). In those areas, ULEZ expansion is popular, because air pollution. So the expansion is only a political issue in outer outer London. Like Uxbridge.
So how many of those outer outer London seats are close enough to flipping for the ULEZ effect to make a difference?
Good evening
I would suggest ULEZ was the catalyst of the debate over climate change, and more specifically the transition and speed of it, rather than low emissions that are a separate subject
However, I expect it to be an election issue as it is likely the conservatives will say it is coming to a town near you just as it has under the labour Mayor of London
On the 17th September we have the abolition of the 30mph limit, replaced with 20mph right across Wales and if the conversations I am having with locals and family, and a recent online poll by North Wales News it is not going to be received well with over 3,100 out of near 3,500 rejecting it
I understand it is coming to Scotland next year and I expect the same angry response
The problem with this authoritarian edict is that the policy of 20mph zones by schools and congested areas is sensible and acceptable to most, but a blanket ban is ill thought through, much maybe as is Khan's implementation of the ULEZ scheme
I would be very surprised if speed limits change many votes. They may entrench some and prevent further leakage away from the Tories, but you're not going to build a great swing back of support on the basis of vowing to make them higher. The other problem is that once you say you oppose the reductions, you risk owning the fatalities that any increases might create. Grieving mothers on TV blaming Sunak for their kids' deaths would be a political nightmare.
Nobody is suggesting they are higher, but that they remain at 30mph and with 20mph zones by schools and other congested areas
Just imagine you drive into Wales on the 17th September and every single road in former 30mph zones are now 20mph and you try to drive at that speed
"These changes will affect most 30mph roads but not all.
This legislation changes the default speed limited on restricted roads. These are generally residential or busy pedestrian streets with streetlights.
But not all 30mph roads are restricted roads, and these remain at 30mph, and will be signed.
For restricted roads, local authorities and the 2 Trunk Road Agencies, can also make exceptions to the default speed limit in consultation with their communities.
We have published a map on DataMapWales that shows which roads would stay at 30mph."
And in our area the ones remaining at 30mph are minimal
Most of my village remains at 30. Between the two central village pubs, about 300 yards it is due to go to 20, also past the school. The rest is due to remain at 30. Retired villagers are up in arms demanding the Vale of Glamorgan council designate the entire current 30 becomes 20.
When St Brides Major went entirely 20 in the pilot, I thought the idea ridiculous, but it does focus the mind. I believe 20 out in the country is unnecessary but 20 in central villages and city side streets, particularly past schools makes perfect sense.
Lafur have sold the idea poorly. RT promising when he becomes FM he will restore restriction-free roads might be successful electorally, but I believe it as mad from the opposite scale as a blanket 20.
Drakeford is following the Khan playbook of poor implementation of a policy that has merits when applied sensibly but will enrage many by its blanket nature
You'd rather see Drakeford lose votes and children lose lives than the opposite, then?
Utter nonsense - of course not but a blanket 20mph is just unnecessary
Okay, tell me in your opinion where it's OK to kill children in an average Welsh village. If it's 30mph limit now, then the improved survival rate makes it a no-brainer (so to speak) to make it 20mph. Simple as that.
Bit odd of you to support the RNLI but ...
This has to be one of the dumbest things I've ever read on this site, that wasn't from Leon.
No, improved survival rates do not make it a no-brainer to make it 20mph. Survival isn't the be all and end all.
Thousands of children die annually from flu. Lockdown prevented the spread of flu, as well as Covid19. So is it a no-brainer we need to go back into lockdown to prevent children from dying from flu?
The fact that life has an element of risk does not make it worth shutting down life, or going to ridiculous extremes to eliminate all risk. It is about getting the balance right.
Dropping to 20 and ensuring people pay extra attention around high risk areas like school zones is a far more sensible balance of risk than the moronic idea of having a blanket 20.
2019 deaths from flu (influenza only, no other causes of death), under 20 in England & Wales was 30. Thousands of children do not die annually from flu.
And children would die in much higher numbers from cars if not kept at home for fear of traffic. Presumably Barty regards that as an externality ans so not his problem.
Why not 20mph speed limit on motorways?
The prohibition of cyclists and pedestrians from motorways is a woke-socialist agenda, organised by WEF to ensure their control of the population with ANPR cameras.
Something something Magna Carta. FREEDOM.
(Am I doing this right?)
The aim of the 20mph speed limit is presumably to lower traffic fatalities. Are you saying that those on motorways shouldn't be likewise protected?
I think drivers in general would benefit from driving in a calmer manner at somewhat slower speeds in general. Not 20mph on a motorway, but generally a bit more relaxed.
The drivers who are always racing about that they will drive so close behind you that their number plate isn't visible can't be doing their stress levels much good.
As someone who likes to work on the practise of driving in a calmer way I can't find it in myself to be upset at urban 20mph speed limits. The only issue I had with them in Edinburgh was that the signage was often poor, which was a problem on those roads that were sometimes treated as arterial roads with a 30mph limit, but would change to being treated as residential roads with a 20mph limit for a poorly signposted stretch.
20mph is a stupidly low speed limit. Its unnatural for the engine which can run at a higher gear and smoother at 30mph.
Since there's no high risk for any of the roads being changed to 20 in this stupid move, its an utterly unjustified move too.
30mph is a much better balance of risk and speed. At 30mph drivers can stop if someone steps into the road, which doesn't really happen much anyway since most accidents happen at even lower speed at intersections.
In the very rare event of an accident, 93.2% of pedestrians hit at 30mph will survive.
But almost 100% at 20mph. And with much less risk of life-altering injuries. I get it that you think they are externalities, externalities.
So let's have a 20mph speed limit on motorways. My original point. You would save lives and reduce injury. What's not to like.
As Foxy says, not many pedestrians ... who are what the 20 vs 40 argument is all about.
Why have you got a bee in your bonnet about pedestrians. We are talking about minimising death and injury.
Of course 20mph on, say, the M25 would be a huge increase in average speed.
Seriously, that's why they often drop the speed limit to 40/50mph on motorways - reduces congestion, which in turn reduces collisions, which reduces congestion...
They occasionally do absolutely. But if the speed limit was 20mph on all motorways you would probably reduce deaths on motorways.
Or not even 20mph. What about 50mph on all motorways?
It's a balance! I wouldn't be surprised if they drop the speed limit on the A9 to 40mph for major junctions given the number of collisions.
What local Tory candidate is going to campaign for 30mph in their local area? Just comes across as weird.
Any sensible person should want 30mph as the default everywhere, not just their local area.
There's no good reason to drop it to 20. You've already said you can't pinpoint any area as high risk for fatalities, so there's no justification for dropping the limit.
Why 30mph as the default and not 40? Twenty is plenty for residential roads where all the parked cars, frequency of junctions, etc, means you need the reduced stopping distance to drive safely.
After 30 is when the risk escalates.
A speed limit of 30 means a 93.2% survival rate in the event of an accident, and accidents are rare anyway since stopping distances are short.
A speed limit of 40 means accidents are more likely (as the stopping distance increases) and doubles the fatality rate to 15.7%
30mph works. There simply isn't the justification to go beneath that.
But 20mph works even better. If you are happy to modify speed to reduce deaths by 7 percentage points or so, and exactly the same is possible by going downb to 20 ...
No its not, the figure is still a 2.8% fatality rate at 20.
So only a 4% difference between 20 and 30. Not remotely enough to justify dropping the speed limit universally, especially given very few accidents even happen at those speeds anyway, vast majority of accidents happen at much lower speeds at intersections anyway.
If you want an engineering justification on speed limits...
Reducing speeds from 30 to 20 roughly halves kinetic energy. But many cars have roughly doubled in mass since my youth- minis gave gone from 620 kg to about 1200 kg. So cutting the speed limit where pedestrians are likely to be around is just restoring survival chances to what they were.
So have a KE limit rather than a speed limit. Totally impractical, of course, but it utterly screws the use of SUVs on the road, which is how it should be.
Pedestrian deaths, serious injuries and injuries have all roughly halved over the last 20 years. Tax those SUVs out of the mainstream though.
Exactly, cars are safer than they've ever been. Roads are safer than they've ever been.
Of course 20mph on, say, the M25 would be a huge increase in average speed.
Seriously, that's why they often drop the speed limit to 40/50mph on motorways - reduces congestion, which in turn reduces collisions, which reduces congestion...
They occasionally do absolutely. But if the speed limit was 20mph on all motorways you would probably reduce deaths on motorways.
Or not even 20mph. What about 50mph on all motorways?
It's a balance! I wouldn't be surprised if they drop the speed limit on the A9 to 40mph for major junctions given the number of collisions.
What local Tory candidate is going to campaign for 30mph in their local area? Just comes across as weird.
Any sensible person should want 30mph as the default everywhere, not just their local area.
There's no good reason to drop it to 20. You've already said you can't pinpoint any area as high risk for fatalities, so there's no justification for dropping the limit.
Why 30mph as the default and not 40? Twenty is plenty for residential roads where all the parked cars, frequency of junctions, etc, means you need the reduced stopping distance to drive safely.
After 30 is when the risk escalates.
A speed limit of 30 means a 93.2% survival rate in the event of an accident, and accidents are rare anyway since stopping distances are short.
A speed limit of 40 means accidents are more likely (as the stopping distance increases) and doubles the fatality rate to 15.7%
30mph works. There simply isn't the justification to go beneath that.
But 20mph works even better. If you are happy to modify speed to reduce deaths by 7 percentage points or so, and exactly the same is possible by going downb to 20 ...
No its not, the figure is still a 2.8% fatality rate at 20.
So only a 4% difference between 20 and 30. Not remotely enough to justify dropping the speed limit universally, especially given very few accidents even happen at those speeds anyway, vast majority of accidents happen at much lower speeds at intersections anyway.
Plus never leave or go home. Isn't there a stat which says that a high percentage of accidents occur within a mile of starting or finishing your journey (not "warmed up" on the one hand, and "winding down" on the other).
Of course 20mph on, say, the M25 would be a huge increase in average speed.
Seriously, that's why they often drop the speed limit to 40/50mph on motorways - reduces congestion, which in turn reduces collisions, which reduces congestion...
They occasionally do absolutely. But if the speed limit was 20mph on all motorways you would probably reduce deaths on motorways.
Or not even 20mph. What about 50mph on all motorways?
It's a balance! I wouldn't be surprised if they drop the speed limit on the A9 to 40mph for major junctions given the number of collisions.
What local Tory candidate is going to campaign for 30mph in their local area? Just comes across as weird.
Any sensible person should want 30mph as the default everywhere, not just their local area.
There's no good reason to drop it to 20. You've already said you can't pinpoint any area as high risk for fatalities, so there's no justification for dropping the limit.
Why 30mph as the default and not 40? Twenty is plenty for residential roads where all the parked cars, frequency of junctions, etc, means you need the reduced stopping distance to drive safely.
After 30 is when the risk escalates.
A speed limit of 30 means a 93.2% survival rate in the event of an accident, and accidents are rare anyway since stopping distances are short.
A speed limit of 40 means accidents are more likely (as the stopping distance increases) and doubles the fatality rate to 15.7%
30mph works. There simply isn't the justification to go beneath that.
On topic, I agree with Mike that the economy and the related CoL issues will determine the next election. The problem Rishi has is that there is not much good that can be said about these at the moment. They have to wait for inflation to fall and for real wages to grow.
There are some good aspects of the UK economy. We are still very good at job creation and we have nothing like the unemployment that scarred my youth. We have avoided a recession (albeit it at a cost) and have substantially mitigated both the disruption of a pandemic and a major European war.
The speed with which the UK has built its vast windfarms to make renewables our largest single source of power is commendable and remarkable (far fewer NIMBYs when its 40 fathoms deep). But our growth record has been poor to disastrous, we are not investing nearly enough and our balance of payments remains a huge source of long term damage. Not really a pass mark at the moment so talk about something else.
Put the wind farms out to sea Where the real estate is free And it’s far away from me
With apologies to the USN team that sold Polaris to the US Congress and Senate.
Too many times, infrastructure projects are not considered by taking into account the planning issues.
While we have the right to a decade of enquiries on major projects, then those projects will lose to the ones that don’t.
For example - grid storage in the U.K. will be shaped by the fact that small installations (30MWh or less, IIRC) don’t need specific planning. So if you park up a few trailers of batteries on some land you own, it is virtually impossible to stop you.
Grid Storage in the UK will be shaped by electric cars too.
There are ~40 million vehicles in the UK. If we estimate 30 million of them to be getting charged regularly with an average of 100 kWh battery size, then that is a distributed 1.08 x 10^16 kJ of power storage. Or 100,000 of your 30 MWh battery trailers.
The trailers are currently about 3MWh each.
The main place they will be used is supercharger stations.
The problem with using cars as grid storage is the owners seem to be very reluctant. This wasn’t helped by some idiots taking about making such systems non-voluntary for car owners.
Of course 20mph on, say, the M25 would be a huge increase in average speed.
Seriously, that's why they often drop the speed limit to 40/50mph on motorways - reduces congestion, which in turn reduces collisions, which reduces congestion...
They occasionally do absolutely. But if the speed limit was 20mph on all motorways you would probably reduce deaths on motorways.
Or not even 20mph. What about 50mph on all motorways?
It's a balance! I wouldn't be surprised if they drop the speed limit on the A9 to 40mph for major junctions given the number of collisions.
What local Tory candidate is going to campaign for 30mph in their local area? Just comes across as weird.
Any sensible person should want 30mph as the default everywhere, not just their local area.
There's no good reason to drop it to 20. You've already said you can't pinpoint any area as high risk for fatalities, so there's no justification for dropping the limit.
Why 30mph as the default and not 40? Twenty is plenty for residential roads where all the parked cars, frequency of junctions, etc, means you need the reduced stopping distance to drive safely.
After 30 is when the risk escalates.
A speed limit of 30 means a 93.2% survival rate in the event of an accident, and accidents are rare anyway since stopping distances are short.
A speed limit of 40 means accidents are more likely (as the stopping distance increases) and doubles the fatality rate to 15.7%
30mph works. There simply isn't the justification to go beneath that.
Question - should roads be engineered to make 30mph impossible regardless of the speed limit? My old estate was legally 30mph but you couldn't drive at that speed due to the road layout deliberately slowing traffic.
Same with roads where the speed limit is 30mph but there are rows of terraced houses with cars parked outside on both sides and a single lane of traffic down the middle.
30mph is ludicrously fast on a whole load of roads. There's no way to practically enforce a 20mph limit other than by adding obstacles - bends, humps, parked cars.
Anyone who lives on a street where kids play out knows that traffic should be as slow as possible.
Tories are deluding themselves if they think being "pro-car" can save the election
It's fecking nonsense
The private car is slowly becoming history, it will take time, a lot of time, but it is inevitable. The external negatives that come with the private car are far too great, even if cars are fun (and they are fun, I've owned plenty). Besides, the car will be replaced with something similar, an autonomous e-car that is yours for the duration you need it, or something of that ilk
This is an inexorable historic process, like trains replacing horse drawn carriages. It will happen over decades. It is not going to alter invididual elections at any one moment
Is there any real value in making a judgement about a party's political fortunes based upon a decadal long view? Not imo.
More immediately, there is a non-trivial minority which is about to have its motoring costs increased dramatically and I have no doubt that any party opposing that will gain electorally.
I have no wish to diminish the impact on some individuals but is it actually a ‘non-trivial minority’ or is it in fact an extremely small minority?
AIUI about 36 constituencies (say 6% of 650) are impacted by the ULEZ expansion, 54% of London households have a car, and about 10% of car owners have a non-ULEZ compliant car. So the percentage of the electorate affected is: 6% * 54% * 10% = 0.324%.
So less than half a percent.
Unless the next Parliament is very well hung, it won't affect the arithmetic.
Of those 36 seats, about half are inner outer London (roughly those touching the North/South Circular). In those areas, ULEZ expansion is popular, because air pollution. So the expansion is only a political issue in outer outer London. Like Uxbridge.
So how many of those outer outer London seats are close enough to flipping for the ULEZ effect to make a difference?
Good evening
I would suggest ULEZ was the catalyst of the debate over climate change, and more specifically the transition and speed of it, rather than low emissions that are a separate subject
However, I expect it to be an election issue as it is likely the conservatives will say it is coming to a town near you just as it has under the labour Mayor of London
On the 17th September we have the abolition of the 30mph limit, replaced with 20mph right across Wales and if the conversations I am having with locals and family, and a recent online poll by North Wales News it is not going to be received well with over 3,100 out of near 3,500 rejecting it
I understand it is coming to Scotland next year and I expect the same angry response
The problem with this authoritarian edict is that the policy of 20mph zones by schools and congested areas is sensible and acceptable to most, but a blanket ban is ill thought through, much maybe as is Khan's implementation of the ULEZ scheme
I would be very surprised if speed limits change many votes. They may entrench some and prevent further leakage away from the Tories, but you're not going to build a great swing back of support on the basis of vowing to make them higher. The other problem is that once you say you oppose the reductions, you risk owning the fatalities that any increases might create. Grieving mothers on TV blaming Sunak for their kids' deaths would be a political nightmare.
Nobody is suggesting they are higher, but that they remain at 30mph and with 20mph zones by schools and other congested areas
Just imagine you drive into Wales on the 17th September and every single road in former 30mph zones are now 20mph and you try to drive at that speed
"These changes will affect most 30mph roads but not all.
This legislation changes the default speed limited on restricted roads. These are generally residential or busy pedestrian streets with streetlights.
But not all 30mph roads are restricted roads, and these remain at 30mph, and will be signed.
For restricted roads, local authorities and the 2 Trunk Road Agencies, can also make exceptions to the default speed limit in consultation with their communities.
We have published a map on DataMapWales that shows which roads would stay at 30mph."
And in our area the ones remaining at 30mph are minimal
Most of my village remains at 30. Between the two central village pubs, about 300 yards it is due to go to 20, also past the school. The rest is due to remain at 30. Retired villagers are up in arms demanding the Vale of Glamorgan council designate the entire current 30 becomes 20.
When St Brides Major went entirely 20 in the pilot, I thought the idea ridiculous, but it does focus the mind. I believe 20 out in the country is unnecessary but 20 in central villages and city side streets, particularly past schools makes perfect sense.
Lafur have sold the idea poorly. RT promising when he becomes FM he will restore restriction-free roads might be successful electorally, but I believe it as mad from the opposite scale as a blanket 20.
Drakeford is following the Khan playbook of poor implementation of a policy that has merits when applied sensibly but will enrage many by its blanket nature
You'd rather see Drakeford lose votes and children lose lives than the opposite, then?
Utter nonsense - of course not but a blanket 20mph is just unnecessary
Okay, tell me in your opinion where it's OK to kill children in an average Welsh village. If it's 30mph limit now, then the improved survival rate makes it a no-brainer (so to speak) to make it 20mph. Simple as that.
Bit odd of you to support the RNLI but ...
This has to be one of the dumbest things I've ever read on this site, that wasn't from Leon.
No, improved survival rates do not make it a no-brainer to make it 20mph. Survival isn't the be all and end all.
Thousands of children die annually from flu. Lockdown prevented the spread of flu, as well as Covid19. So is it a no-brainer we need to go back into lockdown to prevent children from dying from flu?
The fact that life has an element of risk does not make it worth shutting down life, or going to ridiculous extremes to eliminate all risk. It is about getting the balance right.
Dropping to 20 and ensuring people pay extra attention around high risk areas like school zones is a far more sensible balance of risk than the moronic idea of having a blanket 20.
2019 deaths from flu (influenza only, no other causes of death), under 20 in England & Wales was 30. Thousands of children do not die annually from flu.
And children would die in much higher numbers from cars if not kept at home for fear of traffic. Presumably Barty regards that as an externality ans so not his problem.
Why not 20mph speed limit on motorways?
The prohibition of cyclists and pedestrians from motorways is a woke-socialist agenda, organised by WEF to ensure their control of the population with ANPR cameras.
Something something Magna Carta. FREEDOM.
(Am I doing this right?)
The aim of the 20mph speed limit is presumably to lower traffic fatalities. Are you saying that those on motorways shouldn't be likewise protected?
I think drivers in general would benefit from driving in a calmer manner at somewhat slower speeds in general. Not 20mph on a motorway, but generally a bit more relaxed.
The drivers who are always racing about that they will drive so close behind you that their number plate isn't visible can't be doing their stress levels much good.
As someone who likes to work on the practise of driving in a calmer way I can't find it in myself to be upset at urban 20mph speed limits. The only issue I had with them in Edinburgh was that the signage was often poor, which was a problem on those roads that were sometimes treated as arterial roads with a 30mph limit, but would change to being treated as residential roads with a 20mph limit for a poorly signposted stretch.
20mph is a stupidly low speed limit. Its unnatural for the engine which can run at a higher gear and smoother at 30mph.
Since there's no high risk for any of the roads being changed to 20 in this stupid move, its an utterly unjustified move too.
30mph is a much better balance of risk and speed. At 30mph drivers can stop if someone steps into the road, which doesn't really happen much anyway since most accidents happen at even lower speed at intersections.
In the very rare event of an accident, 93.2% of pedestrians hit at 30mph will survive.
But almost 100% at 20mph. And with much less risk of life-altering injuries. I get it that you think they are externalities, externalities.
The majority of drivers (including many police cars I've followed) appear to exceed the speed limits, by a good 5mph, so you've to allow for that, too.
That's why I've always like the 25mph urban limit. It pretty effectively keep the vast majority of traffic to no more than 30 mph, and is much less onerous to obey. But I recognise this is a minority view which will get no traction.
I think we should move to digital speed limits that are updated and shown in your vehicle. Then it can be 15 during a school run near a school, 25 in normal traffic and 35 overnight etc.
I don't know whether it's simply poor gearing design of VAG cars, but my experience is that 20mph and 30mph are both awkwardly at the crossover point between two gears. Too fast for the low gear, too slow for the higher gear.
It's one of the (many) things I dislike about urban driving.
Of course 20mph on, say, the M25 would be a huge increase in average speed.
Seriously, that's why they often drop the speed limit to 40/50mph on motorways - reduces congestion, which in turn reduces collisions, which reduces congestion...
They occasionally do absolutely. But if the speed limit was 20mph on all motorways you would probably reduce deaths on motorways.
Or not even 20mph. What about 50mph on all motorways?
It's a balance! I wouldn't be surprised if they drop the speed limit on the A9 to 40mph for major junctions given the number of collisions.
What local Tory candidate is going to campaign for 30mph in their local area? Just comes across as weird.
Any sensible person should want 30mph as the default everywhere, not just their local area.
There's no good reason to drop it to 20. You've already said you can't pinpoint any area as high risk for fatalities, so there's no justification for dropping the limit.
Why 30mph as the default and not 40? Twenty is plenty for residential roads where all the parked cars, frequency of junctions, etc, means you need the reduced stopping distance to drive safely.
After 30 is when the risk escalates.
A speed limit of 30 means a 93.2% survival rate in the event of an accident, and accidents are rare anyway since stopping distances are short.
A speed limit of 40 means accidents are more likely (as the stopping distance increases) and doubles the fatality rate to 15.7%
30mph works. There simply isn't the justification to go beneath that.
Total Bullshit. That data is from 1970s, but is still used by campaigners as it sounds better. Since then cars and their designs have been changed dramatically to make impacts safer, including for pedestrians, so the numbers have collapsed since then.
Tories are deluding themselves if they think being "pro-car" can save the election
It's fecking nonsense
The private car is slowly becoming history, it will take time, a lot of time, but it is inevitable. The external negatives that come with the private car are far too great, even if cars are fun (and they are fun, I've owned plenty). Besides, the car will be replaced with something similar, an autonomous e-car that is yours for the duration you need it, or something of that ilk
This is an inexorable historic process, like trains replacing horse drawn carriages. It will happen over decades. It is not going to alter invididual elections at any one moment
Is there any real value in making a judgement about a party's political fortunes based upon a decadal long view? Not imo.
More immediately, there is a non-trivial minority which is about to have its motoring costs increased dramatically and I have no doubt that any party opposing that will gain electorally.
I have no wish to diminish the impact on some individuals but is it actually a ‘non-trivial minority’ or is it in fact an extremely small minority?
AIUI about 36 constituencies (say 6% of 650) are impacted by the ULEZ expansion, 54% of London households have a car, and about 10% of car owners have a non-ULEZ compliant car. So the percentage of the electorate affected is: 6% * 54% * 10% = 0.324%.
So less than half a percent.
Unless the next Parliament is very well hung, it won't affect the arithmetic.
Of those 36 seats, about half are inner outer London (roughly those touching the North/South Circular). In those areas, ULEZ expansion is popular, because air pollution. So the expansion is only a political issue in outer outer London. Like Uxbridge.
So how many of those outer outer London seats are close enough to flipping for the ULEZ effect to make a difference?
Good evening
I would suggest ULEZ was the catalyst of the debate over climate change, and more specifically the transition and speed of it, rather than low emissions that are a separate subject
However, I expect it to be an election issue as it is likely the conservatives will say it is coming to a town near you just as it has under the labour Mayor of London
On the 17th September we have the abolition of the 30mph limit, replaced with 20mph right across Wales and if the conversations I am having with locals and family, and a recent online poll by North Wales News it is not going to be received well with over 3,100 out of near 3,500 rejecting it
I understand it is coming to Scotland next year and I expect the same angry response
The problem with this authoritarian edict is that the policy of 20mph zones by schools and congested areas is sensible and acceptable to most, but a blanket ban is ill thought through, much maybe as is Khan's implementation of the ULEZ scheme
I would be very surprised if speed limits change many votes. They may entrench some and prevent further leakage away from the Tories, but you're not going to build a great swing back of support on the basis of vowing to make them higher. The other problem is that once you say you oppose the reductions, you risk owning the fatalities that any increases might create. Grieving mothers on TV blaming Sunak for their kids' deaths would be a political nightmare.
Nobody is suggesting they are higher, but that they remain at 30mph and with 20mph zones by schools and other congested areas
Just imagine you drive into Wales on the 17th September and every single road in former 30mph zones are now 20mph and you try to drive at that speed
"These changes will affect most 30mph roads but not all.
This legislation changes the default speed limited on restricted roads. These are generally residential or busy pedestrian streets with streetlights.
But not all 30mph roads are restricted roads, and these remain at 30mph, and will be signed.
For restricted roads, local authorities and the 2 Trunk Road Agencies, can also make exceptions to the default speed limit in consultation with their communities.
We have published a map on DataMapWales that shows which roads would stay at 30mph."
And in our area the ones remaining at 30mph are minimal
Most of my village remains at 30. Between the two central village pubs, about 300 yards it is due to go to 20, also past the school. The rest is due to remain at 30. Retired villagers are up in arms demanding the Vale of Glamorgan council designate the entire current 30 becomes 20.
When St Brides Major went entirely 20 in the pilot, I thought the idea ridiculous, but it does focus the mind. I believe 20 out in the country is unnecessary but 20 in central villages and city side streets, particularly past schools makes perfect sense.
Lafur have sold the idea poorly. RT promising when he becomes FM he will restore restriction-free roads might be successful electorally, but I believe it as mad from the opposite scale as a blanket 20.
Drakeford is following the Khan playbook of poor implementation of a policy that has merits when applied sensibly but will enrage many by its blanket nature
You'd rather see Drakeford lose votes and children lose lives than the opposite, then?
Utter nonsense - of course not but a blanket 20mph is just unnecessary
Okay, tell me in your opinion where it's OK to kill children in an average Welsh village. If it's 30mph limit now, then the improved survival rate makes it a no-brainer (so to speak) to make it 20mph. Simple as that.
Bit odd of you to support the RNLI but ...
This has to be one of the dumbest things I've ever read on this site, that wasn't from Leon.
No, improved survival rates do not make it a no-brainer to make it 20mph. Survival isn't the be all and end all.
Thousands of children die annually from flu. Lockdown prevented the spread of flu, as well as Covid19. So is it a no-brainer we need to go back into lockdown to prevent children from dying from flu?
The fact that life has an element of risk does not make it worth shutting down life, or going to ridiculous extremes to eliminate all risk. It is about getting the balance right.
Dropping to 20 and ensuring people pay extra attention around high risk areas like school zones is a far more sensible balance of risk than the moronic idea of having a blanket 20.
2019 deaths from flu (influenza only, no other causes of death), under 20 in England & Wales was 30. Thousands of children do not die annually from flu.
And children would die in much higher numbers from cars if not kept at home for fear of traffic. Presumably Barty regards that as an externality ans so not his problem.
Why not 20mph speed limit on motorways?
The prohibition of cyclists and pedestrians from motorways is a woke-socialist agenda, organised by WEF to ensure their control of the population with ANPR cameras.
Something something Magna Carta. FREEDOM.
(Am I doing this right?)
The aim of the 20mph speed limit is presumably to lower traffic fatalities. Are you saying that those on motorways shouldn't be likewise protected?
I think drivers in general would benefit from driving in a calmer manner at somewhat slower speeds in general. Not 20mph on a motorway, but generally a bit more relaxed.
The drivers who are always racing about that they will drive so close behind you that their number plate isn't visible can't be doing their stress levels much good.
As someone who likes to work on the practise of driving in a calmer way I can't find it in myself to be upset at urban 20mph speed limits. The only issue I had with them in Edinburgh was that the signage was often poor, which was a problem on those roads that were sometimes treated as arterial roads with a 30mph limit, but would change to being treated as residential roads with a 20mph limit for a poorly signposted stretch.
20mph is a stupidly low speed limit. Its unnatural for the engine which can run at a higher gear and smoother at 30mph.
Since there's no high risk for any of the roads being changed to 20 in this stupid move, its an utterly unjustified move too.
30mph is a much better balance of risk and speed. At 30mph drivers can stop if someone steps into the road, which doesn't really happen much anyway since most accidents happen at even lower speed at intersections.
In the very rare event of an accident, 93.2% of pedestrians hit at 30mph will survive.
But almost 100% at 20mph. And with much less risk of life-altering injuries. I get it that you think they are externalities, externalities.
So let's have a 20mph speed limit on motorways. My original point. You would save lives and reduce injury. What's not to like.
As Foxy says, not many pedestrians ... who are what the 20 vs 40 argument is all about.
Why have you got a bee in your bonnet about pedestrians. We are talking about minimising death and injury.
Pedestrians dont' count? That sure explains the attitudes of some drivers on PB. Only the ones in their nice safe armoured tanks of SUVs and 4x4s count.
Of course 20mph on, say, the M25 would be a huge increase in average speed.
Seriously, that's why they often drop the speed limit to 40/50mph on motorways - reduces congestion, which in turn reduces collisions, which reduces congestion...
They occasionally do absolutely. But if the speed limit was 20mph on all motorways you would probably reduce deaths on motorways.
Or not even 20mph. What about 50mph on all motorways?
It's a balance! I wouldn't be surprised if they drop the speed limit on the A9 to 40mph for major junctions given the number of collisions.
What local Tory candidate is going to campaign for 30mph in their local area? Just comes across as weird.
Any sensible person should want 30mph as the default everywhere, not just their local area.
There's no good reason to drop it to 20. You've already said you can't pinpoint any area as high risk for fatalities, so there's no justification for dropping the limit.
Why 30mph as the default and not 40? Twenty is plenty for residential roads where all the parked cars, frequency of junctions, etc, means you need the reduced stopping distance to drive safely.
After 30 is when the risk escalates.
A speed limit of 30 means a 93.2% survival rate in the event of an accident, and accidents are rare anyway since stopping distances are short.
A speed limit of 40 means accidents are more likely (as the stopping distance increases) and doubles the fatality rate to 15.7%
30mph works. There simply isn't the justification to go beneath that.
Total Bullshit. That data is from 1970s, but is still used by campaigners as it sounds better. Since then cars and their designs have been changed dramatically to make impacts safer, including for pedestrians, so the numbers have collapsed since then.
Still a whacking great increase in 25 to 35. Any safety engineer would bite your hand off to be bale to reduce the risk of catastrophic failure in a system nby that much with such a small change.
Of course 20mph on, say, the M25 would be a huge increase in average speed.
Seriously, that's why they often drop the speed limit to 40/50mph on motorways - reduces congestion, which in turn reduces collisions, which reduces congestion...
They occasionally do absolutely. But if the speed limit was 20mph on all motorways you would probably reduce deaths on motorways.
Or not even 20mph. What about 50mph on all motorways?
It's a balance! I wouldn't be surprised if they drop the speed limit on the A9 to 40mph for major junctions given the number of collisions.
What local Tory candidate is going to campaign for 30mph in their local area? Just comes across as weird.
Any sensible person should want 30mph as the default everywhere, not just their local area.
There's no good reason to drop it to 20. You've already said you can't pinpoint any area as high risk for fatalities, so there's no justification for dropping the limit.
Why 30mph as the default and not 40? Twenty is plenty for residential roads where all the parked cars, frequency of junctions, etc, means you need the reduced stopping distance to drive safely.
After 30 is when the risk escalates.
A speed limit of 30 means a 93.2% survival rate in the event of an accident, and accidents are rare anyway since stopping distances are short.
A speed limit of 40 means accidents are more likely (as the stopping distance increases) and doubles the fatality rate to 15.7%
30mph works. There simply isn't the justification to go beneath that.
Question - should roads be engineered to make 30mph impossible regardless of the speed limit? My old estate was legally 30mph but you couldn't drive at that speed due to the road layout deliberately slowing traffic.
Same with roads where the speed limit is 30mph but there are rows of terraced houses with cars parked outside on both sides and a single lane of traffic down the middle.
30mph is ludicrously fast on a whole load of roads. There's no way to practically enforce a 20mph limit other than by adding obstacles - bends, humps, parked cars.
Anyone who lives on a street where kids play out knows that traffic should be as slow as possible.
I loathe obstacles in the road. I know that I'm being penalised because of other people's unwillingness to stick to the rules.
A lot of people would have their driving licences cancelled if I was in charge.
I try not to propagandise here (we all have strong views about most things, and why not?) but I think this article, though one-sided, makes an interesting point:
As the article suggests, I think the attitudes describe reflect a general feeling that times are difficult - that makes people willing to support a right to essential food and basic utilities, but not to any kind of frivolity. And there's a mean-spirited tendency to embrace any evidence that people on benefits are just ripping everyone off. Some will be, as in any group of people, but most are just trying to live a vaguely decent life in difficult circumstances - and sometimes they will define that as a visit to McDonalds or a cheese sandwich.
More generally, we should try to reach what we think is a fair society in terms of income, without attempting to have the state or society dictate what people do with that income. I'm in favour of a wealth tax and want Mr and Mrs Sunak to chip in a moderate proportion of their assets over time, but I don't care whether they spend their remaining cash on helicopters or Californian holidays. In the same way, if we decide that £X is a reasonable guaranteed income on benefits, it really is none of our business whether the poor spend that £X on one thing or another. We can argue what £X should be, and how far the State should ensure it, but perhaps we can agree on the principle that details of life preferences are *not* a business of the State.
I don't know whether it's simply poor gearing design of VAG cars, but my experience is that 20mph and 30mph are both awkwardly at the crossover point between two gears. Too fast for the low gear, too slow for the higher gear.
It's one of the (many) things I dislike about urban driving.
Of course 20mph on, say, the M25 would be a huge increase in average speed.
Seriously, that's why they often drop the speed limit to 40/50mph on motorways - reduces congestion, which in turn reduces collisions, which reduces congestion...
They occasionally do absolutely. But if the speed limit was 20mph on all motorways you would probably reduce deaths on motorways.
Or not even 20mph. What about 50mph on all motorways?
It's a balance! I wouldn't be surprised if they drop the speed limit on the A9 to 40mph for major junctions given the number of collisions.
What local Tory candidate is going to campaign for 30mph in their local area? Just comes across as weird.
Any sensible person should want 30mph as the default everywhere, not just their local area.
There's no good reason to drop it to 20. You've already said you can't pinpoint any area as high risk for fatalities, so there's no justification for dropping the limit.
Why 30mph as the default and not 40? Twenty is plenty for residential roads where all the parked cars, frequency of junctions, etc, means you need the reduced stopping distance to drive safely.
After 30 is when the risk escalates.
A speed limit of 30 means a 93.2% survival rate in the event of an accident, and accidents are rare anyway since stopping distances are short.
A speed limit of 40 means accidents are more likely (as the stopping distance increases) and doubles the fatality rate to 15.7%
30mph works. There simply isn't the justification to go beneath that.
Total Bullshit. That data is from 1970s, but is still used by campaigners as it sounds better. Since then cars and their designs have been changed dramatically to make impacts safer, including for pedestrians, so the numbers have collapsed since then.
Still a whacking great increase in 25 to 35. Any safety engineer would bite your hand off to be bale to reduce the risk of catastrophic failure in a system nby that much with such a small change.
Its a miniscule increase, especially considering how unlikely accidents are at that speed anyway.
And its a dramatic reduction in speed, a 33% reduction, not a small change.
No justification for it at all. Roads are safer than they ever have been, there is no reason or excuse for this change to happen.
On topic, I agree with Mike that the economy and the related CoL issues will determine the next election. The problem Rishi has is that there is not much good that can be said about these at the moment. They have to wait for inflation to fall and for real wages to grow.
There are some good aspects of the UK economy. We are still very good at job creation and we have nothing like the unemployment that scarred my youth. We have avoided a recession (albeit it at a cost) and have substantially mitigated both the disruption of a pandemic and a major European war.
The speed with which the UK has built its vast windfarms to make renewables our largest single source of power is commendable and remarkable (far fewer NIMBYs when its 40 fathoms deep). But our growth record has been poor to disastrous, we are not investing nearly enough and our balance of payments remains a huge source of long term damage. Not really a pass mark at the moment so talk about something else.
People prefer extra consumption over extra investment.
And why bother investing if you're a business - if it works and higher profits results you'll be condemned for being greedy and you might be taxed more.
The only profitable investment which is admired is through property ownership and its increase in price.
That's not always true, a recent machinery investment we made has paid off tax wise with the new super-capital 130% allowance. But we're a manufacturer and export globally, including TO China, so probably an outlier when it comes to the UK economy.
If you want some free publicity you should contact your local Conservative MPs - I'm sure they, or Sunak and Hunt, would love to do a media presentation showing the success of the government's business tax and export strategies.
Of course 20mph on, say, the M25 would be a huge increase in average speed.
Seriously, that's why they often drop the speed limit to 40/50mph on motorways - reduces congestion, which in turn reduces collisions, which reduces congestion...
They occasionally do absolutely. But if the speed limit was 20mph on all motorways you would probably reduce deaths on motorways.
Or not even 20mph. What about 50mph on all motorways?
It's a balance! I wouldn't be surprised if they drop the speed limit on the A9 to 40mph for major junctions given the number of collisions.
What local Tory candidate is going to campaign for 30mph in their local area? Just comes across as weird.
Any sensible person should want 30mph as the default everywhere, not just their local area.
There's no good reason to drop it to 20. You've already said you can't pinpoint any area as high risk for fatalities, so there's no justification for dropping the limit.
Why 30mph as the default and not 40? Twenty is plenty for residential roads where all the parked cars, frequency of junctions, etc, means you need the reduced stopping distance to drive safely.
After 30 is when the risk escalates.
A speed limit of 30 means a 93.2% survival rate in the event of an accident, and accidents are rare anyway since stopping distances are short.
A speed limit of 40 means accidents are more likely (as the stopping distance increases) and doubles the fatality rate to 15.7%
30mph works. There simply isn't the justification to go beneath that.
Total Bullshit. That data is from 1970s, but is still used by campaigners as it sounds better. Since then cars and their designs have been changed dramatically to make impacts safer, including for pedestrians, so the numbers have collapsed since then.
Still a whacking great increase in 25 to 35. Any safety engineer would bite your hand off to be bale to reduce the risk of catastrophic failure in a system nby that much with such a small change.
Its a miniscule increase, especially considering how unlikely accidents are at that speed anyway.
And its a dramatic reduction in speed, a 33% reduction, not a small change.
No justification for it at all. Roads are safer than they ever have been, there is no reason or excuse for this change to happen.
It's not a minuscule difference. About a *halving* from 35 to 25.
And you are carefully omitting the injuries, incluyding life-altering ones.
Speed limits are arbitrary. Why is the urban speed limit 30mph? Because it has been assessed as a safe speed for modern cars in today's built environment? Or because we have inherited it from long long ago?
Speed needs to be tret the same as drink driving or seat belts. You might not like the rule, but you need to obey for the good of everyone.
I hope that BR is talking about roads which have a faintly ridiculous 30mph limit on them. If so we would probably agree. But residential streets? Where the only traffic is people going to and from houses?
In that kind of environment a speed limit is irrelevant. Nobody will enforce it. Ever. No speeding tickets will be handed out. So it is about awareness and it is about driver standards.
This (https://goo.gl/maps/7injhivDaTs3SDag8) is a 30mph limit. You'd have to be an absolute lunatic to try and do 30mph here. And a few taxis and delivery drivers tried it. You can complain but the bosses ask if they were speeding. Despite 30mph being crazy.
That is why we need 20mph limits in residential areas. Not to enforce them legally. To change behaviours.
Of course 20mph on, say, the M25 would be a huge increase in average speed.
Seriously, that's why they often drop the speed limit to 40/50mph on motorways - reduces congestion, which in turn reduces collisions, which reduces congestion...
They occasionally do absolutely. But if the speed limit was 20mph on all motorways you would probably reduce deaths on motorways.
Or not even 20mph. What about 50mph on all motorways?
It's a balance! I wouldn't be surprised if they drop the speed limit on the A9 to 40mph for major junctions given the number of collisions.
What local Tory candidate is going to campaign for 30mph in their local area? Just comes across as weird.
Any sensible person should want 30mph as the default everywhere, not just their local area.
There's no good reason to drop it to 20. You've already said you can't pinpoint any area as high risk for fatalities, so there's no justification for dropping the limit.
Why 30mph as the default and not 40? Twenty is plenty for residential roads where all the parked cars, frequency of junctions, etc, means you need the reduced stopping distance to drive safely.
After 30 is when the risk escalates.
A speed limit of 30 means a 93.2% survival rate in the event of an accident, and accidents are rare anyway since stopping distances are short.
A speed limit of 40 means accidents are more likely (as the stopping distance increases) and doubles the fatality rate to 15.7%
30mph works. There simply isn't the justification to go beneath that.
Total Bullshit. That data is from 1970s, but is still used by campaigners as it sounds better. Since then cars and their designs have been changed dramatically to make impacts safer, including for pedestrians, so the numbers have collapsed since then.
Still a whacking great increase in 25 to 35. Any safety engineer would bite your hand off to be bale to reduce the risk of catastrophic failure in a system nby that much with such a small change.
Its a miniscule increase, especially considering how unlikely accidents are at that speed anyway.
And its a dramatic reduction in speed, a 33% reduction, not a small change.
No justification for it at all. Roads are safer than they ever have been, there is no reason or excuse for this change to happen.
Such hyperbole from both sides on this. It is neither "miniscule" nor "whacking great".
Of course 20mph on, say, the M25 would be a huge increase in average speed.
Seriously, that's why they often drop the speed limit to 40/50mph on motorways - reduces congestion, which in turn reduces collisions, which reduces congestion...
They occasionally do absolutely. But if the speed limit was 20mph on all motorways you would probably reduce deaths on motorways.
Or not even 20mph. What about 50mph on all motorways?
It's a balance! I wouldn't be surprised if they drop the speed limit on the A9 to 40mph for major junctions given the number of collisions.
What local Tory candidate is going to campaign for 30mph in their local area? Just comes across as weird.
Any sensible person should want 30mph as the default everywhere, not just their local area.
There's no good reason to drop it to 20. You've already said you can't pinpoint any area as high risk for fatalities, so there's no justification for dropping the limit.
Why 30mph as the default and not 40? Twenty is plenty for residential roads where all the parked cars, frequency of junctions, etc, means you need the reduced stopping distance to drive safely.
After 30 is when the risk escalates.
A speed limit of 30 means a 93.2% survival rate in the event of an accident, and accidents are rare anyway since stopping distances are short.
A speed limit of 40 means accidents are more likely (as the stopping distance increases) and doubles the fatality rate to 15.7%
30mph works. There simply isn't the justification to go beneath that.
Question - should roads be engineered to make 30mph impossible regardless of the speed limit? My old estate was legally 30mph but you couldn't drive at that speed due to the road layout deliberately slowing traffic.
Same with roads where the speed limit is 30mph but there are rows of terraced houses with cars parked outside on both sides and a single lane of traffic down the middle.
30mph is ludicrously fast on a whole load of roads. There's no way to practically enforce a 20mph limit other than by adding obstacles - bends, humps, parked cars.
Anyone who lives on a street where kids play out knows that traffic should be as slow as possible.
Of course they shouldn't, and roads should be designed with off-road parking for cars which both makes the road clearer and safer, and enables the cars to be charged at home which is good for the environment too.
30mph is my default speed I drive in 30mph zones. Perfectly practicable to do that here. Streets kids play out in absolutely should be slower, but that isn't the default everywhere. I wouldn't dream of doing 30 on our road, but the main road our estate is off is another matter, no houses lead onto that road, all the houses are on estates off it, so the road is only for cars not pedestrians, so why shouldn't it be a 30mph road?
Speed limits are arbitrary. Why is the urban speed limit 30mph? Because it has been assessed as a safe speed for modern cars in today's built environment? Or because we have inherited it from long long ago?
Speed needs to be tret the same as drink driving or seat belts. You might not like the rule, but you need to obey for the good of everyone.
I hope that BR is talking about roads which have a faintly ridiculous 30mph limit on them. If so we would probably agree. But residential streets? Where the only traffic is people going to and from houses?
In that kind of environment a speed limit is irrelevant. Nobody will enforce it. Ever. No speeding tickets will be handed out. So it is about awareness and it is about driver standards.
This (https://goo.gl/maps/7injhivDaTs3SDag8) is a 30mph limit. You'd have to be an absolute lunatic to try and do 30mph here. And a few taxis and delivery drivers tried it. You can complain but the bosses ask if they were speeding. Despite 30mph being crazy.
That is why we need 20mph limits in residential areas. Not to enforce them legally. To change behaviours.
It was the standard of the 1950s, as I recall, and how much longer before I have no idea. But standards change. Drink driving standards have changed - both in law and in public attitudes. Seat belts - I recall the howling when they were proposed, all sorts of shite excuses. And so on.
On topic, I agree with Mike that the economy and the related CoL issues will determine the next election. The problem Rishi has is that there is not much good that can be said about these at the moment. They have to wait for inflation to fall and for real wages to grow.
There are some good aspects of the UK economy. We are still very good at job creation and we have nothing like the unemployment that scarred my youth. We have avoided a recession (albeit it at a cost) and have substantially mitigated both the disruption of a pandemic and a major European war.
The speed with which the UK has built its vast windfarms to make renewables our largest single source of power is commendable and remarkable (far fewer NIMBYs when its 40 fathoms deep). But our growth record has been poor to disastrous, we are not investing nearly enough and our balance of payments remains a huge source of long term damage. Not really a pass mark at the moment so talk about something else.
People prefer extra consumption over extra investment.
And why bother investing if you're a business - if it works and higher profits results you'll be condemned for being greedy and you might be taxed more.
The only profitable investment which is admired is through property ownership and its increase in price.
That's not always true, a recent machinery investment we made has paid off tax wise with the new super-capital 130% allowance. But we're a manufacturer and export globally, including TO China, so probably an outlier when it comes to the UK economy.
If you want some free publicity you should contact your local Conservative MPs - I'm sure they, or Sunak and Hunt, would love to do a media presentation showing the success of the government's business tax and export strategies.
Heh. MP for my workplace is Gill Furniss. Ann Widdicombe opened our current site back when she was employment minister.
Of course 20mph on, say, the M25 would be a huge increase in average speed.
Seriously, that's why they often drop the speed limit to 40/50mph on motorways - reduces congestion, which in turn reduces collisions, which reduces congestion...
They occasionally do absolutely. But if the speed limit was 20mph on all motorways you would probably reduce deaths on motorways.
Or not even 20mph. What about 50mph on all motorways?
It's a balance! I wouldn't be surprised if they drop the speed limit on the A9 to 40mph for major junctions given the number of collisions.
What local Tory candidate is going to campaign for 30mph in their local area? Just comes across as weird.
Any sensible person should want 30mph as the default everywhere, not just their local area.
There's no good reason to drop it to 20. You've already said you can't pinpoint any area as high risk for fatalities, so there's no justification for dropping the limit.
Why 30mph as the default and not 40? Twenty is plenty for residential roads where all the parked cars, frequency of junctions, etc, means you need the reduced stopping distance to drive safely.
After 30 is when the risk escalates.
A speed limit of 30 means a 93.2% survival rate in the event of an accident, and accidents are rare anyway since stopping distances are short.
A speed limit of 40 means accidents are more likely (as the stopping distance increases) and doubles the fatality rate to 15.7%
30mph works. There simply isn't the justification to go beneath that.
But 20mph works even better. If you are happy to modify speed to reduce deaths by 7 percentage points or so, and exactly the same is possible by going downb to 20 ...
Bart's numbers seem strange.
His 93% survival (ie 7% killed) is actually one number quoted (others are 95% or 97%) for pedestrian survival when hit at 20mph). The figure for pedestrian deaths in 30mph collisions is often quoted as closer to 20%.
There are various numbers around from different dates and eg the increase in SUV ownership causes an increase - poorer visibility for the driver, and more dangerous bodywork on the vehicle which impacts torso more than legs, for example. It's worth a note that USA 'Light Truck' SUVs are even more dangerous than European ones, since they are exempt from safety regulations (eg bumper height).
I try not to propagandise here (we all have strong views about most things, and why not?) but I think this article, though one-sided, makes an interesting point:
As the article suggests, I think the attitudes describe reflect a general feeling that times are difficult - that makes people willing to support a right to essential food and basic utilities, but not to any kind of frivolity. And there's a mean-spirited tendency to embrace any evidence that people on benefits are just ripping everyone off. Some will be, as in any group of people, but most are just trying to live a vaguely decent life in difficult circumstances - and sometimes they will define that as a visit to McDonalds or a cheese sandwich.
More generally, we should try to reach what we think is a fair society in terms of income, without attempting to have the state or society dictate what people do with that income. I'm in favour of a wealth tax and want Mr and Mrs Sunak to chip in a moderate proportion of their assets over time, but I don't care whether they spend their remaining cash on helicopters or Californian holidays. In the same way, if we decide that £X is a reasonable guaranteed income on benefits, it really is none of our business whether the poor spend that £X on one thing or another. We can argue what £X should be, and how far the State should ensure it, but perhaps we can agree on the principle that details of life preferences are *not* a business of the State.
Read some of the Twitter threads about the Refugee Barge. Newspaper comments where readers are incensed that the refugees on this floating deathtrap have "en-suite showers and three meals a day" - they're "living like kings".
The right have hardened the souls of a lot of impressionable people. Hair shirts for all - except me. That way I won't notice the billions stolen from us by Tory spivs because I am So Angry about these foreign scroungers getting an en-suite shower on their floating gulag.
Of course 20mph on, say, the M25 would be a huge increase in average speed.
Seriously, that's why they often drop the speed limit to 40/50mph on motorways - reduces congestion, which in turn reduces collisions, which reduces congestion...
They occasionally do absolutely. But if the speed limit was 20mph on all motorways you would probably reduce deaths on motorways.
Or not even 20mph. What about 50mph on all motorways?
It's a balance! I wouldn't be surprised if they drop the speed limit on the A9 to 40mph for major junctions given the number of collisions.
What local Tory candidate is going to campaign for 30mph in their local area? Just comes across as weird.
Any sensible person should want 30mph as the default everywhere, not just their local area.
There's no good reason to drop it to 20. You've already said you can't pinpoint any area as high risk for fatalities, so there's no justification for dropping the limit.
Why 30mph as the default and not 40? Twenty is plenty for residential roads where all the parked cars, frequency of junctions, etc, means you need the reduced stopping distance to drive safely.
After 30 is when the risk escalates.
A speed limit of 30 means a 93.2% survival rate in the event of an accident, and accidents are rare anyway since stopping distances are short.
A speed limit of 40 means accidents are more likely (as the stopping distance increases) and doubles the fatality rate to 15.7%
30mph works. There simply isn't the justification to go beneath that.
Total Bullshit. That data is from 1970s, but is still used by campaigners as it sounds better. Since then cars and their designs have been changed dramatically to make impacts safer, including for pedestrians, so the numbers have collapsed since then.
Still a whacking great increase in 25 to 35. Any safety engineer would bite your hand off to be bale to reduce the risk of catastrophic failure in a system nby that much with such a small change.
Its a miniscule increase, especially considering how unlikely accidents are at that speed anyway.
And its a dramatic reduction in speed, a 33% reduction, not a small change.
No justification for it at all. Roads are safer than they ever have been, there is no reason or excuse for this change to happen.
Such hyperbole from both sides on this. It is neither "miniscule" nor "whacking great".
50% change*? Given the small incremental safety improvements in most complex systems, that *Is* "whacking great" for such a simple modification.
*50% of the deaths at 35, not 50 percentage points.
Make the "owners" pay to rebuild the whole Crooked House, brick by brick.
This happens far too often in this country, and these criminal gangs/developers get away with it.
There are precious examples where this occurred but it’s rare that the (guilty) company involved has enough assets / insurance to pay for the work.
I suspect this case may be an exception as it looks like multiple companies could be given the bill (the people (or their insurers) who provided the bulldozers are likely to regret it).
My guess - and it is a guess - is that the new owners of The Crooked House deliberately torched it, to enable development. This happens all the time, as we all know. The blocking of the access lane, the timing of the fire, it is all too suspicious
However they did NOT expect the viral social media reaction, and the political and police interest this provoked, so they panicked this weekend and sent in bulldozers to demolish it entirely at the crack of dawn, thus destroying evidence. That explains why it was so brazen. Blind panic
That is my guess. Or it was "junkies" according to the increasingly ludicrous and pointless @BartholomewRoberts
If your guess is correct then the second action, sending in bulldozers to demolish a crime scene, would be all the more frigging stupid. Since interfering with a crime scene is a crime in and of itself.
Not sure why junkies starting a fire in a vacant/abandoned building is such an insane suggestion, it happens all the frigging time. Under the logic of your first paragraph, since it happens all the time, we should think this is true too.
It was probably torched and levelled to build a fucking car park, to please dribbling sad infanticidal halfwits like you. So you should be *chuffed*
Nice try, though Google Street View confirms it had a pretty substantial car park already in the first place.
Which won't serve much purpose without a destination to visit.
If everyone who is now showing such an interest in preserving this pub had actually been buying pints in it in the first place, maybe it would never have shut down originally?
Marstons sold it as a going concern to another company because it didn’t fit their profile.
I've never understood the people who get themselves in to this kind of trouble. It is a world of pain going against a local authority that have it in for you and have the public behind them. Why do it?
Err yes, whoever sent the demolition vehicles in ought to be in deep trouble.
Even criminals are rational.
They must be very confident that, regardless of whether the police/LA know who they are - which I suspect they do - they'll never be able to get enough evidence together for a successful prosecution. Or, if they do, it'll only be the small fry who get hit with a perfectly tolerable penalty dwarfed by the profit they'll make overall.
Of course 20mph on, say, the M25 would be a huge increase in average speed.
Seriously, that's why they often drop the speed limit to 40/50mph on motorways - reduces congestion, which in turn reduces collisions, which reduces congestion...
They occasionally do absolutely. But if the speed limit was 20mph on all motorways you would probably reduce deaths on motorways.
Or not even 20mph. What about 50mph on all motorways?
It's a balance! I wouldn't be surprised if they drop the speed limit on the A9 to 40mph for major junctions given the number of collisions.
What local Tory candidate is going to campaign for 30mph in their local area? Just comes across as weird.
Any sensible person should want 30mph as the default everywhere, not just their local area.
There's no good reason to drop it to 20. You've already said you can't pinpoint any area as high risk for fatalities, so there's no justification for dropping the limit.
Why 30mph as the default and not 40? Twenty is plenty for residential roads where all the parked cars, frequency of junctions, etc, means you need the reduced stopping distance to drive safely.
After 30 is when the risk escalates.
A speed limit of 30 means a 93.2% survival rate in the event of an accident, and accidents are rare anyway since stopping distances are short.
A speed limit of 40 means accidents are more likely (as the stopping distance increases) and doubles the fatality rate to 15.7%
30mph works. There simply isn't the justification to go beneath that.
Question - should roads be engineered to make 30mph impossible regardless of the speed limit? My old estate was legally 30mph but you couldn't drive at that speed due to the road layout deliberately slowing traffic.
Same with roads where the speed limit is 30mph but there are rows of terraced houses with cars parked outside on both sides and a single lane of traffic down the middle.
30mph is ludicrously fast on a whole load of roads. There's no way to practically enforce a 20mph limit other than by adding obstacles - bends, humps, parked cars.
Anyone who lives on a street where kids play out knows that traffic should be as slow as possible.
Of course they shouldn't, and roads should be designed with off-road parking for cars which both makes the road clearer and safer, and enables the cars to be charged at home which is good for the environment too.
30mph is my default speed I drive in 30mph zones. Perfectly practicable to do that here. Streets kids play out in absolutely should be slower, but that isn't the default everywhere. I wouldn't dream of doing 30 on our road, but the main road our estate is off is another matter, no houses lead onto that road, all the houses are on estates off it, so the road is only for cars not pedestrians, so why shouldn't it be a 30mph road?
Why shouldn't you do 30mph on your road? Isn't it your default speed? If your street hasn't been designed for 30mph then surely it should be demolished and rebuilt to ensure you can drive at 30.
You say "Perfectly practicable to do that [30mph] here." and "I wouldn't dream of doing 30 on our road" - which is it? Is your 30mph road perfectly practicable for 30mph or not?
Of course 20mph on, say, the M25 would be a huge increase in average speed.
Seriously, that's why they often drop the speed limit to 40/50mph on motorways - reduces congestion, which in turn reduces collisions, which reduces congestion...
They occasionally do absolutely. But if the speed limit was 20mph on all motorways you would probably reduce deaths on motorways.
Or not even 20mph. What about 50mph on all motorways?
It's a balance! I wouldn't be surprised if they drop the speed limit on the A9 to 40mph for major junctions given the number of collisions.
What local Tory candidate is going to campaign for 30mph in their local area? Just comes across as weird.
Any sensible person should want 30mph as the default everywhere, not just their local area.
There's no good reason to drop it to 20. You've already said you can't pinpoint any area as high risk for fatalities, so there's no justification for dropping the limit.
Why 30mph as the default and not 40? Twenty is plenty for residential roads where all the parked cars, frequency of junctions, etc, means you need the reduced stopping distance to drive safely.
After 30 is when the risk escalates.
A speed limit of 30 means a 93.2% survival rate in the event of an accident, and accidents are rare anyway since stopping distances are short.
A speed limit of 40 means accidents are more likely (as the stopping distance increases) and doubles the fatality rate to 15.7%
30mph works. There simply isn't the justification to go beneath that.
Total Bullshit. That data is from 1970s, but is still used by campaigners as it sounds better. Since then cars and their designs have been changed dramatically to make impacts safer, including for pedestrians, so the numbers have collapsed since then.
Still a whacking great increase in 25 to 35. Any safety engineer would bite your hand off to be bale to reduce the risk of catastrophic failure in a system nby that much with such a small change.
Its a miniscule increase, especially considering how unlikely accidents are at that speed anyway.
And its a dramatic reduction in speed, a 33% reduction, not a small change.
No justification for it at all. Roads are safer than they ever have been, there is no reason or excuse for this change to happen.
Such hyperbole from both sides on this. It is neither "miniscule" nor "whacking great".
50% change*? Given the small incremental safety improvements in most complex systems, that *Is* "whacking great" for such a simple modification.
*50% of the deaths at 35, not 50 percentage points.
50% of a tiny number is a tiny number. Despite the fact that you've bumped the number to 35, rather than 30.
The odds of any individual vehicle or pedestrian being in an accident at that speed limit is already miniscule in the first place. Halving a miniscule chance, is a miniscule change too.
I find myself in the curious position of supporting 20mph in most residential areas but also thinking cars are a crucial mode of transport that have a long future ahead of them, including car ownership, particularly outside cities. It's about sensible boundaries.
Not sure why nuance needs to die just because we now have social media.
Of course 20mph on, say, the M25 would be a huge increase in average speed.
Seriously, that's why they often drop the speed limit to 40/50mph on motorways - reduces congestion, which in turn reduces collisions, which reduces congestion...
They occasionally do absolutely. But if the speed limit was 20mph on all motorways you would probably reduce deaths on motorways.
Or not even 20mph. What about 50mph on all motorways?
It's a balance! I wouldn't be surprised if they drop the speed limit on the A9 to 40mph for major junctions given the number of collisions.
What local Tory candidate is going to campaign for 30mph in their local area? Just comes across as weird.
Any sensible person should want 30mph as the default everywhere, not just their local area.
There's no good reason to drop it to 20. You've already said you can't pinpoint any area as high risk for fatalities, so there's no justification for dropping the limit.
Why 30mph as the default and not 40? Twenty is plenty for residential roads where all the parked cars, frequency of junctions, etc, means you need the reduced stopping distance to drive safely.
After 30 is when the risk escalates.
A speed limit of 30 means a 93.2% survival rate in the event of an accident, and accidents are rare anyway since stopping distances are short.
A speed limit of 40 means accidents are more likely (as the stopping distance increases) and doubles the fatality rate to 15.7%
30mph works. There simply isn't the justification to go beneath that.
Question - should roads be engineered to make 30mph impossible regardless of the speed limit? My old estate was legally 30mph but you couldn't drive at that speed due to the road layout deliberately slowing traffic.
Same with roads where the speed limit is 30mph but there are rows of terraced houses with cars parked outside on both sides and a single lane of traffic down the middle.
30mph is ludicrously fast on a whole load of roads. There's no way to practically enforce a 20mph limit other than by adding obstacles - bends, humps, parked cars.
Anyone who lives on a street where kids play out knows that traffic should be as slow as possible.
Of course they shouldn't, and roads should be designed with off-road parking for cars which both makes the road clearer and safer, and enables the cars to be charged at home which is good for the environment too.
30mph is my default speed I drive in 30mph zones. Perfectly practicable to do that here. Streets kids play out in absolutely should be slower, but that isn't the default everywhere. I wouldn't dream of doing 30 on our road, but the main road our estate is off is another matter, no houses lead onto that road, all the houses are on estates off it, so the road is only for cars not pedestrians, so why shouldn't it be a 30mph road?
Why shouldn't you do 30mph on your road? Isn't it your default speed? If your street hasn't been designed for 30mph then surely it should be demolished and rebuilt to ensure you can drive at 30.
You say "Perfectly practicable to do that [30mph] here." and "I wouldn't dream of doing 30 on our road" - which is it? Is your 30mph road perfectly practicable for 30mph or not?
If its not, they why is the speed limit 30mph?
Its my default speed when driving on main roads yes, not on residential estates. But almost none of my driving is on an estate, even at about 10-15 mph it takes me less than a minute to drive to the exit of the estate. There simply isn't the distance to accelerate to 30mph even if you tried.
I have no qualms with a 20mph speed limit for residential estates or school zones, I've said that all along.
Of course 20mph on, say, the M25 would be a huge increase in average speed.
Seriously, that's why they often drop the speed limit to 40/50mph on motorways - reduces congestion, which in turn reduces collisions, which reduces congestion...
They occasionally do absolutely. But if the speed limit was 20mph on all motorways you would probably reduce deaths on motorways.
Or not even 20mph. What about 50mph on all motorways?
It's a balance! I wouldn't be surprised if they drop the speed limit on the A9 to 40mph for major junctions given the number of collisions.
What local Tory candidate is going to campaign for 30mph in their local area? Just comes across as weird.
Any sensible person should want 30mph as the default everywhere, not just their local area.
There's no good reason to drop it to 20. You've already said you can't pinpoint any area as high risk for fatalities, so there's no justification for dropping the limit.
Why 30mph as the default and not 40? Twenty is plenty for residential roads where all the parked cars, frequency of junctions, etc, means you need the reduced stopping distance to drive safely.
After 30 is when the risk escalates.
A speed limit of 30 means a 93.2% survival rate in the event of an accident, and accidents are rare anyway since stopping distances are short.
A speed limit of 40 means accidents are more likely (as the stopping distance increases) and doubles the fatality rate to 15.7%
30mph works. There simply isn't the justification to go beneath that.
Total Bullshit. That data is from 1970s, but is still used by campaigners as it sounds better. Since then cars and their designs have been changed dramatically to make impacts safer, including for pedestrians, so the numbers have collapsed since then.
Still a whacking great increase in 25 to 35. Any safety engineer would bite your hand off to be bale to reduce the risk of catastrophic failure in a system nby that much with such a small change.
Its a miniscule increase, especially considering how unlikely accidents are at that speed anyway.
And its a dramatic reduction in speed, a 33% reduction, not a small change.
No justification for it at all. Roads are safer than they ever have been, there is no reason or excuse for this change to happen.
Such hyperbole from both sides on this. It is neither "miniscule" nor "whacking great".
50% change*? Given the small incremental safety improvements in most complex systems, that *Is* "whacking great" for such a simple modification.
*50% of the deaths at 35, not 50 percentage points.
50% of a tiny number is a tiny number. Despite the fact that you've bumped the number to 35, rather than 30.
The odds of any individual vehicle or pedestrian being in an accident at that speed limit is already miniscule in the first place. Halving a miniscule chance, is a miniscule change too.
But you spend all your time driving around, and so do many people.
Plus children have been driven off the road space by the huge rise in traffic.
And you are *still* deliberately ignoring the injury stats.
Tories are deluding themselves if they think being "pro-car" can save the election
It's fecking nonsense
The private car is slowly becoming history, it will take time, a lot of time, but it is inevitable. The external negatives that come with the private car are far too great, even if cars are fun (and they are fun, I've owned plenty). Besides, the car will be replaced with something similar, an autonomous e-car that is yours for the duration you need it, or something of that ilk
This is an inexorable historic process, like trains replacing horse drawn carriages. It will happen over decades. It is not going to alter invididual elections at any one moment
Is there any real value in making a judgement about a party's political fortunes based upon a decadal long view? Not imo.
More immediately, there is a non-trivial minority which is about to have its motoring costs increased dramatically and I have no doubt that any party opposing that will gain electorally.
I have no wish to diminish the impact on some individuals but is it actually a ‘non-trivial minority’ or is it in fact an extremely small minority?
AIUI about 36 constituencies (say 6% of 650) are impacted by the ULEZ expansion, 54% of London households have a car, and about 10% of car owners have a non-ULEZ compliant car. So the percentage of the electorate affected is: 6% * 54% * 10% = 0.324%.
So less than half a percent.
Unless the next Parliament is very well hung, it won't affect the arithmetic.
Of those 36 seats, about half are inner outer London (roughly those touching the North/South Circular). In those areas, ULEZ expansion is popular, because air pollution. So the expansion is only a political issue in outer outer London. Like Uxbridge.
So how many of those outer outer London seats are close enough to flipping for the ULEZ effect to make a difference?
Good evening
I would suggest ULEZ was the catalyst of the debate over climate change, and more specifically the transition and speed of it, rather than low emissions that are a separate subject
However, I expect it to be an election issue as it is likely the conservatives will say it is coming to a town near you just as it has under the labour Mayor of London
On the 17th September we have the abolition of the 30mph limit, replaced with 20mph right across Wales and if the conversations I am having with locals and family, and a recent online poll by North Wales News it is not going to be received well with over 3,100 out of near 3,500 rejecting it
I understand it is coming to Scotland next year and I expect the same angry response
The problem with this authoritarian edict is that the policy of 20mph zones by schools and congested areas is sensible and acceptable to most, but a blanket ban is ill thought through, much maybe as is Khan's implementation of the ULEZ scheme
I would be very surprised if speed limits change many votes. They may entrench some and prevent further leakage away from the Tories, but you're not going to build a great swing back of support on the basis of vowing to make them higher. The other problem is that once you say you oppose the reductions, you risk owning the fatalities that any increases might create. Grieving mothers on TV blaming Sunak for their kids' deaths would be a political nightmare.
Nobody is suggesting they are higher, but that they remain at 30mph and with 20mph zones by schools and other congested areas
Just imagine you drive into Wales on the 17th September and every single road in former 30mph zones are now 20mph and you try to drive at that speed
"These changes will affect most 30mph roads but not all.
This legislation changes the default speed limited on restricted roads. These are generally residential or busy pedestrian streets with streetlights.
But not all 30mph roads are restricted roads, and these remain at 30mph, and will be signed.
For restricted roads, local authorities and the 2 Trunk Road Agencies, can also make exceptions to the default speed limit in consultation with their communities.
We have published a map on DataMapWales that shows which roads would stay at 30mph."
And in our area the ones remaining at 30mph are minimal
Most of my village remains at 30. Between the two central village pubs, about 300 yards it is due to go to 20, also past the school. The rest is due to remain at 30. Retired villagers are up in arms demanding the Vale of Glamorgan council designate the entire current 30 becomes 20.
When St Brides Major went entirely 20 in the pilot, I thought the idea ridiculous, but it does focus the mind. I believe 20 out in the country is unnecessary but 20 in central villages and city side streets, particularly past schools makes perfect sense.
Lafur have sold the idea poorly. RT promising when he becomes FM he will restore restriction-free roads might be successful electorally, but I believe it as mad from the opposite scale as a blanket 20.
Drakeford is following the Khan playbook of poor implementation of a policy that has merits when applied sensibly but will enrage many by its blanket nature
You'd rather see Drakeford lose votes and children lose lives than the opposite, then?
Utter nonsense - of course not but a blanket 20mph is just unnecessary
Okay, tell me in your opinion where it's OK to kill children in an average Welsh village. If it's 30mph limit now, then the improved survival rate makes it a no-brainer (so to speak) to make it 20mph. Simple as that.
Bit odd of you to support the RNLI but ...
This has to be one of the dumbest things I've ever read on this site, that wasn't from Leon.
No, improved survival rates do not make it a no-brainer to make it 20mph. Survival isn't the be all and end all.
Thousands of children die annually from flu. Lockdown prevented the spread of flu, as well as Covid19. So is it a no-brainer we need to go back into lockdown to prevent children from dying from flu?
The fact that life has an element of risk does not make it worth shutting down life, or going to ridiculous extremes to eliminate all risk. It is about getting the balance right.
Dropping to 20 and ensuring people pay extra attention around high risk areas like school zones is a far more sensible balance of risk than the moronic idea of having a blanket 20.
2019 deaths from flu (influenza only, no other causes of death), under 20 in England & Wales was 30. Thousands of children do not die annually from flu.
And children would die in much higher numbers from cars if not kept at home for fear of traffic. Presumably Barty regards that as an externality ans so not his problem.
Why not 20mph speed limit on motorways?
The prohibition of cyclists and pedestrians from motorways is a woke-socialist agenda, organised by WEF to ensure their control of the population with ANPR cameras.
Something something Magna Carta. FREEDOM.
(Am I doing this right?)
The aim of the 20mph speed limit is presumably to lower traffic fatalities. Are you saying that those on motorways shouldn't be likewise protected?
I think drivers in general would benefit from driving in a calmer manner at somewhat slower speeds in general. Not 20mph on a motorway, but generally a bit more relaxed.
The drivers who are always racing about that they will drive so close behind you that their number plate isn't visible can't be doing their stress levels much good.
As someone who likes to work on the practise of driving in a calmer way I can't find it in myself to be upset at urban 20mph speed limits. The only issue I had with them in Edinburgh was that the signage was often poor, which was a problem on those roads that were sometimes treated as arterial roads with a 30mph limit, but would change to being treated as residential roads with a 20mph limit for a poorly signposted stretch.
20mph is a stupidly low speed limit. Its unnatural for the engine which can run at a higher gear and smoother at 30mph.
Since there's no high risk for any of the roads being changed to 20 in this stupid move, its an utterly unjustified move too.
30mph is a much better balance of risk and speed. At 30mph drivers can stop if someone steps into the road, which doesn't really happen much anyway since most accidents happen at even lower speed at intersections.
In the very rare event of an accident, 93.2% of pedestrians hit at 30mph will survive.
But almost 100% at 20mph. And with much less risk of life-altering injuries. I get it that you think they are externalities, externalities.
So let's have a 20mph speed limit on motorways. My original point. You would save lives and reduce injury. What's not to like.
That's a red herring, as you know.
The entire purpose of motorways is to make higher speed traffic safer (and keeping other general road users safer) by keeping the 70-80mph crowd away from everyone else, including intersection conflict, oncoming traffic, and pedestrians. And to make it as safe as possible by reducing speed differential.
Essentially that's a higher speed version of the rationale for LTNs.
I try not to propagandise here (we all have strong views about most things, and why not?) but I think this article, though one-sided, makes an interesting point:
As the article suggests, I think the attitudes describe reflect a general feeling that times are difficult - that makes people willing to support a right to essential food and basic utilities, but not to any kind of frivolity. And there's a mean-spirited tendency to embrace any evidence that people on benefits are just ripping everyone off. Some will be, as in any group of people, but most are just trying to live a vaguely decent life in difficult circumstances - and sometimes they will define that as a visit to McDonalds or a cheese sandwich.
More generally, we should try to reach what we think is a fair society in terms of income, without attempting to have the state or society dictate what people do with that income. I'm in favour of a wealth tax and want Mr and Mrs Sunak to chip in a moderate proportion of their assets over time, but I don't care whether they spend their remaining cash on helicopters or Californian holidays. In the same way, if we decide that £X is a reasonable guaranteed income on benefits, it really is none of our business whether the poor spend that £X on one thing or another. We can argue what £X should be, and how far the State should ensure it, but perhaps we can agree on the principle that details of life preferences are *not* a business of the State.
That mentality extends to those in low paid work - "People must not have pay rises, more migrants are needed to keep prices low" - as can be seen now.
I tend to agree that people should be able to spend their money how they like.
But with the caveat that money can only be spent once and once it has been spent you can't start demanding more.
This applies not only to those on benefits but to those who have been using their homes as cash machines to pay for a lifestyle they would otherwise not been able to have.
Of course 20mph on, say, the M25 would be a huge increase in average speed.
Seriously, that's why they often drop the speed limit to 40/50mph on motorways - reduces congestion, which in turn reduces collisions, which reduces congestion...
They occasionally do absolutely. But if the speed limit was 20mph on all motorways you would probably reduce deaths on motorways.
Or not even 20mph. What about 50mph on all motorways?
It's a balance! I wouldn't be surprised if they drop the speed limit on the A9 to 40mph for major junctions given the number of collisions.
What local Tory candidate is going to campaign for 30mph in their local area? Just comes across as weird.
Any sensible person should want 30mph as the default everywhere, not just their local area.
There's no good reason to drop it to 20. You've already said you can't pinpoint any area as high risk for fatalities, so there's no justification for dropping the limit.
Why 30mph as the default and not 40? Twenty is plenty for residential roads where all the parked cars, frequency of junctions, etc, means you need the reduced stopping distance to drive safely.
After 30 is when the risk escalates.
A speed limit of 30 means a 93.2% survival rate in the event of an accident, and accidents are rare anyway since stopping distances are short.
A speed limit of 40 means accidents are more likely (as the stopping distance increases) and doubles the fatality rate to 15.7%
30mph works. There simply isn't the justification to go beneath that.
Question - should roads be engineered to make 30mph impossible regardless of the speed limit? My old estate was legally 30mph but you couldn't drive at that speed due to the road layout deliberately slowing traffic.
Same with roads where the speed limit is 30mph but there are rows of terraced houses with cars parked outside on both sides and a single lane of traffic down the middle.
30mph is ludicrously fast on a whole load of roads. There's no way to practically enforce a 20mph limit other than by adding obstacles - bends, humps, parked cars.
Anyone who lives on a street where kids play out knows that traffic should be as slow as possible.
Of course they shouldn't, and roads should be designed with off-road parking for cars which both makes the road clearer and safer, and enables the cars to be charged at home which is good for the environment too.
30mph is my default speed I drive in 30mph zones. Perfectly practicable to do that here. Streets kids play out in absolutely should be slower, but that isn't the default everywhere. I wouldn't dream of doing 30 on our road, but the main road our estate is off is another matter, no houses lead onto that road, all the houses are on estates off it, so the road is only for cars not pedestrians, so why shouldn't it be a 30mph road?
Why shouldn't you do 30mph on your road? Isn't it your default speed? If your street hasn't been designed for 30mph then surely it should be demolished and rebuilt to ensure you can drive at 30.
You say "Perfectly practicable to do that [30mph] here." and "I wouldn't dream of doing 30 on our road" - which is it? Is your 30mph road perfectly practicable for 30mph or not?
If its not, they why is the speed limit 30mph?
Bart doesn't want anyone driving at 30mph past his house and his kids, but wants to be able to drive at 30mph everywhere else. And he has the gall to criticise NIMBYs?
I find myself in the curious position of supporting 20mph in most residential areas but also thinking cars are a crucial mode of transport that have a long future ahead of them, including car ownership, particularly outside cities. It's about sensible boundaries.
Not sure why nuance needs to die just because we now have social media.
Of course, residential areas are not the same as main roads.
Hence 20mph for residential, 30mph as default is eminently reasonable.
The push to make 20mph default even outside of residential is absurd though, there's no justification for it.
I think BR is a member of the Cars Killing Kids party - "I didn't think they would kill *my* kid"
He's demanding that people drive at 30mph as its "perfectly practicable" but then that he wouldn't dream of driving at 30mph on *his* street - presumably because it isn't "perfectly practicable or likely physically possible.
This is precisely the point. Make residential streets as slow as possible by design. And if the design is old (a terraced street as an example) then slow traffic with obstacles or cut through traffic completely.
"I wouldn't dream of doing 30mph on my street" but demands that people do 30mph down someone else's street - like this one maybe? https://goo.gl/maps/kCV9E5xYDfXJrpcX8
Speed limits are arbitrary. Why is the urban speed limit 30mph? Because it has been assessed as a safe speed for modern cars in today's built environment? Or because we have inherited it from long long ago?
Speed needs to be tret the same as drink driving or seat belts. You might not like the rule, but you need to obey for the good of everyone.
I hope that BR is talking about roads which have a faintly ridiculous 30mph limit on them. If so we would probably agree. But residential streets? Where the only traffic is people going to and from houses?
In that kind of environment a speed limit is irrelevant. Nobody will enforce it. Ever. No speeding tickets will be handed out. So it is about awareness and it is about driver standards.
This (https://goo.gl/maps/7injhivDaTs3SDag8) is a 30mph limit. You'd have to be an absolute lunatic to try and do 30mph here. And a few taxis and delivery drivers tried it. You can complain but the bosses ask if they were speeding. Despite 30mph being crazy.
That is why we need 20mph limits in residential areas. Not to enforce them legally. To change behaviours.
Here's two non-residential areas with "interesting" speed limits.
30 MPH https://shorturl.at/duPRX - got done with a speed awareness course for being clocked at 35 on this one.
Of course 20mph on, say, the M25 would be a huge increase in average speed.
Seriously, that's why they often drop the speed limit to 40/50mph on motorways - reduces congestion, which in turn reduces collisions, which reduces congestion...
They occasionally do absolutely. But if the speed limit was 20mph on all motorways you would probably reduce deaths on motorways.
Or not even 20mph. What about 50mph on all motorways?
It's a balance! I wouldn't be surprised if they drop the speed limit on the A9 to 40mph for major junctions given the number of collisions.
What local Tory candidate is going to campaign for 30mph in their local area? Just comes across as weird.
Any sensible person should want 30mph as the default everywhere, not just their local area.
There's no good reason to drop it to 20. You've already said you can't pinpoint any area as high risk for fatalities, so there's no justification for dropping the limit.
Why 30mph as the default and not 40? Twenty is plenty for residential roads where all the parked cars, frequency of junctions, etc, means you need the reduced stopping distance to drive safely.
After 30 is when the risk escalates.
A speed limit of 30 means a 93.2% survival rate in the event of an accident, and accidents are rare anyway since stopping distances are short.
A speed limit of 40 means accidents are more likely (as the stopping distance increases) and doubles the fatality rate to 15.7%
30mph works. There simply isn't the justification to go beneath that.
Question - should roads be engineered to make 30mph impossible regardless of the speed limit? My old estate was legally 30mph but you couldn't drive at that speed due to the road layout deliberately slowing traffic.
Same with roads where the speed limit is 30mph but there are rows of terraced houses with cars parked outside on both sides and a single lane of traffic down the middle.
30mph is ludicrously fast on a whole load of roads. There's no way to practically enforce a 20mph limit other than by adding obstacles - bends, humps, parked cars.
Anyone who lives on a street where kids play out knows that traffic should be as slow as possible.
Of course they shouldn't, and roads should be designed with off-road parking for cars which both makes the road clearer and safer, and enables the cars to be charged at home which is good for the environment too.
30mph is my default speed I drive in 30mph zones. Perfectly practicable to do that here. Streets kids play out in absolutely should be slower, but that isn't the default everywhere. I wouldn't dream of doing 30 on our road, but the main road our estate is off is another matter, no houses lead onto that road, all the houses are on estates off it, so the road is only for cars not pedestrians, so why shouldn't it be a 30mph road?
Why shouldn't you do 30mph on your road? Isn't it your default speed? If your street hasn't been designed for 30mph then surely it should be demolished and rebuilt to ensure you can drive at 30.
You say "Perfectly practicable to do that [30mph] here." and "I wouldn't dream of doing 30 on our road" - which is it? Is your 30mph road perfectly practicable for 30mph or not?
If its not, they why is the speed limit 30mph?
Bart doesn't want anyone driving at 30mph past his house and his kids, but wants to be able to drive at 30mph everywhere else. And he has the gall to criticise NIMBYs?
No, I'm OK with a 20mph speed limit on residential roads, how many times do I need to say that?
I don't drive at 30mph on any residential estate.
Main through roads aren't residential estates though.
Given the huge spike in pedestrian casualties from SUVs in the US, I think a more pressing issue is legislating or taxing them out of existence before the same occurs here.
Or perhaps a different type of driving licence for them?.
I think BR is a member of the Cars Killing Kids party - "I didn't think they would kill *my* kid"
He's demanding that people drive at 30mph as its "perfectly practicable" but then that he wouldn't dream of driving at 30mph on *his* street - presumably because it isn't "perfectly practicable or likely physically possible.
This is precisely the point. Make residential streets as slow as possible by design. And if the design is old (a terraced street as an example) then slow traffic with obstacles or cut through traffic completely.
"I wouldn't dream of doing 30mph on my street" but demands that people do 30mph down someone else's street - like this one maybe? https://goo.gl/maps/kCV9E5xYDfXJrpcX8
Or indeed this one - a village not far from here wioth the A68 going through it.
Of course 20mph on, say, the M25 would be a huge increase in average speed.
Seriously, that's why they often drop the speed limit to 40/50mph on motorways - reduces congestion, which in turn reduces collisions, which reduces congestion...
They occasionally do absolutely. But if the speed limit was 20mph on all motorways you would probably reduce deaths on motorways.
Or not even 20mph. What about 50mph on all motorways?
It's a balance! I wouldn't be surprised if they drop the speed limit on the A9 to 40mph for major junctions given the number of collisions.
What local Tory candidate is going to campaign for 30mph in their local area? Just comes across as weird.
Any sensible person should want 30mph as the default everywhere, not just their local area.
There's no good reason to drop it to 20. You've already said you can't pinpoint any area as high risk for fatalities, so there's no justification for dropping the limit.
Why 30mph as the default and not 40? Twenty is plenty for residential roads where all the parked cars, frequency of junctions, etc, means you need the reduced stopping distance to drive safely.
After 30 is when the risk escalates.
A speed limit of 30 means a 93.2% survival rate in the event of an accident, and accidents are rare anyway since stopping distances are short.
A speed limit of 40 means accidents are more likely (as the stopping distance increases) and doubles the fatality rate to 15.7%
30mph works. There simply isn't the justification to go beneath that.
Question - should roads be engineered to make 30mph impossible regardless of the speed limit? My old estate was legally 30mph but you couldn't drive at that speed due to the road layout deliberately slowing traffic.
Same with roads where the speed limit is 30mph but there are rows of terraced houses with cars parked outside on both sides and a single lane of traffic down the middle.
30mph is ludicrously fast on a whole load of roads. There's no way to practically enforce a 20mph limit other than by adding obstacles - bends, humps, parked cars.
Anyone who lives on a street where kids play out knows that traffic should be as slow as possible.
Of course they shouldn't, and roads should be designed with off-road parking for cars which both makes the road clearer and safer, and enables the cars to be charged at home which is good for the environment too.
30mph is my default speed I drive in 30mph zones. Perfectly practicable to do that here. Streets kids play out in absolutely should be slower, but that isn't the default everywhere. I wouldn't dream of doing 30 on our road, but the main road our estate is off is another matter, no houses lead onto that road, all the houses are on estates off it, so the road is only for cars not pedestrians, so why shouldn't it be a 30mph road?
Why shouldn't you do 30mph on your road? Isn't it your default speed? If your street hasn't been designed for 30mph then surely it should be demolished and rebuilt to ensure you can drive at 30.
You say "Perfectly practicable to do that [30mph] here." and "I wouldn't dream of doing 30 on our road" - which is it? Is your 30mph road perfectly practicable for 30mph or not?
If its not, they why is the speed limit 30mph?
Its my default speed when driving on main roads yes, not on residential estates. But almost none of my driving is on an estate, even at about 10-15 mph it takes me less than a minute to drive to the exit of the estate. There simply isn't the distance to accelerate to 30mph even if you tried.
I have no qualms with a 20mph speed limit for residential estates or school zones, I've said that all along.
But when I asked if roads should be engineered to make 30mph impossible - like the street you live on - you objected.
It isn't a through route - yes you could use it as such, but other bigger roads are close by. So would you accept a 20mph limit on such a street to protect someone else's kids?
Of course 20mph on, say, the M25 would be a huge increase in average speed.
Seriously, that's why they often drop the speed limit to 40/50mph on motorways - reduces congestion, which in turn reduces collisions, which reduces congestion...
They occasionally do absolutely. But if the speed limit was 20mph on all motorways you would probably reduce deaths on motorways.
Or not even 20mph. What about 50mph on all motorways?
It's a balance! I wouldn't be surprised if they drop the speed limit on the A9 to 40mph for major junctions given the number of collisions.
What local Tory candidate is going to campaign for 30mph in their local area? Just comes across as weird.
Any sensible person should want 30mph as the default everywhere, not just their local area.
There's no good reason to drop it to 20. You've already said you can't pinpoint any area as high risk for fatalities, so there's no justification for dropping the limit.
Why 30mph as the default and not 40? Twenty is plenty for residential roads where all the parked cars, frequency of junctions, etc, means you need the reduced stopping distance to drive safely.
After 30 is when the risk escalates.
A speed limit of 30 means a 93.2% survival rate in the event of an accident, and accidents are rare anyway since stopping distances are short.
A speed limit of 40 means accidents are more likely (as the stopping distance increases) and doubles the fatality rate to 15.7%
30mph works. There simply isn't the justification to go beneath that.
Question - should roads be engineered to make 30mph impossible regardless of the speed limit? My old estate was legally 30mph but you couldn't drive at that speed due to the road layout deliberately slowing traffic.
Same with roads where the speed limit is 30mph but there are rows of terraced houses with cars parked outside on both sides and a single lane of traffic down the middle.
30mph is ludicrously fast on a whole load of roads. There's no way to practically enforce a 20mph limit other than by adding obstacles - bends, humps, parked cars.
Anyone who lives on a street where kids play out knows that traffic should be as slow as possible.
Of course they shouldn't, and roads should be designed with off-road parking for cars which both makes the road clearer and safer, and enables the cars to be charged at home which is good for the environment too.
30mph is my default speed I drive in 30mph zones. Perfectly practicable to do that here. Streets kids play out in absolutely should be slower, but that isn't the default everywhere. I wouldn't dream of doing 30 on our road, but the main road our estate is off is another matter, no houses lead onto that road, all the houses are on estates off it, so the road is only for cars not pedestrians, so why shouldn't it be a 30mph road?
Why shouldn't you do 30mph on your road? Isn't it your default speed? If your street hasn't been designed for 30mph then surely it should be demolished and rebuilt to ensure you can drive at 30.
You say "Perfectly practicable to do that [30mph] here." and "I wouldn't dream of doing 30 on our road" - which is it? Is your 30mph road perfectly practicable for 30mph or not?
If its not, they why is the speed limit 30mph?
Bart doesn't want anyone driving at 30mph past his house and his kids, but wants to be able to drive at 30mph everywhere else. And he has the gall to criticise NIMBYs?
No, I'm OK with a 20mph speed limit on residential roads, how many times do I need to say that?
I don't drive at 30mph on any residential estate.
Main through roads aren't residential estates though.
Unless you live in an LTN, all roads are through roads.
Of course 20mph on, say, the M25 would be a huge increase in average speed.
Seriously, that's why they often drop the speed limit to 40/50mph on motorways - reduces congestion, which in turn reduces collisions, which reduces congestion...
They occasionally do absolutely. But if the speed limit was 20mph on all motorways you would probably reduce deaths on motorways.
Or not even 20mph. What about 50mph on all motorways?
It's a balance! I wouldn't be surprised if they drop the speed limit on the A9 to 40mph for major junctions given the number of collisions.
What local Tory candidate is going to campaign for 30mph in their local area? Just comes across as weird.
Any sensible person should want 30mph as the default everywhere, not just their local area.
There's no good reason to drop it to 20. You've already said you can't pinpoint any area as high risk for fatalities, so there's no justification for dropping the limit.
Why 30mph as the default and not 40? Twenty is plenty for residential roads where all the parked cars, frequency of junctions, etc, means you need the reduced stopping distance to drive safely.
After 30 is when the risk escalates.
A speed limit of 30 means a 93.2% survival rate in the event of an accident, and accidents are rare anyway since stopping distances are short.
A speed limit of 40 means accidents are more likely (as the stopping distance increases) and doubles the fatality rate to 15.7%
30mph works. There simply isn't the justification to go beneath that.
Question - should roads be engineered to make 30mph impossible regardless of the speed limit? My old estate was legally 30mph but you couldn't drive at that speed due to the road layout deliberately slowing traffic.
Same with roads where the speed limit is 30mph but there are rows of terraced houses with cars parked outside on both sides and a single lane of traffic down the middle.
30mph is ludicrously fast on a whole load of roads. There's no way to practically enforce a 20mph limit other than by adding obstacles - bends, humps, parked cars.
Anyone who lives on a street where kids play out knows that traffic should be as slow as possible.
Of course they shouldn't, and roads should be designed with off-road parking for cars which both makes the road clearer and safer, and enables the cars to be charged at home which is good for the environment too.
30mph is my default speed I drive in 30mph zones. Perfectly practicable to do that here. Streets kids play out in absolutely should be slower, but that isn't the default everywhere. I wouldn't dream of doing 30 on our road, but the main road our estate is off is another matter, no houses lead onto that road, all the houses are on estates off it, so the road is only for cars not pedestrians, so why shouldn't it be a 30mph road?
Why shouldn't you do 30mph on your road? Isn't it your default speed? If your street hasn't been designed for 30mph then surely it should be demolished and rebuilt to ensure you can drive at 30.
You say "Perfectly practicable to do that [30mph] here." and "I wouldn't dream of doing 30 on our road" - which is it? Is your 30mph road perfectly practicable for 30mph or not?
If its not, they why is the speed limit 30mph?
Bart doesn't want anyone driving at 30mph past his house and his kids, but wants to be able to drive at 30mph everywhere else. And he has the gall to criticise NIMBYs?
No, I'm OK with a 20mph speed limit on residential roads, how many times do I need to say that?
I don't drive at 30mph on any residential estate.
Main through roads aren't residential estates though.
When did I say I wanted 20mph on a non-residential road?
Of course 20mph on, say, the M25 would be a huge increase in average speed.
Seriously, that's why they often drop the speed limit to 40/50mph on motorways - reduces congestion, which in turn reduces collisions, which reduces congestion...
They occasionally do absolutely. But if the speed limit was 20mph on all motorways you would probably reduce deaths on motorways.
Or not even 20mph. What about 50mph on all motorways?
It's a balance! I wouldn't be surprised if they drop the speed limit on the A9 to 40mph for major junctions given the number of collisions.
What local Tory candidate is going to campaign for 30mph in their local area? Just comes across as weird.
Any sensible person should want 30mph as the default everywhere, not just their local area.
There's no good reason to drop it to 20. You've already said you can't pinpoint any area as high risk for fatalities, so there's no justification for dropping the limit.
Why 30mph as the default and not 40? Twenty is plenty for residential roads where all the parked cars, frequency of junctions, etc, means you need the reduced stopping distance to drive safely.
After 30 is when the risk escalates.
A speed limit of 30 means a 93.2% survival rate in the event of an accident, and accidents are rare anyway since stopping distances are short.
A speed limit of 40 means accidents are more likely (as the stopping distance increases) and doubles the fatality rate to 15.7%
30mph works. There simply isn't the justification to go beneath that.
Question - should roads be engineered to make 30mph impossible regardless of the speed limit? My old estate was legally 30mph but you couldn't drive at that speed due to the road layout deliberately slowing traffic.
Same with roads where the speed limit is 30mph but there are rows of terraced houses with cars parked outside on both sides and a single lane of traffic down the middle.
30mph is ludicrously fast on a whole load of roads. There's no way to practically enforce a 20mph limit other than by adding obstacles - bends, humps, parked cars.
Anyone who lives on a street where kids play out knows that traffic should be as slow as possible.
Of course they shouldn't, and roads should be designed with off-road parking for cars which both makes the road clearer and safer, and enables the cars to be charged at home which is good for the environment too.
30mph is my default speed I drive in 30mph zones. Perfectly practicable to do that here. Streets kids play out in absolutely should be slower, but that isn't the default everywhere. I wouldn't dream of doing 30 on our road, but the main road our estate is off is another matter, no houses lead onto that road, all the houses are on estates off it, so the road is only for cars not pedestrians, so why shouldn't it be a 30mph road?
Why shouldn't you do 30mph on your road? Isn't it your default speed? If your street hasn't been designed for 30mph then surely it should be demolished and rebuilt to ensure you can drive at 30.
You say "Perfectly practicable to do that [30mph] here." and "I wouldn't dream of doing 30 on our road" - which is it? Is your 30mph road perfectly practicable for 30mph or not?
If its not, they why is the speed limit 30mph?
Bart doesn't want anyone driving at 30mph past his house and his kids, but wants to be able to drive at 30mph everywhere else. And he has the gall to criticise NIMBYs?
No, I'm OK with a 20mph speed limit on residential roads, how many times do I need to say that?
I don't drive at 30mph on any residential estate.
Main through roads aren't residential estates though.
Unless you live in an LTN, all roads are through roads.
I think BR is a member of the Cars Killing Kids party - "I didn't think they would kill *my* kid"
He's demanding that people drive at 30mph as its "perfectly practicable" but then that he wouldn't dream of driving at 30mph on *his* street - presumably because it isn't "perfectly practicable or likely physically possible.
This is precisely the point. Make residential streets as slow as possible by design. And if the design is old (a terraced street as an example) then slow traffic with obstacles or cut through traffic completely.
"I wouldn't dream of doing 30mph on my street" but demands that people do 30mph down someone else's street - like this one maybe? https://goo.gl/maps/kCV9E5xYDfXJrpcX8
Or indeed this one - a village not far from here wioth the A68 going through it.
Places like Pathhead need a bypass! But very sensibly, despite this being a primary route, the Scottish government imposes a 20mph limit. Because it isn't just my kids that don't want to get hit by a car where they live, other kids lives have more value than the seconds lost going slower through the village.
Of course 20mph on, say, the M25 would be a huge increase in average speed.
Seriously, that's why they often drop the speed limit to 40/50mph on motorways - reduces congestion, which in turn reduces collisions, which reduces congestion...
They occasionally do absolutely. But if the speed limit was 20mph on all motorways you would probably reduce deaths on motorways.
Or not even 20mph. What about 50mph on all motorways?
It's a balance! I wouldn't be surprised if they drop the speed limit on the A9 to 40mph for major junctions given the number of collisions.
What local Tory candidate is going to campaign for 30mph in their local area? Just comes across as weird.
Any sensible person should want 30mph as the default everywhere, not just their local area.
There's no good reason to drop it to 20. You've already said you can't pinpoint any area as high risk for fatalities, so there's no justification for dropping the limit.
Why 30mph as the default and not 40? Twenty is plenty for residential roads where all the parked cars, frequency of junctions, etc, means you need the reduced stopping distance to drive safely.
After 30 is when the risk escalates.
A speed limit of 30 means a 93.2% survival rate in the event of an accident, and accidents are rare anyway since stopping distances are short.
A speed limit of 40 means accidents are more likely (as the stopping distance increases) and doubles the fatality rate to 15.7%
30mph works. There simply isn't the justification to go beneath that.
Question - should roads be engineered to make 30mph impossible regardless of the speed limit? My old estate was legally 30mph but you couldn't drive at that speed due to the road layout deliberately slowing traffic.
Same with roads where the speed limit is 30mph but there are rows of terraced houses with cars parked outside on both sides and a single lane of traffic down the middle.
30mph is ludicrously fast on a whole load of roads. There's no way to practically enforce a 20mph limit other than by adding obstacles - bends, humps, parked cars.
Anyone who lives on a street where kids play out knows that traffic should be as slow as possible.
Of course they shouldn't, and roads should be designed with off-road parking for cars which both makes the road clearer and safer, and enables the cars to be charged at home which is good for the environment too.
30mph is my default speed I drive in 30mph zones. Perfectly practicable to do that here. Streets kids play out in absolutely should be slower, but that isn't the default everywhere. I wouldn't dream of doing 30 on our road, but the main road our estate is off is another matter, no houses lead onto that road, all the houses are on estates off it, so the road is only for cars not pedestrians, so why shouldn't it be a 30mph road?
Why shouldn't you do 30mph on your road? Isn't it your default speed? If your street hasn't been designed for 30mph then surely it should be demolished and rebuilt to ensure you can drive at 30.
You say "Perfectly practicable to do that [30mph] here." and "I wouldn't dream of doing 30 on our road" - which is it? Is your 30mph road perfectly practicable for 30mph or not?
If its not, they why is the speed limit 30mph?
Bart doesn't want anyone driving at 30mph past his house and his kids, but wants to be able to drive at 30mph everywhere else. And he has the gall to criticise NIMBYs?
No, I'm OK with a 20mph speed limit on residential roads, how many times do I need to say that?
I don't drive at 30mph on any residential estate.
Main through roads aren't residential estates though.
Unless you live in an LTN, all roads are through roads.
I think BR is a member of the Cars Killing Kids party - "I didn't think they would kill *my* kid"
He's demanding that people drive at 30mph as its "perfectly practicable" but then that he wouldn't dream of driving at 30mph on *his* street - presumably because it isn't "perfectly practicable or likely physically possible.
This is precisely the point. Make residential streets as slow as possible by design. And if the design is old (a terraced street as an example) then slow traffic with obstacles or cut through traffic completely.
"I wouldn't dream of doing 30mph on my street" but demands that people do 30mph down someone else's street - like this one maybe? https://goo.gl/maps/kCV9E5xYDfXJrpcX8
Or indeed this one - a village not far from here wioth the A68 going through it.
That doesn't look like a residential estate, it looks like a main road, so of course kids shouldn't be playing on it and 30mph is an entirely reasonable speed limit.
Sorry but if you live on a through road, its not a residential estate. If you live on an estate, that's a different matter. Kids play football etc on residential estates, they don't on through roads, for bloody good reason. Its not just the speed limit, but the volume of traffic, there's a grand total of 5 people a day who might drive past my house. That many could drive down that road in two minutes.
I think BR is a member of the Cars Killing Kids party - "I didn't think they would kill *my* kid"
He's demanding that people drive at 30mph as its "perfectly practicable" but then that he wouldn't dream of driving at 30mph on *his* street - presumably because it isn't "perfectly practicable or likely physically possible.
This is precisely the point. Make residential streets as slow as possible by design. And if the design is old (a terraced street as an example) then slow traffic with obstacles or cut through traffic completely.
"I wouldn't dream of doing 30mph on my street" but demands that people do 30mph down someone else's street - like this one maybe? https://goo.gl/maps/kCV9E5xYDfXJrpcX8
Or indeed this one - a village not far from here wioth the A68 going through it.
Places like Pathhead need a bypass! But very sensibly, despite this being a primary route, the Scottish government imposes a 20mph limit. Because it isn't just my kids that don't want to get hit by a car where they live, other kids lives have more value than the seconds lost going slower through the village.
20mph are even more important when there isn't an alternative route for HGVs etc.
Of course 20mph on, say, the M25 would be a huge increase in average speed.
Seriously, that's why they often drop the speed limit to 40/50mph on motorways - reduces congestion, which in turn reduces collisions, which reduces congestion...
They occasionally do absolutely. But if the speed limit was 20mph on all motorways you would probably reduce deaths on motorways.
Or not even 20mph. What about 50mph on all motorways?
It's a balance! I wouldn't be surprised if they drop the speed limit on the A9 to 40mph for major junctions given the number of collisions.
What local Tory candidate is going to campaign for 30mph in their local area? Just comes across as weird.
Any sensible person should want 30mph as the default everywhere, not just their local area.
There's no good reason to drop it to 20. You've already said you can't pinpoint any area as high risk for fatalities, so there's no justification for dropping the limit.
Why 30mph as the default and not 40? Twenty is plenty for residential roads where all the parked cars, frequency of junctions, etc, means you need the reduced stopping distance to drive safely.
After 30 is when the risk escalates.
A speed limit of 30 means a 93.2% survival rate in the event of an accident, and accidents are rare anyway since stopping distances are short.
A speed limit of 40 means accidents are more likely (as the stopping distance increases) and doubles the fatality rate to 15.7%
30mph works. There simply isn't the justification to go beneath that.
Question - should roads be engineered to make 30mph impossible regardless of the speed limit? My old estate was legally 30mph but you couldn't drive at that speed due to the road layout deliberately slowing traffic.
Same with roads where the speed limit is 30mph but there are rows of terraced houses with cars parked outside on both sides and a single lane of traffic down the middle.
30mph is ludicrously fast on a whole load of roads. There's no way to practically enforce a 20mph limit other than by adding obstacles - bends, humps, parked cars.
Anyone who lives on a street where kids play out knows that traffic should be as slow as possible.
Of course they shouldn't, and roads should be designed with off-road parking for cars which both makes the road clearer and safer, and enables the cars to be charged at home which is good for the environment too.
30mph is my default speed I drive in 30mph zones. Perfectly practicable to do that here. Streets kids play out in absolutely should be slower, but that isn't the default everywhere. I wouldn't dream of doing 30 on our road, but the main road our estate is off is another matter, no houses lead onto that road, all the houses are on estates off it, so the road is only for cars not pedestrians, so why shouldn't it be a 30mph road?
Why shouldn't you do 30mph on your road? Isn't it your default speed? If your street hasn't been designed for 30mph then surely it should be demolished and rebuilt to ensure you can drive at 30.
You say "Perfectly practicable to do that [30mph] here." and "I wouldn't dream of doing 30 on our road" - which is it? Is your 30mph road perfectly practicable for 30mph or not?
If its not, they why is the speed limit 30mph?
Bart doesn't want anyone driving at 30mph past his house and his kids, but wants to be able to drive at 30mph everywhere else. And he has the gall to criticise NIMBYs?
No, I'm OK with a 20mph speed limit on residential roads, how many times do I need to say that?
I don't drive at 30mph on any residential estate.
Main through roads aren't residential estates though.
However, most of the roads being affected by this change are residential roads;
The 20mph limit would come into force for all restricted roads.
These are defined as roads that have lampposts placed not more than 200 yards apart.
They are typically located in residential and built-up areas of high pedestrian activity.
Of course 20mph on, say, the M25 would be a huge increase in average speed.
Seriously, that's why they often drop the speed limit to 40/50mph on motorways - reduces congestion, which in turn reduces collisions, which reduces congestion...
They occasionally do absolutely. But if the speed limit was 20mph on all motorways you would probably reduce deaths on motorways.
Or not even 20mph. What about 50mph on all motorways?
It's a balance! I wouldn't be surprised if they drop the speed limit on the A9 to 40mph for major junctions given the number of collisions.
What local Tory candidate is going to campaign for 30mph in their local area? Just comes across as weird.
Any sensible person should want 30mph as the default everywhere, not just their local area.
There's no good reason to drop it to 20. You've already said you can't pinpoint any area as high risk for fatalities, so there's no justification for dropping the limit.
Why 30mph as the default and not 40? Twenty is plenty for residential roads where all the parked cars, frequency of junctions, etc, means you need the reduced stopping distance to drive safely.
After 30 is when the risk escalates.
A speed limit of 30 means a 93.2% survival rate in the event of an accident, and accidents are rare anyway since stopping distances are short.
A speed limit of 40 means accidents are more likely (as the stopping distance increases) and doubles the fatality rate to 15.7%
30mph works. There simply isn't the justification to go beneath that.
Question - should roads be engineered to make 30mph impossible regardless of the speed limit? My old estate was legally 30mph but you couldn't drive at that speed due to the road layout deliberately slowing traffic.
Same with roads where the speed limit is 30mph but there are rows of terraced houses with cars parked outside on both sides and a single lane of traffic down the middle.
30mph is ludicrously fast on a whole load of roads. There's no way to practically enforce a 20mph limit other than by adding obstacles - bends, humps, parked cars.
Anyone who lives on a street where kids play out knows that traffic should be as slow as possible.
Of course they shouldn't, and roads should be designed with off-road parking for cars which both makes the road clearer and safer, and enables the cars to be charged at home which is good for the environment too.
30mph is my default speed I drive in 30mph zones. Perfectly practicable to do that here. Streets kids play out in absolutely should be slower, but that isn't the default everywhere. I wouldn't dream of doing 30 on our road, but the main road our estate is off is another matter, no houses lead onto that road, all the houses are on estates off it, so the road is only for cars not pedestrians, so why shouldn't it be a 30mph road?
Why shouldn't you do 30mph on your road? Isn't it your default speed? If your street hasn't been designed for 30mph then surely it should be demolished and rebuilt to ensure you can drive at 30.
You say "Perfectly practicable to do that [30mph] here." and "I wouldn't dream of doing 30 on our road" - which is it? Is your 30mph road perfectly practicable for 30mph or not?
If its not, they why is the speed limit 30mph?
Bart doesn't want anyone driving at 30mph past his house and his kids, but wants to be able to drive at 30mph everywhere else. And he has the gall to criticise NIMBYs?
No, I'm OK with a 20mph speed limit on residential roads, how many times do I need to say that?
I don't drive at 30mph on any residential estate.
Main through roads aren't residential estates though.
Unless you live in an LTN, all roads are through roads.
I live in a cul-de-sac that ends in water. There's 4 houses past us, with 5 cars between them.
As I said, there's a world of difference between a residential estate and a through road. Any time we've ever lived on a through road, I wouldn't dream of letting the kids play on the road, as its not safe. Its not safe at either 20mph or 30mph on a through road.
A residential estate is a completely different kettle of fish.
I think BR is a member of the Cars Killing Kids party - "I didn't think they would kill *my* kid"
He's demanding that people drive at 30mph as its "perfectly practicable" but then that he wouldn't dream of driving at 30mph on *his* street - presumably because it isn't "perfectly practicable or likely physically possible.
This is precisely the point. Make residential streets as slow as possible by design. And if the design is old (a terraced street as an example) then slow traffic with obstacles or cut through traffic completely.
"I wouldn't dream of doing 30mph on my street" but demands that people do 30mph down someone else's street - like this one maybe? https://goo.gl/maps/kCV9E5xYDfXJrpcX8
Or indeed this one - a village not far from here wioth the A68 going through it.
That doesn't look like a residential estate, it looks like a main road, so of course kids shouldn't be playing on it and 30mph is an entirely reasonable speed limit.
Sorry but if you live on a through road, its not a residential estate. If you live on an estate, that's a different matter. Kids play football etc on residential estates, they don't on through roads, for bloody good reason. Its not just the speed limit, but the volume of traffic, there's a grand total of 5 people a day who might drive past my house. That many could drive down that road in two minutes.
Make your mind up. You just said you're not opposed to 20mph on residential roads, but now you do want to drive at 30mph on residential roads when they're roads you need to drive on to get somewhere.
20mph for your kids but not anyone else's if it inconveniences you.
Of course 20mph on, say, the M25 would be a huge increase in average speed.
Seriously, that's why they often drop the speed limit to 40/50mph on motorways - reduces congestion, which in turn reduces collisions, which reduces congestion...
They occasionally do absolutely. But if the speed limit was 20mph on all motorways you would probably reduce deaths on motorways.
Or not even 20mph. What about 50mph on all motorways?
It's a balance! I wouldn't be surprised if they drop the speed limit on the A9 to 40mph for major junctions given the number of collisions.
What local Tory candidate is going to campaign for 30mph in their local area? Just comes across as weird.
Any sensible person should want 30mph as the default everywhere, not just their local area.
There's no good reason to drop it to 20. You've already said you can't pinpoint any area as high risk for fatalities, so there's no justification for dropping the limit.
Why 30mph as the default and not 40? Twenty is plenty for residential roads where all the parked cars, frequency of junctions, etc, means you need the reduced stopping distance to drive safely.
After 30 is when the risk escalates.
A speed limit of 30 means a 93.2% survival rate in the event of an accident, and accidents are rare anyway since stopping distances are short.
A speed limit of 40 means accidents are more likely (as the stopping distance increases) and doubles the fatality rate to 15.7%
30mph works. There simply isn't the justification to go beneath that.
Question - should roads be engineered to make 30mph impossible regardless of the speed limit? My old estate was legally 30mph but you couldn't drive at that speed due to the road layout deliberately slowing traffic.
Same with roads where the speed limit is 30mph but there are rows of terraced houses with cars parked outside on both sides and a single lane of traffic down the middle.
30mph is ludicrously fast on a whole load of roads. There's no way to practically enforce a 20mph limit other than by adding obstacles - bends, humps, parked cars.
Anyone who lives on a street where kids play out knows that traffic should be as slow as possible.
Of course they shouldn't, and roads should be designed with off-road parking for cars which both makes the road clearer and safer, and enables the cars to be charged at home which is good for the environment too.
30mph is my default speed I drive in 30mph zones. Perfectly practicable to do that here. Streets kids play out in absolutely should be slower, but that isn't the default everywhere. I wouldn't dream of doing 30 on our road, but the main road our estate is off is another matter, no houses lead onto that road, all the houses are on estates off it, so the road is only for cars not pedestrians, so why shouldn't it be a 30mph road?
Why shouldn't you do 30mph on your road? Isn't it your default speed? If your street hasn't been designed for 30mph then surely it should be demolished and rebuilt to ensure you can drive at 30.
You say "Perfectly practicable to do that [30mph] here." and "I wouldn't dream of doing 30 on our road" - which is it? Is your 30mph road perfectly practicable for 30mph or not?
If its not, they why is the speed limit 30mph?
Bart doesn't want anyone driving at 30mph past his house and his kids, but wants to be able to drive at 30mph everywhere else. And he has the gall to criticise NIMBYs?
No, I'm OK with a 20mph speed limit on residential roads, how many times do I need to say that?
I don't drive at 30mph on any residential estate.
Main through roads aren't residential estates though.
Unless you live in an LTN, all roads are through roads.
I live in a cul-de-sac that ends in water. There's 4 houses past us, with 5 cars between them.
As I said, there's a world of difference between a residential estate and a through road. Any time we've ever lived on a through road, I wouldn't dream of letting the kids play on the road, as its not safe. Its not safe at either 20mph or 30mph on a through road.
A residential estate is a completely different kettle of fish.
You live in an LTN as well?
What extraordinary hypocrisy. You should demolish your garden and put a through road in.
Given the huge spike in pedestrian casualties from SUVs in the US, I think a more pressing issue is legislating or taxing them out of existence before the same occurs here.
Or perhaps a different type of driving licence for them?.
Most British SUVs are by and large a different creature from those in the US. More just slightly higher cars. The more obvious solutions are in road design and layout (anywhere people live should prioritise pedestrians over vehicles) and technology - we already have the tech for automatic stopping, so it should be mandated on all new cars.
Of course 20mph on, say, the M25 would be a huge increase in average speed.
Seriously, that's why they often drop the speed limit to 40/50mph on motorways - reduces congestion, which in turn reduces collisions, which reduces congestion...
They occasionally do absolutely. But if the speed limit was 20mph on all motorways you would probably reduce deaths on motorways.
Or not even 20mph. What about 50mph on all motorways?
It's a balance! I wouldn't be surprised if they drop the speed limit on the A9 to 40mph for major junctions given the number of collisions.
What local Tory candidate is going to campaign for 30mph in their local area? Just comes across as weird.
Any sensible person should want 30mph as the default everywhere, not just their local area.
There's no good reason to drop it to 20. You've already said you can't pinpoint any area as high risk for fatalities, so there's no justification for dropping the limit.
Why 30mph as the default and not 40? Twenty is plenty for residential roads where all the parked cars, frequency of junctions, etc, means you need the reduced stopping distance to drive safely.
After 30 is when the risk escalates.
A speed limit of 30 means a 93.2% survival rate in the event of an accident, and accidents are rare anyway since stopping distances are short.
A speed limit of 40 means accidents are more likely (as the stopping distance increases) and doubles the fatality rate to 15.7%
30mph works. There simply isn't the justification to go beneath that.
Question - should roads be engineered to make 30mph impossible regardless of the speed limit? My old estate was legally 30mph but you couldn't drive at that speed due to the road layout deliberately slowing traffic.
Same with roads where the speed limit is 30mph but there are rows of terraced houses with cars parked outside on both sides and a single lane of traffic down the middle.
30mph is ludicrously fast on a whole load of roads. There's no way to practically enforce a 20mph limit other than by adding obstacles - bends, humps, parked cars.
Anyone who lives on a street where kids play out knows that traffic should be as slow as possible.
Of course they shouldn't, and roads should be designed with off-road parking for cars which both makes the road clearer and safer, and enables the cars to be charged at home which is good for the environment too.
30mph is my default speed I drive in 30mph zones. Perfectly practicable to do that here. Streets kids play out in absolutely should be slower, but that isn't the default everywhere. I wouldn't dream of doing 30 on our road, but the main road our estate is off is another matter, no houses lead onto that road, all the houses are on estates off it, so the road is only for cars not pedestrians, so why shouldn't it be a 30mph road?
Why shouldn't you do 30mph on your road? Isn't it your default speed? If your street hasn't been designed for 30mph then surely it should be demolished and rebuilt to ensure you can drive at 30.
You say "Perfectly practicable to do that [30mph] here." and "I wouldn't dream of doing 30 on our road" - which is it? Is your 30mph road perfectly practicable for 30mph or not?
If its not, they why is the speed limit 30mph?
Bart doesn't want anyone driving at 30mph past his house and his kids, but wants to be able to drive at 30mph everywhere else. And he has the gall to criticise NIMBYs?
No, I'm OK with a 20mph speed limit on residential roads, how many times do I need to say that?
I don't drive at 30mph on any residential estate.
Main through roads aren't residential estates though.
Unless you live in an LTN, all roads are through roads.
I think BR is a member of the Cars Killing Kids party - "I didn't think they would kill *my* kid"
He's demanding that people drive at 30mph as its "perfectly practicable" but then that he wouldn't dream of driving at 30mph on *his* street - presumably because it isn't "perfectly practicable or likely physically possible.
This is precisely the point. Make residential streets as slow as possible by design. And if the design is old (a terraced street as an example) then slow traffic with obstacles or cut through traffic completely.
"I wouldn't dream of doing 30mph on my street" but demands that people do 30mph down someone else's street - like this one maybe? https://goo.gl/maps/kCV9E5xYDfXJrpcX8
Or indeed this one - a village not far from here wioth the A68 going through it.
That doesn't look like a residential estate, it looks like a main road, so of course kids shouldn't be playing on it and 30mph is an entirely reasonable speed limit.
Sorry but if you live on a through road, its not a residential estate. If you live on an estate, that's a different matter. Kids play football etc on residential estates, they don't on through roads, for bloody good reason. Its not just the speed limit, but the volume of traffic, there's a grand total of 5 people a day who might drive past my house. That many could drive down that road in two minutes.
Make your mind up. You just said you're not opposed to 20mph on residential roads, but now you do want to drive at 30mph on residential roads when they're roads you need to drive on to get somewhere.
20mph for your kids but not anyone else's if it inconveniences you.
That's not what I said. I said I wouldn't do 30mph on a residential estate, not a residential road. There's a huge difference.
Through roads have a volume of traffic that it is simple not safe for kids to play on the road, so yes 30mph is safe for those roads.
Estates do not. Kids play on those roads, so 20mph is better for those roads.
Volume of traffic is the bigger issue than the speed limit.
Of course 20mph on, say, the M25 would be a huge increase in average speed.
Seriously, that's why they often drop the speed limit to 40/50mph on motorways - reduces congestion, which in turn reduces collisions, which reduces congestion...
They occasionally do absolutely. But if the speed limit was 20mph on all motorways you would probably reduce deaths on motorways.
Or not even 20mph. What about 50mph on all motorways?
It's a balance! I wouldn't be surprised if they drop the speed limit on the A9 to 40mph for major junctions given the number of collisions.
What local Tory candidate is going to campaign for 30mph in their local area? Just comes across as weird.
Any sensible person should want 30mph as the default everywhere, not just their local area.
There's no good reason to drop it to 20. You've already said you can't pinpoint any area as high risk for fatalities, so there's no justification for dropping the limit.
Why 30mph as the default and not 40? Twenty is plenty for residential roads where all the parked cars, frequency of junctions, etc, means you need the reduced stopping distance to drive safely.
After 30 is when the risk escalates.
A speed limit of 30 means a 93.2% survival rate in the event of an accident, and accidents are rare anyway since stopping distances are short.
A speed limit of 40 means accidents are more likely (as the stopping distance increases) and doubles the fatality rate to 15.7%
30mph works. There simply isn't the justification to go beneath that.
Total Bullshit. That data is from 1970s, but is still used by campaigners as it sounds better. Since then cars and their designs have been changed dramatically to make impacts safer, including for pedestrians, so the numbers have collapsed since then.
We need 2022 UK numbers from UK Stats Authorities.
However, the figure for 20mph is not the correct one to use, since the usual habit for 20mph zones is to drive at 25mph or more - as normal road speed is based on what the road looks like, not the posted speed limit, plus the enforcement threshold for 20mph would be 24-25mph. That is shown by the Belfast study linked yesterday.
The monitoring report for trial areas in Wales already shows a significant average speed reduction in trial areas (3-4mph iirc), and a large uplift (+20% or so) in vehicles driving at <24mph), which safety benefit imo fully justifies the measures.
The politics will be interesting, as we can expect reports in Wales in March or September 2024, which will show safety improvements in Wales, whilst Rishi and his Motohoon Ministers will be publicly demonstrating that they don't give a damn for road safety if it gets them a few votes.
We also need redesign of road corridors to make the perceived safe speed the same as the actual safe speed, and measures such as the below to tip the road design process from prioritising capacity / speed towards safety. That part is a culture war.
Of course 20mph on, say, the M25 would be a huge increase in average speed.
Seriously, that's why they often drop the speed limit to 40/50mph on motorways - reduces congestion, which in turn reduces collisions, which reduces congestion...
They occasionally do absolutely. But if the speed limit was 20mph on all motorways you would probably reduce deaths on motorways.
Or not even 20mph. What about 50mph on all motorways?
It's a balance! I wouldn't be surprised if they drop the speed limit on the A9 to 40mph for major junctions given the number of collisions.
What local Tory candidate is going to campaign for 30mph in their local area? Just comes across as weird.
Any sensible person should want 30mph as the default everywhere, not just their local area.
There's no good reason to drop it to 20. You've already said you can't pinpoint any area as high risk for fatalities, so there's no justification for dropping the limit.
Why 30mph as the default and not 40? Twenty is plenty for residential roads where all the parked cars, frequency of junctions, etc, means you need the reduced stopping distance to drive safely.
After 30 is when the risk escalates.
A speed limit of 30 means a 93.2% survival rate in the event of an accident, and accidents are rare anyway since stopping distances are short.
A speed limit of 40 means accidents are more likely (as the stopping distance increases) and doubles the fatality rate to 15.7%
30mph works. There simply isn't the justification to go beneath that.
Question - should roads be engineered to make 30mph impossible regardless of the speed limit? My old estate was legally 30mph but you couldn't drive at that speed due to the road layout deliberately slowing traffic.
Same with roads where the speed limit is 30mph but there are rows of terraced houses with cars parked outside on both sides and a single lane of traffic down the middle.
30mph is ludicrously fast on a whole load of roads. There's no way to practically enforce a 20mph limit other than by adding obstacles - bends, humps, parked cars.
Anyone who lives on a street where kids play out knows that traffic should be as slow as possible.
Of course they shouldn't, and roads should be designed with off-road parking for cars which both makes the road clearer and safer, and enables the cars to be charged at home which is good for the environment too.
30mph is my default speed I drive in 30mph zones. Perfectly practicable to do that here. Streets kids play out in absolutely should be slower, but that isn't the default everywhere. I wouldn't dream of doing 30 on our road, but the main road our estate is off is another matter, no houses lead onto that road, all the houses are on estates off it, so the road is only for cars not pedestrians, so why shouldn't it be a 30mph road?
Why shouldn't you do 30mph on your road? Isn't it your default speed? If your street hasn't been designed for 30mph then surely it should be demolished and rebuilt to ensure you can drive at 30.
You say "Perfectly practicable to do that [30mph] here." and "I wouldn't dream of doing 30 on our road" - which is it? Is your 30mph road perfectly practicable for 30mph or not?
If its not, they why is the speed limit 30mph?
Bart doesn't want anyone driving at 30mph past his house and his kids, but wants to be able to drive at 30mph everywhere else. And he has the gall to criticise NIMBYs?
No, I'm OK with a 20mph speed limit on residential roads, how many times do I need to say that?
I don't drive at 30mph on any residential estate.
Main through roads aren't residential estates though.
Unless you live in an LTN, all roads are through roads.
I live in a cul-de-sac that ends in water. There's 4 houses past us, with 5 cars between them.
As I said, there's a world of difference between a residential estate and a through road. Any time we've ever lived on a through road, I wouldn't dream of letting the kids play on the road, as its not safe. Its not safe at either 20mph or 30mph on a through road.
A residential estate is a completely different kettle of fish.
What about this road? https://maps.app.goo.gl/e9YN2SjgewKPC4FU6 It's a residential road. But it's also a through road, used as a rat run between the south circular and the A23 to avoid the lights at the junction.
Of course 20mph on, say, the M25 would be a huge increase in average speed.
Seriously, that's why they often drop the speed limit to 40/50mph on motorways - reduces congestion, which in turn reduces collisions, which reduces congestion...
They occasionally do absolutely. But if the speed limit was 20mph on all motorways you would probably reduce deaths on motorways.
Or not even 20mph. What about 50mph on all motorways?
It's a balance! I wouldn't be surprised if they drop the speed limit on the A9 to 40mph for major junctions given the number of collisions.
What local Tory candidate is going to campaign for 30mph in their local area? Just comes across as weird.
Any sensible person should want 30mph as the default everywhere, not just their local area.
There's no good reason to drop it to 20. You've already said you can't pinpoint any area as high risk for fatalities, so there's no justification for dropping the limit.
Why 30mph as the default and not 40? Twenty is plenty for residential roads where all the parked cars, frequency of junctions, etc, means you need the reduced stopping distance to drive safely.
After 30 is when the risk escalates.
A speed limit of 30 means a 93.2% survival rate in the event of an accident, and accidents are rare anyway since stopping distances are short.
A speed limit of 40 means accidents are more likely (as the stopping distance increases) and doubles the fatality rate to 15.7%
30mph works. There simply isn't the justification to go beneath that.
Question - should roads be engineered to make 30mph impossible regardless of the speed limit? My old estate was legally 30mph but you couldn't drive at that speed due to the road layout deliberately slowing traffic.
Same with roads where the speed limit is 30mph but there are rows of terraced houses with cars parked outside on both sides and a single lane of traffic down the middle.
30mph is ludicrously fast on a whole load of roads. There's no way to practically enforce a 20mph limit other than by adding obstacles - bends, humps, parked cars.
Anyone who lives on a street where kids play out knows that traffic should be as slow as possible.
Of course they shouldn't, and roads should be designed with off-road parking for cars which both makes the road clearer and safer, and enables the cars to be charged at home which is good for the environment too.
30mph is my default speed I drive in 30mph zones. Perfectly practicable to do that here. Streets kids play out in absolutely should be slower, but that isn't the default everywhere. I wouldn't dream of doing 30 on our road, but the main road our estate is off is another matter, no houses lead onto that road, all the houses are on estates off it, so the road is only for cars not pedestrians, so why shouldn't it be a 30mph road?
Why shouldn't you do 30mph on your road? Isn't it your default speed? If your street hasn't been designed for 30mph then surely it should be demolished and rebuilt to ensure you can drive at 30.
You say "Perfectly practicable to do that [30mph] here." and "I wouldn't dream of doing 30 on our road" - which is it? Is your 30mph road perfectly practicable for 30mph or not?
If its not, they why is the speed limit 30mph?
Bart doesn't want anyone driving at 30mph past his house and his kids, but wants to be able to drive at 30mph everywhere else. And he has the gall to criticise NIMBYs?
No, I'm OK with a 20mph speed limit on residential roads, how many times do I need to say that?
I don't drive at 30mph on any residential estate.
Main through roads aren't residential estates though.
Unless you live in an LTN, all roads are through roads.
I live in a cul-de-sac that ends in water. There's 4 houses past us, with 5 cars between them.
As I said, there's a world of difference between a residential estate and a through road. Any time we've ever lived on a through road, I wouldn't dream of letting the kids play on the road, as its not safe. Its not safe at either 20mph or 30mph on a through road.
A residential estate is a completely different kettle of fish.
You live in an LTN as well?
What extraordinary hypocrisy. You should demolish your garden and put a through road in.
Why? I have said all along to you I'm perfectly fine with new estates being built as LTNs, indeed I encourage it, and that old estates used as through roads can be converted to LTNs if an alternative through road is built, so we should build more roads to enable conversions to happen.
Of course 20mph on, say, the M25 would be a huge increase in average speed.
Seriously, that's why they often drop the speed limit to 40/50mph on motorways - reduces congestion, which in turn reduces collisions, which reduces congestion...
They occasionally do absolutely. But if the speed limit was 20mph on all motorways you would probably reduce deaths on motorways.
Or not even 20mph. What about 50mph on all motorways?
It's a balance! I wouldn't be surprised if they drop the speed limit on the A9 to 40mph for major junctions given the number of collisions.
What local Tory candidate is going to campaign for 30mph in their local area? Just comes across as weird.
Any sensible person should want 30mph as the default everywhere, not just their local area.
There's no good reason to drop it to 20. You've already said you can't pinpoint any area as high risk for fatalities, so there's no justification for dropping the limit.
Why 30mph as the default and not 40? Twenty is plenty for residential roads where all the parked cars, frequency of junctions, etc, means you need the reduced stopping distance to drive safely.
After 30 is when the risk escalates.
A speed limit of 30 means a 93.2% survival rate in the event of an accident, and accidents are rare anyway since stopping distances are short.
A speed limit of 40 means accidents are more likely (as the stopping distance increases) and doubles the fatality rate to 15.7%
30mph works. There simply isn't the justification to go beneath that.
Question - should roads be engineered to make 30mph impossible regardless of the speed limit? My old estate was legally 30mph but you couldn't drive at that speed due to the road layout deliberately slowing traffic.
Same with roads where the speed limit is 30mph but there are rows of terraced houses with cars parked outside on both sides and a single lane of traffic down the middle.
30mph is ludicrously fast on a whole load of roads. There's no way to practically enforce a 20mph limit other than by adding obstacles - bends, humps, parked cars.
Anyone who lives on a street where kids play out knows that traffic should be as slow as possible.
Of course they shouldn't, and roads should be designed with off-road parking for cars which both makes the road clearer and safer, and enables the cars to be charged at home which is good for the environment too.
30mph is my default speed I drive in 30mph zones. Perfectly practicable to do that here. Streets kids play out in absolutely should be slower, but that isn't the default everywhere. I wouldn't dream of doing 30 on our road, but the main road our estate is off is another matter, no houses lead onto that road, all the houses are on estates off it, so the road is only for cars not pedestrians, so why shouldn't it be a 30mph road?
Why shouldn't you do 30mph on your road? Isn't it your default speed? If your street hasn't been designed for 30mph then surely it should be demolished and rebuilt to ensure you can drive at 30.
You say "Perfectly practicable to do that [30mph] here." and "I wouldn't dream of doing 30 on our road" - which is it? Is your 30mph road perfectly practicable for 30mph or not?
If its not, they why is the speed limit 30mph?
Bart doesn't want anyone driving at 30mph past his house and his kids, but wants to be able to drive at 30mph everywhere else. And he has the gall to criticise NIMBYs?
No, I'm OK with a 20mph speed limit on residential roads, how many times do I need to say that?
I don't drive at 30mph on any residential estate.
Main through roads aren't residential estates though.
Unless you live in an LTN, all roads are through roads.
I live in a cul-de-sac that ends in water. There's 4 houses past us, with 5 cars between them.
As I said, there's a world of difference between a residential estate and a through road. Any time we've ever lived on a through road, I wouldn't dream of letting the kids play on the road, as its not safe. Its not safe at either 20mph or 30mph on a through road.
A residential estate is a completely different kettle of fish.
What about this road? https://maps.app.goo.gl/e9YN2SjgewKPC4FU6 It's a residential road. But it's also a through road, used as a rat run between the south circular and the A23 to avoid the lights at the junction.
Of course 20mph on, say, the M25 would be a huge increase in average speed.
Seriously, that's why they often drop the speed limit to 40/50mph on motorways - reduces congestion, which in turn reduces collisions, which reduces congestion...
They occasionally do absolutely. But if the speed limit was 20mph on all motorways you would probably reduce deaths on motorways.
Or not even 20mph. What about 50mph on all motorways?
It's a balance! I wouldn't be surprised if they drop the speed limit on the A9 to 40mph for major junctions given the number of collisions.
What local Tory candidate is going to campaign for 30mph in their local area? Just comes across as weird.
Any sensible person should want 30mph as the default everywhere, not just their local area.
There's no good reason to drop it to 20. You've already said you can't pinpoint any area as high risk for fatalities, so there's no justification for dropping the limit.
Why 30mph as the default and not 40? Twenty is plenty for residential roads where all the parked cars, frequency of junctions, etc, means you need the reduced stopping distance to drive safely.
After 30 is when the risk escalates.
A speed limit of 30 means a 93.2% survival rate in the event of an accident, and accidents are rare anyway since stopping distances are short.
A speed limit of 40 means accidents are more likely (as the stopping distance increases) and doubles the fatality rate to 15.7%
30mph works. There simply isn't the justification to go beneath that.
Question - should roads be engineered to make 30mph impossible regardless of the speed limit? My old estate was legally 30mph but you couldn't drive at that speed due to the road layout deliberately slowing traffic.
Same with roads where the speed limit is 30mph but there are rows of terraced houses with cars parked outside on both sides and a single lane of traffic down the middle.
30mph is ludicrously fast on a whole load of roads. There's no way to practically enforce a 20mph limit other than by adding obstacles - bends, humps, parked cars.
Anyone who lives on a street where kids play out knows that traffic should be as slow as possible.
Of course they shouldn't, and roads should be designed with off-road parking for cars which both makes the road clearer and safer, and enables the cars to be charged at home which is good for the environment too.
30mph is my default speed I drive in 30mph zones. Perfectly practicable to do that here. Streets kids play out in absolutely should be slower, but that isn't the default everywhere. I wouldn't dream of doing 30 on our road, but the main road our estate is off is another matter, no houses lead onto that road, all the houses are on estates off it, so the road is only for cars not pedestrians, so why shouldn't it be a 30mph road?
Why shouldn't you do 30mph on your road? Isn't it your default speed? If your street hasn't been designed for 30mph then surely it should be demolished and rebuilt to ensure you can drive at 30.
You say "Perfectly practicable to do that [30mph] here." and "I wouldn't dream of doing 30 on our road" - which is it? Is your 30mph road perfectly practicable for 30mph or not?
If its not, they why is the speed limit 30mph?
Bart doesn't want anyone driving at 30mph past his house and his kids, but wants to be able to drive at 30mph everywhere else. And he has the gall to criticise NIMBYs?
No, I'm OK with a 20mph speed limit on residential roads, how many times do I need to say that?
I don't drive at 30mph on any residential estate.
Main through roads aren't residential estates though.
Unless you live in an LTN, all roads are through roads.
I live in a cul-de-sac that ends in water. There's 4 houses past us, with 5 cars between them.
As I said, there's a world of difference between a residential estate and a through road. Any time we've ever lived on a through road, I wouldn't dream of letting the kids play on the road, as its not safe. Its not safe at either 20mph or 30mph on a through road.
A residential estate is a completely different kettle of fish.
What about this road? https://maps.app.goo.gl/e9YN2SjgewKPC4FU6 It's a residential road. But it's also a through road, used as a rat run between the south circular and the A23 to avoid the lights at the junction.
20mph or 30mph?
30mph. Its a through road.
But 20mph if they block it off and turn it into an LTN?
Of course 20mph on, say, the M25 would be a huge increase in average speed.
Seriously, that's why they often drop the speed limit to 40/50mph on motorways - reduces congestion, which in turn reduces collisions, which reduces congestion...
They occasionally do absolutely. But if the speed limit was 20mph on all motorways you would probably reduce deaths on motorways.
Or not even 20mph. What about 50mph on all motorways?
It's a balance! I wouldn't be surprised if they drop the speed limit on the A9 to 40mph for major junctions given the number of collisions.
What local Tory candidate is going to campaign for 30mph in their local area? Just comes across as weird.
Any sensible person should want 30mph as the default everywhere, not just their local area.
There's no good reason to drop it to 20. You've already said you can't pinpoint any area as high risk for fatalities, so there's no justification for dropping the limit.
Why 30mph as the default and not 40? Twenty is plenty for residential roads where all the parked cars, frequency of junctions, etc, means you need the reduced stopping distance to drive safely.
After 30 is when the risk escalates.
A speed limit of 30 means a 93.2% survival rate in the event of an accident, and accidents are rare anyway since stopping distances are short.
A speed limit of 40 means accidents are more likely (as the stopping distance increases) and doubles the fatality rate to 15.7%
30mph works. There simply isn't the justification to go beneath that.
Question - should roads be engineered to make 30mph impossible regardless of the speed limit? My old estate was legally 30mph but you couldn't drive at that speed due to the road layout deliberately slowing traffic.
Same with roads where the speed limit is 30mph but there are rows of terraced houses with cars parked outside on both sides and a single lane of traffic down the middle.
30mph is ludicrously fast on a whole load of roads. There's no way to practically enforce a 20mph limit other than by adding obstacles - bends, humps, parked cars.
Anyone who lives on a street where kids play out knows that traffic should be as slow as possible.
Of course they shouldn't, and roads should be designed with off-road parking for cars which both makes the road clearer and safer, and enables the cars to be charged at home which is good for the environment too.
30mph is my default speed I drive in 30mph zones. Perfectly practicable to do that here. Streets kids play out in absolutely should be slower, but that isn't the default everywhere. I wouldn't dream of doing 30 on our road, but the main road our estate is off is another matter, no houses lead onto that road, all the houses are on estates off it, so the road is only for cars not pedestrians, so why shouldn't it be a 30mph road?
Why shouldn't you do 30mph on your road? Isn't it your default speed? If your street hasn't been designed for 30mph then surely it should be demolished and rebuilt to ensure you can drive at 30.
You say "Perfectly practicable to do that [30mph] here." and "I wouldn't dream of doing 30 on our road" - which is it? Is your 30mph road perfectly practicable for 30mph or not?
If its not, they why is the speed limit 30mph?
Bart doesn't want anyone driving at 30mph past his house and his kids, but wants to be able to drive at 30mph everywhere else. And he has the gall to criticise NIMBYs?
No, I'm OK with a 20mph speed limit on residential roads, how many times do I need to say that?
I don't drive at 30mph on any residential estate.
Main through roads aren't residential estates though.
Unless you live in an LTN, all roads are through roads.
I live in a cul-de-sac that ends in water. There's 4 houses past us, with 5 cars between them.
As I said, there's a world of difference between a residential estate and a through road. Any time we've ever lived on a through road, I wouldn't dream of letting the kids play on the road, as its not safe. Its not safe at either 20mph or 30mph on a through road.
A residential estate is a completely different kettle of fish.
What about this road? https://maps.app.goo.gl/e9YN2SjgewKPC4FU6 It's a residential road. But it's also a through road, used as a rat run between the south circular and the A23 to avoid the lights at the junction.
20mph or 30mph?
30mph. Its a through road.
But 20mph if they block it off and turn it into an LTN?
Exactly. And if a new road is built to remove the through traffic, no reason not to do that. So build another road. 👍
Of course 20mph on, say, the M25 would be a huge increase in average speed.
Seriously, that's why they often drop the speed limit to 40/50mph on motorways - reduces congestion, which in turn reduces collisions, which reduces congestion...
They occasionally do absolutely. But if the speed limit was 20mph on all motorways you would probably reduce deaths on motorways.
Or not even 20mph. What about 50mph on all motorways?
It's a balance! I wouldn't be surprised if they drop the speed limit on the A9 to 40mph for major junctions given the number of collisions.
What local Tory candidate is going to campaign for 30mph in their local area? Just comes across as weird.
Any sensible person should want 30mph as the default everywhere, not just their local area.
There's no good reason to drop it to 20. You've already said you can't pinpoint any area as high risk for fatalities, so there's no justification for dropping the limit.
Why 30mph as the default and not 40? Twenty is plenty for residential roads where all the parked cars, frequency of junctions, etc, means you need the reduced stopping distance to drive safely.
After 30 is when the risk escalates.
A speed limit of 30 means a 93.2% survival rate in the event of an accident, and accidents are rare anyway since stopping distances are short.
A speed limit of 40 means accidents are more likely (as the stopping distance increases) and doubles the fatality rate to 15.7%
30mph works. There simply isn't the justification to go beneath that.
Question - should roads be engineered to make 30mph impossible regardless of the speed limit? My old estate was legally 30mph but you couldn't drive at that speed due to the road layout deliberately slowing traffic.
Same with roads where the speed limit is 30mph but there are rows of terraced houses with cars parked outside on both sides and a single lane of traffic down the middle.
30mph is ludicrously fast on a whole load of roads. There's no way to practically enforce a 20mph limit other than by adding obstacles - bends, humps, parked cars.
Anyone who lives on a street where kids play out knows that traffic should be as slow as possible.
Of course they shouldn't, and roads should be designed with off-road parking for cars which both makes the road clearer and safer, and enables the cars to be charged at home which is good for the environment too.
30mph is my default speed I drive in 30mph zones. Perfectly practicable to do that here. Streets kids play out in absolutely should be slower, but that isn't the default everywhere. I wouldn't dream of doing 30 on our road, but the main road our estate is off is another matter, no houses lead onto that road, all the houses are on estates off it, so the road is only for cars not pedestrians, so why shouldn't it be a 30mph road?
Why shouldn't you do 30mph on your road? Isn't it your default speed? If your street hasn't been designed for 30mph then surely it should be demolished and rebuilt to ensure you can drive at 30.
You say "Perfectly practicable to do that [30mph] here." and "I wouldn't dream of doing 30 on our road" - which is it? Is your 30mph road perfectly practicable for 30mph or not?
If its not, they why is the speed limit 30mph?
Bart doesn't want anyone driving at 30mph past his house and his kids, but wants to be able to drive at 30mph everywhere else. And he has the gall to criticise NIMBYs?
No, I'm OK with a 20mph speed limit on residential roads, how many times do I need to say that?
I don't drive at 30mph on any residential estate.
Main through roads aren't residential estates though.
Unless you live in an LTN, all roads are through roads.
I live in a cul-de-sac that ends in water. There's 4 houses past us, with 5 cars between them.
As I said, there's a world of difference between a residential estate and a through road. Any time we've ever lived on a through road, I wouldn't dream of letting the kids play on the road, as its not safe. Its not safe at either 20mph or 30mph on a through road.
A residential estate is a completely different kettle of fish.
What about this road? https://maps.app.goo.gl/e9YN2SjgewKPC4FU6 It's a residential road. But it's also a through road, used as a rat run between the south circular and the A23 to avoid the lights at the junction.
20mph or 30mph?
Or what about Knollys Road? An obvious option for many people driving between parts of Streatham and West Norwood, but also a residential road.
Of course 20mph on, say, the M25 would be a huge increase in average speed.
Seriously, that's why they often drop the speed limit to 40/50mph on motorways - reduces congestion, which in turn reduces collisions, which reduces congestion...
They occasionally do absolutely. But if the speed limit was 20mph on all motorways you would probably reduce deaths on motorways.
Or not even 20mph. What about 50mph on all motorways?
It's a balance! I wouldn't be surprised if they drop the speed limit on the A9 to 40mph for major junctions given the number of collisions.
What local Tory candidate is going to campaign for 30mph in their local area? Just comes across as weird.
Any sensible person should want 30mph as the default everywhere, not just their local area.
There's no good reason to drop it to 20. You've already said you can't pinpoint any area as high risk for fatalities, so there's no justification for dropping the limit.
Why 30mph as the default and not 40? Twenty is plenty for residential roads where all the parked cars, frequency of junctions, etc, means you need the reduced stopping distance to drive safely.
After 30 is when the risk escalates.
A speed limit of 30 means a 93.2% survival rate in the event of an accident, and accidents are rare anyway since stopping distances are short.
A speed limit of 40 means accidents are more likely (as the stopping distance increases) and doubles the fatality rate to 15.7%
30mph works. There simply isn't the justification to go beneath that.
Question - should roads be engineered to make 30mph impossible regardless of the speed limit? My old estate was legally 30mph but you couldn't drive at that speed due to the road layout deliberately slowing traffic.
Same with roads where the speed limit is 30mph but there are rows of terraced houses with cars parked outside on both sides and a single lane of traffic down the middle.
30mph is ludicrously fast on a whole load of roads. There's no way to practically enforce a 20mph limit other than by adding obstacles - bends, humps, parked cars.
Anyone who lives on a street where kids play out knows that traffic should be as slow as possible.
Of course they shouldn't, and roads should be designed with off-road parking for cars which both makes the road clearer and safer, and enables the cars to be charged at home which is good for the environment too.
30mph is my default speed I drive in 30mph zones. Perfectly practicable to do that here. Streets kids play out in absolutely should be slower, but that isn't the default everywhere. I wouldn't dream of doing 30 on our road, but the main road our estate is off is another matter, no houses lead onto that road, all the houses are on estates off it, so the road is only for cars not pedestrians, so why shouldn't it be a 30mph road?
Why shouldn't you do 30mph on your road? Isn't it your default speed? If your street hasn't been designed for 30mph then surely it should be demolished and rebuilt to ensure you can drive at 30.
You say "Perfectly practicable to do that [30mph] here." and "I wouldn't dream of doing 30 on our road" - which is it? Is your 30mph road perfectly practicable for 30mph or not?
If its not, they why is the speed limit 30mph?
Bart doesn't want anyone driving at 30mph past his house and his kids, but wants to be able to drive at 30mph everywhere else. And he has the gall to criticise NIMBYs?
No, I'm OK with a 20mph speed limit on residential roads, how many times do I need to say that?
I don't drive at 30mph on any residential estate.
Main through roads aren't residential estates though.
Unless you live in an LTN, all roads are through roads.
I live in a cul-de-sac that ends in water. There's 4 houses past us, with 5 cars between them.
As I said, there's a world of difference between a residential estate and a through road. Any time we've ever lived on a through road, I wouldn't dream of letting the kids play on the road, as its not safe. Its not safe at either 20mph or 30mph on a through road.
A residential estate is a completely different kettle of fish.
What about this road? https://maps.app.goo.gl/e9YN2SjgewKPC4FU6 It's a residential road. But it's also a through road, used as a rat run between the south circular and the A23 to avoid the lights at the junction.
Of course 20mph on, say, the M25 would be a huge increase in average speed.
Seriously, that's why they often drop the speed limit to 40/50mph on motorways - reduces congestion, which in turn reduces collisions, which reduces congestion...
They occasionally do absolutely. But if the speed limit was 20mph on all motorways you would probably reduce deaths on motorways.
Or not even 20mph. What about 50mph on all motorways?
It's a balance! I wouldn't be surprised if they drop the speed limit on the A9 to 40mph for major junctions given the number of collisions.
What local Tory candidate is going to campaign for 30mph in their local area? Just comes across as weird.
Any sensible person should want 30mph as the default everywhere, not just their local area.
There's no good reason to drop it to 20. You've already said you can't pinpoint any area as high risk for fatalities, so there's no justification for dropping the limit.
Why 30mph as the default and not 40? Twenty is plenty for residential roads where all the parked cars, frequency of junctions, etc, means you need the reduced stopping distance to drive safely.
After 30 is when the risk escalates.
A speed limit of 30 means a 93.2% survival rate in the event of an accident, and accidents are rare anyway since stopping distances are short.
A speed limit of 40 means accidents are more likely (as the stopping distance increases) and doubles the fatality rate to 15.7%
30mph works. There simply isn't the justification to go beneath that.
Question - should roads be engineered to make 30mph impossible regardless of the speed limit? My old estate was legally 30mph but you couldn't drive at that speed due to the road layout deliberately slowing traffic.
Same with roads where the speed limit is 30mph but there are rows of terraced houses with cars parked outside on both sides and a single lane of traffic down the middle.
30mph is ludicrously fast on a whole load of roads. There's no way to practically enforce a 20mph limit other than by adding obstacles - bends, humps, parked cars.
Anyone who lives on a street where kids play out knows that traffic should be as slow as possible.
Of course they shouldn't, and roads should be designed with off-road parking for cars which both makes the road clearer and safer, and enables the cars to be charged at home which is good for the environment too.
30mph is my default speed I drive in 30mph zones. Perfectly practicable to do that here. Streets kids play out in absolutely should be slower, but that isn't the default everywhere. I wouldn't dream of doing 30 on our road, but the main road our estate is off is another matter, no houses lead onto that road, all the houses are on estates off it, so the road is only for cars not pedestrians, so why shouldn't it be a 30mph road?
Why shouldn't you do 30mph on your road? Isn't it your default speed? If your street hasn't been designed for 30mph then surely it should be demolished and rebuilt to ensure you can drive at 30.
You say "Perfectly practicable to do that [30mph] here." and "I wouldn't dream of doing 30 on our road" - which is it? Is your 30mph road perfectly practicable for 30mph or not?
If its not, they why is the speed limit 30mph?
Bart doesn't want anyone driving at 30mph past his house and his kids, but wants to be able to drive at 30mph everywhere else. And he has the gall to criticise NIMBYs?
No, I'm OK with a 20mph speed limit on residential roads, how many times do I need to say that?
I don't drive at 30mph on any residential estate.
Main through roads aren't residential estates though.
Unless you live in an LTN, all roads are through roads.
I live in a cul-de-sac that ends in water. There's 4 houses past us, with 5 cars between them.
As I said, there's a world of difference between a residential estate and a through road. Any time we've ever lived on a through road, I wouldn't dream of letting the kids play on the road, as its not safe. Its not safe at either 20mph or 30mph on a through road.
A residential estate is a completely different kettle of fish.
What about this road? https://maps.app.goo.gl/e9YN2SjgewKPC4FU6 It's a residential road. But it's also a through road, used as a rat run between the south circular and the A23 to avoid the lights at the junction.
20mph or 30mph?
30mph. Its a through road.
But 20mph if they block it off and turn it into an LTN?
Exactly. And if a new road is built to remove the through traffic, no reason not to do that. So build another road. 👍
Spring 2020, Covid lockdown one. A pretty miserable time. But the one shaft of light for us walkers (and cyclists I presume) is that the roads were pretty much deserted - both safe and quiet. That aspect was blissful.
Of course 20mph on, say, the M25 would be a huge increase in average speed.
Seriously, that's why they often drop the speed limit to 40/50mph on motorways - reduces congestion, which in turn reduces collisions, which reduces congestion...
They occasionally do absolutely. But if the speed limit was 20mph on all motorways you would probably reduce deaths on motorways.
Or not even 20mph. What about 50mph on all motorways?
It's a balance! I wouldn't be surprised if they drop the speed limit on the A9 to 40mph for major junctions given the number of collisions.
What local Tory candidate is going to campaign for 30mph in their local area? Just comes across as weird.
Any sensible person should want 30mph as the default everywhere, not just their local area.
There's no good reason to drop it to 20. You've already said you can't pinpoint any area as high risk for fatalities, so there's no justification for dropping the limit.
Why 30mph as the default and not 40? Twenty is plenty for residential roads where all the parked cars, frequency of junctions, etc, means you need the reduced stopping distance to drive safely.
After 30 is when the risk escalates.
A speed limit of 30 means a 93.2% survival rate in the event of an accident, and accidents are rare anyway since stopping distances are short.
A speed limit of 40 means accidents are more likely (as the stopping distance increases) and doubles the fatality rate to 15.7%
30mph works. There simply isn't the justification to go beneath that.
Question - should roads be engineered to make 30mph impossible regardless of the speed limit? My old estate was legally 30mph but you couldn't drive at that speed due to the road layout deliberately slowing traffic.
Same with roads where the speed limit is 30mph but there are rows of terraced houses with cars parked outside on both sides and a single lane of traffic down the middle.
30mph is ludicrously fast on a whole load of roads. There's no way to practically enforce a 20mph limit other than by adding obstacles - bends, humps, parked cars.
Anyone who lives on a street where kids play out knows that traffic should be as slow as possible.
Of course they shouldn't, and roads should be designed with off-road parking for cars which both makes the road clearer and safer, and enables the cars to be charged at home which is good for the environment too.
30mph is my default speed I drive in 30mph zones. Perfectly practicable to do that here. Streets kids play out in absolutely should be slower, but that isn't the default everywhere. I wouldn't dream of doing 30 on our road, but the main road our estate is off is another matter, no houses lead onto that road, all the houses are on estates off it, so the road is only for cars not pedestrians, so why shouldn't it be a 30mph road?
Why shouldn't you do 30mph on your road? Isn't it your default speed? If your street hasn't been designed for 30mph then surely it should be demolished and rebuilt to ensure you can drive at 30.
You say "Perfectly practicable to do that [30mph] here." and "I wouldn't dream of doing 30 on our road" - which is it? Is your 30mph road perfectly practicable for 30mph or not?
If its not, they why is the speed limit 30mph?
Bart doesn't want anyone driving at 30mph past his house and his kids, but wants to be able to drive at 30mph everywhere else. And he has the gall to criticise NIMBYs?
No, I'm OK with a 20mph speed limit on residential roads, how many times do I need to say that?
I don't drive at 30mph on any residential estate.
Main through roads aren't residential estates though.
Unless you live in an LTN, all roads are through roads.
I live in a cul-de-sac that ends in water. There's 4 houses past us, with 5 cars between them.
As I said, there's a world of difference between a residential estate and a through road. Any time we've ever lived on a through road, I wouldn't dream of letting the kids play on the road, as its not safe. Its not safe at either 20mph or 30mph on a through road.
A residential estate is a completely different kettle of fish.
What about this road? https://maps.app.goo.gl/e9YN2SjgewKPC4FU6 It's a residential road. But it's also a through road, used as a rat run between the south circular and the A23 to avoid the lights at the junction.
20mph or 30mph?
30mph. Its a through road.
But 20mph if they block it off and turn it into an LTN?
Exactly. And if a new road is built to remove the through traffic, no reason not to do that. So build another road. 👍
Are through road residents half as resilient again as cul de sacers or is it just their own fault for choosing to live there, omelette and eggs and stuff?
Spring 2020, Covid lockdown one. A pretty miserable time. But the one shaft of light for us walkers (and cyclists I presume) is that the roads were pretty much deserted - both safe and quiet. That aspect was blissful.
I cycled all along the A34 to Stafford.
I would never do that under normal traffic conditions.
Of course 20mph on, say, the M25 would be a huge increase in average speed.
Seriously, that's why they often drop the speed limit to 40/50mph on motorways - reduces congestion, which in turn reduces collisions, which reduces congestion...
They occasionally do absolutely. But if the speed limit was 20mph on all motorways you would probably reduce deaths on motorways.
Or not even 20mph. What about 50mph on all motorways?
It's a balance! I wouldn't be surprised if they drop the speed limit on the A9 to 40mph for major junctions given the number of collisions.
What local Tory candidate is going to campaign for 30mph in their local area? Just comes across as weird.
Any sensible person should want 30mph as the default everywhere, not just their local area.
There's no good reason to drop it to 20. You've already said you can't pinpoint any area as high risk for fatalities, so there's no justification for dropping the limit.
Why 30mph as the default and not 40? Twenty is plenty for residential roads where all the parked cars, frequency of junctions, etc, means you need the reduced stopping distance to drive safely.
After 30 is when the risk escalates.
A speed limit of 30 means a 93.2% survival rate in the event of an accident, and accidents are rare anyway since stopping distances are short.
A speed limit of 40 means accidents are more likely (as the stopping distance increases) and doubles the fatality rate to 15.7%
30mph works. There simply isn't the justification to go beneath that.
Total Bullshit. That data is from 1970s, but is still used by campaigners as it sounds better. Since then cars and their designs have been changed dramatically to make impacts safer, including for pedestrians, so the numbers have collapsed since then.
We need 2022 UK numbers from UK Stats Authorities.
However, the figure for 20mph is not the correct one to use, since the usual habit for 20mph zones is to drive at 25mph or more - as normal road speed is based on what the road looks like, not the posted speed limit, plus the enforcement threshold for 20mph would be 24-25mph. That is shown by the Belfast study linked yesterday.
The monitoring report for trial areas in Wales already shows a significant average speed reduction in trial areas (3-4mph iirc), and a large uplift (+20% or so) in vehicles driving at
This is the piccie I tried to attach. Traffic calming at a community boundary to make sure drivers notice they are entering a residential area. From a Hubnut video.
Of course 20mph on, say, the M25 would be a huge increase in average speed.
Seriously, that's why they often drop the speed limit to 40/50mph on motorways - reduces congestion, which in turn reduces collisions, which reduces congestion...
They occasionally do absolutely. But if the speed limit was 20mph on all motorways you would probably reduce deaths on motorways.
Or not even 20mph. What about 50mph on all motorways?
It's a balance! I wouldn't be surprised if they drop the speed limit on the A9 to 40mph for major junctions given the number of collisions.
What local Tory candidate is going to campaign for 30mph in their local area? Just comes across as weird.
Any sensible person should want 30mph as the default everywhere, not just their local area.
There's no good reason to drop it to 20. You've already said you can't pinpoint any area as high risk for fatalities, so there's no justification for dropping the limit.
Why 30mph as the default and not 40? Twenty is plenty for residential roads where all the parked cars, frequency of junctions, etc, means you need the reduced stopping distance to drive safely.
After 30 is when the risk escalates.
A speed limit of 30 means a 93.2% survival rate in the event of an accident, and accidents are rare anyway since stopping distances are short.
A speed limit of 40 means accidents are more likely (as the stopping distance increases) and doubles the fatality rate to 15.7%
30mph works. There simply isn't the justification to go beneath that.
Question - should roads be engineered to make 30mph impossible regardless of the speed limit? My old estate was legally 30mph but you couldn't drive at that speed due to the road layout deliberately slowing traffic.
Same with roads where the speed limit is 30mph but there are rows of terraced houses with cars parked outside on both sides and a single lane of traffic down the middle.
30mph is ludicrously fast on a whole load of roads. There's no way to practically enforce a 20mph limit other than by adding obstacles - bends, humps, parked cars.
Anyone who lives on a street where kids play out knows that traffic should be as slow as possible.
Of course they shouldn't, and roads should be designed with off-road parking for cars which both makes the road clearer and safer, and enables the cars to be charged at home which is good for the environment too.
30mph is my default speed I drive in 30mph zones. Perfectly practicable to do that here. Streets kids play out in absolutely should be slower, but that isn't the default everywhere. I wouldn't dream of doing 30 on our road, but the main road our estate is off is another matter, no houses lead onto that road, all the houses are on estates off it, so the road is only for cars not pedestrians, so why shouldn't it be a 30mph road?
Why shouldn't you do 30mph on your road? Isn't it your default speed? If your street hasn't been designed for 30mph then surely it should be demolished and rebuilt to ensure you can drive at 30.
You say "Perfectly practicable to do that [30mph] here." and "I wouldn't dream of doing 30 on our road" - which is it? Is your 30mph road perfectly practicable for 30mph or not?
If its not, they why is the speed limit 30mph?
Bart doesn't want anyone driving at 30mph past his house and his kids, but wants to be able to drive at 30mph everywhere else. And he has the gall to criticise NIMBYs?
No, I'm OK with a 20mph speed limit on residential roads, how many times do I need to say that?
I don't drive at 30mph on any residential estate.
Main through roads aren't residential estates though.
Unless you live in an LTN, all roads are through roads.
I live in a cul-de-sac that ends in water. There's 4 houses past us, with 5 cars between them.
As I said, there's a world of difference between a residential estate and a through road. Any time we've ever lived on a through road, I wouldn't dream of letting the kids play on the road, as its not safe. Its not safe at either 20mph or 30mph on a through road.
A residential estate is a completely different kettle of fish.
What about this road? https://maps.app.goo.gl/e9YN2SjgewKPC4FU6 It's a residential road. But it's also a through road, used as a rat run between the south circular and the A23 to avoid the lights at the junction.
20mph or 30mph?
30mph. Its a through road.
But 20mph if they block it off and turn it into an LTN?
Exactly. And if a new road is built to remove the through traffic, no reason not to do that. So build another road. 👍
It literally joins two roads, the A23 and A205, that have a junction already. Ducking madness to do 30mph on that road past all the kids who live there.
Why would you need to block off one end of the road to not do 30mph along it?
I think BR is a member of the Cars Killing Kids party - "I didn't think they would kill *my* kid"
He's demanding that people drive at 30mph as its "perfectly practicable" but then that he wouldn't dream of driving at 30mph on *his* street - presumably because it isn't "perfectly practicable or likely physically possible.
This is precisely the point. Make residential streets as slow as possible by design. And if the design is old (a terraced street as an example) then slow traffic with obstacles or cut through traffic completely.
"I wouldn't dream of doing 30mph on my street" but demands that people do 30mph down someone else's street - like this one maybe? https://goo.gl/maps/kCV9E5xYDfXJrpcX8
Or indeed this one - a village not far from here wioth the A68 going through it.
That doesn't look like a residential estate, it looks like a main road, so of course kids shouldn't be playing on it and 30mph is an entirely reasonable speed limit.
Sorry but if you live on a through road, its not a residential estate. If you live on an estate, that's a different matter. Kids play football etc on residential estates, they don't on through roads, for bloody good reason. Its not just the speed limit, but the volume of traffic, there's a grand total of 5 people a day who might drive past my house. That many could drive down that road in two minutes.
Make your mind up. You just said you're not opposed to 20mph on residential roads, but now you do want to drive at 30mph on residential roads when they're roads you need to drive on to get somewhere.
20mph for your kids but not anyone else's if it inconveniences you.
That's not what I said. I said I wouldn't do 30mph on a residential estate, not a residential road. There's a huge difference.
Through roads have a volume of traffic that it is simple not safe for kids to play on the road, so yes 30mph is safe for those roads.
Estates do not. Kids play on those roads, so 20mph is better for those roads.
Volume of traffic is the bigger issue than the speed limit.
Of course 20mph on, say, the M25 would be a huge increase in average speed.
Seriously, that's why they often drop the speed limit to 40/50mph on motorways - reduces congestion, which in turn reduces collisions, which reduces congestion...
They occasionally do absolutely. But if the speed limit was 20mph on all motorways you would probably reduce deaths on motorways.
Or not even 20mph. What about 50mph on all motorways?
It's a balance! I wouldn't be surprised if they drop the speed limit on the A9 to 40mph for major junctions given the number of collisions.
What local Tory candidate is going to campaign for 30mph in their local area? Just comes across as weird.
Any sensible person should want 30mph as the default everywhere, not just their local area.
There's no good reason to drop it to 20. You've already said you can't pinpoint any area as high risk for fatalities, so there's no justification for dropping the limit.
Why 30mph as the default and not 40? Twenty is plenty for residential roads where all the parked cars, frequency of junctions, etc, means you need the reduced stopping distance to drive safely.
After 30 is when the risk escalates.
A speed limit of 30 means a 93.2% survival rate in the event of an accident, and accidents are rare anyway since stopping distances are short.
A speed limit of 40 means accidents are more likely (as the stopping distance increases) and doubles the fatality rate to 15.7%
30mph works. There simply isn't the justification to go beneath that.
Question - should roads be engineered to make 30mph impossible regardless of the speed limit? My old estate was legally 30mph but you couldn't drive at that speed due to the road layout deliberately slowing traffic.
Same with roads where the speed limit is 30mph but there are rows of terraced houses with cars parked outside on both sides and a single lane of traffic down the middle.
30mph is ludicrously fast on a whole load of roads. There's no way to practically enforce a 20mph limit other than by adding obstacles - bends, humps, parked cars.
Anyone who lives on a street where kids play out knows that traffic should be as slow as possible.
Of course they shouldn't, and roads should be designed with off-road parking for cars which both makes the road clearer and safer, and enables the cars to be charged at home which is good for the environment too.
30mph is my default speed I drive in 30mph zones. Perfectly practicable to do that here. Streets kids play out in absolutely should be slower, but that isn't the default everywhere. I wouldn't dream of doing 30 on our road, but the main road our estate is off is another matter, no houses lead onto that road, all the houses are on estates off it, so the road is only for cars not pedestrians, so why shouldn't it be a 30mph road?
Why shouldn't you do 30mph on your road? Isn't it your default speed? If your street hasn't been designed for 30mph then surely it should be demolished and rebuilt to ensure you can drive at 30.
You say "Perfectly practicable to do that [30mph] here." and "I wouldn't dream of doing 30 on our road" - which is it? Is your 30mph road perfectly practicable for 30mph or not?
If its not, they why is the speed limit 30mph?
Bart doesn't want anyone driving at 30mph past his house and his kids, but wants to be able to drive at 30mph everywhere else. And he has the gall to criticise NIMBYs?
No, I'm OK with a 20mph speed limit on residential roads, how many times do I need to say that?
I don't drive at 30mph on any residential estate.
Main through roads aren't residential estates though.
Unless you live in an LTN, all roads are through roads.
I live in a cul-de-sac that ends in water. There's 4 houses past us, with 5 cars between them.
As I said, there's a world of difference between a residential estate and a through road. Any time we've ever lived on a through road, I wouldn't dream of letting the kids play on the road, as its not safe. Its not safe at either 20mph or 30mph on a through road.
A residential estate is a completely different kettle of fish.
What about this road? https://maps.app.goo.gl/e9YN2SjgewKPC4FU6 It's a residential road. But it's also a through road, used as a rat run between the south circular and the A23 to avoid the lights at the junction.
20mph or 30mph?
30mph. Its a through road.
But 20mph if they block it off and turn it into an LTN?
Exactly. And if a new road is built to remove the through traffic, no reason not to do that. So build another road. 👍
Are through road residents half as resilient again as cul de sacers or is it just their own fault for choosing to live there, omelette and eggs and stuff?
Its where they've chosen to live. If they want to move, they should move.
And again, its not just the speed of traffic, its the volume of traffic. If hundreds of vehicles an hour go down your road then its not safe for kids to play on that road. If single digit vehicles a day go down your road, then it is.
I think BR is a member of the Cars Killing Kids party - "I didn't think they would kill *my* kid"
He's demanding that people drive at 30mph as its "perfectly practicable" but then that he wouldn't dream of driving at 30mph on *his* street - presumably because it isn't "perfectly practicable or likely physically possible.
This is precisely the point. Make residential streets as slow as possible by design. And if the design is old (a terraced street as an example) then slow traffic with obstacles or cut through traffic completely.
"I wouldn't dream of doing 30mph on my street" but demands that people do 30mph down someone else's street - like this one maybe? https://goo.gl/maps/kCV9E5xYDfXJrpcX8
Or indeed this one - a village not far from here wioth the A68 going through it.
That doesn't look like a residential estate, it looks like a main road, so of course kids shouldn't be playing on it and 30mph is an entirely reasonable speed limit.
Sorry but if you live on a through road, its not a residential estate. If you live on an estate, that's a different matter. Kids play football etc on residential estates, they don't on through roads, for bloody good reason. Its not just the speed limit, but the volume of traffic, there's a grand total of 5 people a day who might drive past my house. That many could drive down that road in two minutes.
Make your mind up. You just said you're not opposed to 20mph on residential roads, but now you do want to drive at 30mph on residential roads when they're roads you need to drive on to get somewhere.
20mph for your kids but not anyone else's if it inconveniences you.
That's not what I said. I said I wouldn't do 30mph on a residential estate, not a residential road. There's a huge difference.
Through roads have a volume of traffic that it is simple not safe for kids to play on the road, so yes 30mph is safe for those roads.
Estates do not. Kids play on those roads, so 20mph is better for those roads.
Volume of traffic is the bigger issue than the speed limit.
Of course 20mph on, say, the M25 would be a huge increase in average speed.
Seriously, that's why they often drop the speed limit to 40/50mph on motorways - reduces congestion, which in turn reduces collisions, which reduces congestion...
They occasionally do absolutely. But if the speed limit was 20mph on all motorways you would probably reduce deaths on motorways.
Or not even 20mph. What about 50mph on all motorways?
It's a balance! I wouldn't be surprised if they drop the speed limit on the A9 to 40mph for major junctions given the number of collisions.
What local Tory candidate is going to campaign for 30mph in their local area? Just comes across as weird.
Any sensible person should want 30mph as the default everywhere, not just their local area.
There's no good reason to drop it to 20. You've already said you can't pinpoint any area as high risk for fatalities, so there's no justification for dropping the limit.
Why 30mph as the default and not 40? Twenty is plenty for residential roads where all the parked cars, frequency of junctions, etc, means you need the reduced stopping distance to drive safely.
After 30 is when the risk escalates.
A speed limit of 30 means a 93.2% survival rate in the event of an accident, and accidents are rare anyway since stopping distances are short.
A speed limit of 40 means accidents are more likely (as the stopping distance increases) and doubles the fatality rate to 15.7%
30mph works. There simply isn't the justification to go beneath that.
Question - should roads be engineered to make 30mph impossible regardless of the speed limit? My old estate was legally 30mph but you couldn't drive at that speed due to the road layout deliberately slowing traffic.
Same with roads where the speed limit is 30mph but there are rows of terraced houses with cars parked outside on both sides and a single lane of traffic down the middle.
30mph is ludicrously fast on a whole load of roads. There's no way to practically enforce a 20mph limit other than by adding obstacles - bends, humps, parked cars.
Anyone who lives on a street where kids play out knows that traffic should be as slow as possible.
Of course they shouldn't, and roads should be designed with off-road parking for cars which both makes the road clearer and safer, and enables the cars to be charged at home which is good for the environment too.
30mph is my default speed I drive in 30mph zones. Perfectly practicable to do that here. Streets kids play out in absolutely should be slower, but that isn't the default everywhere. I wouldn't dream of doing 30 on our road, but the main road our estate is off is another matter, no houses lead onto that road, all the houses are on estates off it, so the road is only for cars not pedestrians, so why shouldn't it be a 30mph road?
Why shouldn't you do 30mph on your road? Isn't it your default speed? If your street hasn't been designed for 30mph then surely it should be demolished and rebuilt to ensure you can drive at 30.
You say "Perfectly practicable to do that [30mph] here." and "I wouldn't dream of doing 30 on our road" - which is it? Is your 30mph road perfectly practicable for 30mph or not?
If its not, they why is the speed limit 30mph?
Bart doesn't want anyone driving at 30mph past his house and his kids, but wants to be able to drive at 30mph everywhere else. And he has the gall to criticise NIMBYs?
No, I'm OK with a 20mph speed limit on residential roads, how many times do I need to say that?
I don't drive at 30mph on any residential estate.
Main through roads aren't residential estates though.
Unless you live in an LTN, all roads are through roads.
I live in a cul-de-sac that ends in water. There's 4 houses past us, with 5 cars between them.
As I said, there's a world of difference between a residential estate and a through road. Any time we've ever lived on a through road, I wouldn't dream of letting the kids play on the road, as its not safe. Its not safe at either 20mph or 30mph on a through road.
A residential estate is a completely different kettle of fish.
What about this road? https://maps.app.goo.gl/e9YN2SjgewKPC4FU6 It's a residential road. But it's also a through road, used as a rat run between the south circular and the A23 to avoid the lights at the junction.
20mph or 30mph?
30mph. Its a through road.
But 20mph if they block it off and turn it into an LTN?
Exactly. And if a new road is built to remove the through traffic, no reason not to do that. So build another road. 👍
Are through road residents half as resilient again as cul de sacers or is it just their own fault for choosing to live there, omelette and eggs and stuff?
If you really wanted to reduce traffic volumes and therefore accidents in much of Wales' residential areas, a very obvious way to achieve it would be to build proper bypasses. Newtown and Caernarfon have both benefitted from this in recent years, and while I don't have the figures I would guess pollution and accidents in both towns have dropped off the proverbial cliff as traffic is now elsewhere (on very good roads, actually, both three lane). Not least because the roads *in* the towns were a joke.
But Aberystwyth, Tywyn, Bala, Blaenau Ffestiniog, Corwen, Llangollen, Penrhyndeudraeth, Denbigh, can go whistle for anything similar because Drakeford has said 'no new roads.'*
He's doing this instead because ultimately he only wants to reduce traffic, without putting the necessary investment into public transport (in Wales it would have to be railways for various reasons) to make that feasible.
Which is pretty unfair on the people who live in those areas.
*I'm not sure whether that list should include Merthyr, which was due to be bypassed as the last link between the A470 and the Heads of the Valleys. I think work had started so it was exempted. This of course has nothing to do with Merthyr voting Labour.
Of course 20mph on, say, the M25 would be a huge increase in average speed.
Seriously, that's why they often drop the speed limit to 40/50mph on motorways - reduces congestion, which in turn reduces collisions, which reduces congestion...
They occasionally do absolutely. But if the speed limit was 20mph on all motorways you would probably reduce deaths on motorways.
Or not even 20mph. What about 50mph on all motorways?
It's a balance! I wouldn't be surprised if they drop the speed limit on the A9 to 40mph for major junctions given the number of collisions.
What local Tory candidate is going to campaign for 30mph in their local area? Just comes across as weird.
Any sensible person should want 30mph as the default everywhere, not just their local area.
There's no good reason to drop it to 20. You've already said you can't pinpoint any area as high risk for fatalities, so there's no justification for dropping the limit.
Why 30mph as the default and not 40? Twenty is plenty for residential roads where all the parked cars, frequency of junctions, etc, means you need the reduced stopping distance to drive safely.
After 30 is when the risk escalates.
A speed limit of 30 means a 93.2% survival rate in the event of an accident, and accidents are rare anyway since stopping distances are short.
A speed limit of 40 means accidents are more likely (as the stopping distance increases) and doubles the fatality rate to 15.7%
30mph works. There simply isn't the justification to go beneath that.
Question - should roads be engineered to make 30mph impossible regardless of the speed limit? My old estate was legally 30mph but you couldn't drive at that speed due to the road layout deliberately slowing traffic.
Same with roads where the speed limit is 30mph but there are rows of terraced houses with cars parked outside on both sides and a single lane of traffic down the middle.
30mph is ludicrously fast on a whole load of roads. There's no way to practically enforce a 20mph limit other than by adding obstacles - bends, humps, parked cars.
Anyone who lives on a street where kids play out knows that traffic should be as slow as possible.
Of course they shouldn't, and roads should be designed with off-road parking for cars which both makes the road clearer and safer, and enables the cars to be charged at home which is good for the environment too.
30mph is my default speed I drive in 30mph zones. Perfectly practicable to do that here. Streets kids play out in absolutely should be slower, but that isn't the default everywhere. I wouldn't dream of doing 30 on our road, but the main road our estate is off is another matter, no houses lead onto that road, all the houses are on estates off it, so the road is only for cars not pedestrians, so why shouldn't it be a 30mph road?
Why shouldn't you do 30mph on your road? Isn't it your default speed? If your street hasn't been designed for 30mph then surely it should be demolished and rebuilt to ensure you can drive at 30.
You say "Perfectly practicable to do that [30mph] here." and "I wouldn't dream of doing 30 on our road" - which is it? Is your 30mph road perfectly practicable for 30mph or not?
If its not, they why is the speed limit 30mph?
Bart doesn't want anyone driving at 30mph past his house and his kids, but wants to be able to drive at 30mph everywhere else. And he has the gall to criticise NIMBYs?
No, I'm OK with a 20mph speed limit on residential roads, how many times do I need to say that?
I don't drive at 30mph on any residential estate.
Main through roads aren't residential estates though.
Unless you live in an LTN, all roads are through roads.
I live in a cul-de-sac that ends in water. There's 4 houses past us, with 5 cars between them.
As I said, there's a world of difference between a residential estate and a through road. Any time we've ever lived on a through road, I wouldn't dream of letting the kids play on the road, as its not safe. Its not safe at either 20mph or 30mph on a through road.
A residential estate is a completely different kettle of fish.
What about this road? https://maps.app.goo.gl/e9YN2SjgewKPC4FU6 It's a residential road. But it's also a through road, used as a rat run between the south circular and the A23 to avoid the lights at the junction.
20mph or 30mph?
30mph. Its a through road.
But 20mph if they block it off and turn it into an LTN?
Exactly. And if a new road is built to remove the through traffic, no reason not to do that. So build another road. 👍
Are through road residents half as resilient again as cul de sacers or is it just their own fault for choosing to live there, omelette and eggs and stuff?
Its where they've chosen to live. If they want to move, they should move.
And again, its not just the speed of traffic, its the volume of traffic. If hundreds of vehicles an hour go down your road then its not safe for kids to play on that road. If single digit vehicles a day go down your road, then it is.
Did you not notice the massive housing crisis?
How many people do you think have such riches that they have the freedom to choose not to live on a through road?
I think BR is a member of the Cars Killing Kids party - "I didn't think they would kill *my* kid"
He's demanding that people drive at 30mph as its "perfectly practicable" but then that he wouldn't dream of driving at 30mph on *his* street - presumably because it isn't "perfectly practicable or likely physically possible.
This is precisely the point. Make residential streets as slow as possible by design. And if the design is old (a terraced street as an example) then slow traffic with obstacles or cut through traffic completely.
"I wouldn't dream of doing 30mph on my street" but demands that people do 30mph down someone else's street - like this one maybe? https://goo.gl/maps/kCV9E5xYDfXJrpcX8
Or indeed this one - a village not far from here wioth the A68 going through it.
That doesn't look like a residential estate, it looks like a main road, so of course kids shouldn't be playing on it and 30mph is an entirely reasonable speed limit.
Sorry but if you live on a through road, its not a residential estate. If you live on an estate, that's a different matter. Kids play football etc on residential estates, they don't on through roads, for bloody good reason. Its not just the speed limit, but the volume of traffic, there's a grand total of 5 people a day who might drive past my house. That many could drive down that road in two minutes.
Make your mind up. You just said you're not opposed to 20mph on residential roads, but now you do want to drive at 30mph on residential roads when they're roads you need to drive on to get somewhere.
20mph for your kids but not anyone else's if it inconveniences you.
That's not what I said. I said I wouldn't do 30mph on a residential estate, not a residential road. There's a huge difference.
Through roads have a volume of traffic that it is simple not safe for kids to play on the road, so yes 30mph is safe for those roads.
Estates do not. Kids play on those roads, so 20mph is better for those roads.
Volume of traffic is the bigger issue than the speed limit.
I think BR is a member of the Cars Killing Kids party - "I didn't think they would kill *my* kid"
He's demanding that people drive at 30mph as its "perfectly practicable" but then that he wouldn't dream of driving at 30mph on *his* street - presumably because it isn't "perfectly practicable or likely physically possible.
This is precisely the point. Make residential streets as slow as possible by design. And if the design is old (a terraced street as an example) then slow traffic with obstacles or cut through traffic completely.
"I wouldn't dream of doing 30mph on my street" but demands that people do 30mph down someone else's street - like this one maybe? https://goo.gl/maps/kCV9E5xYDfXJrpcX8
Or indeed this one - a village not far from here wioth the A68 going through it.
That doesn't look like a residential estate, it looks like a main road, so of course kids shouldn't be playing on it and 30mph is an entirely reasonable speed limit.
Sorry but if you live on a through road, its not a residential estate. If you live on an estate, that's a different matter. Kids play football etc on residential estates, they don't on through roads, for bloody good reason. Its not just the speed limit, but the volume of traffic, there's a grand total of 5 people a day who might drive past my house. That many could drive down that road in two minutes.
Make your mind up. You just said you're not opposed to 20mph on residential roads, but now you do want to drive at 30mph on residential roads when they're roads you need to drive on to get somewhere.
20mph for your kids but not anyone else's if it inconveniences you.
That's not what I said. I said I wouldn't do 30mph on a residential estate, not a residential road. There's a huge difference.
Through roads have a volume of traffic that it is simple not safe for kids to play on the road, so yes 30mph is safe for those roads.
Estates do not. Kids play on those roads, so 20mph is better for those roads.
Volume of traffic is the bigger issue than the speed limit.
Of course 20mph on, say, the M25 would be a huge increase in average speed.
Seriously, that's why they often drop the speed limit to 40/50mph on motorways - reduces congestion, which in turn reduces collisions, which reduces congestion...
They occasionally do absolutely. But if the speed limit was 20mph on all motorways you would probably reduce deaths on motorways.
Or not even 20mph. What about 50mph on all motorways?
It's a balance! I wouldn't be surprised if they drop the speed limit on the A9 to 40mph for major junctions given the number of collisions.
What local Tory candidate is going to campaign for 30mph in their local area? Just comes across as weird.
Any sensible person should want 30mph as the default everywhere, not just their local area.
There's no good reason to drop it to 20. You've already said you can't pinpoint any area as high risk for fatalities, so there's no justification for dropping the limit.
Why 30mph as the default and not 40? Twenty is plenty for residential roads where all the parked cars, frequency of junctions, etc, means you need the reduced stopping distance to drive safely.
After 30 is when the risk escalates.
A speed limit of 30 means a 93.2% survival rate in the event of an accident, and accidents are rare anyway since stopping distances are short.
A speed limit of 40 means accidents are more likely (as the stopping distance increases) and doubles the fatality rate to 15.7%
30mph works. There simply isn't the justification to go beneath that.
Question - should roads be engineered to make 30mph impossible regardless of the speed limit? My old estate was legally 30mph but you couldn't drive at that speed due to the road layout deliberately slowing traffic.
Same with roads where the speed limit is 30mph but there are rows of terraced houses with cars parked outside on both sides and a single lane of traffic down the middle.
30mph is ludicrously fast on a whole load of roads. There's no way to practically enforce a 20mph limit other than by adding obstacles - bends, humps, parked cars.
Anyone who lives on a street where kids play out knows that traffic should be as slow as possible.
Of course they shouldn't, and roads should be designed with off-road parking for cars which both makes the road clearer and safer, and enables the cars to be charged at home which is good for the environment too.
30mph is my default speed I drive in 30mph zones. Perfectly practicable to do that here. Streets kids play out in absolutely should be slower, but that isn't the default everywhere. I wouldn't dream of doing 30 on our road, but the main road our estate is off is another matter, no houses lead onto that road, all the houses are on estates off it, so the road is only for cars not pedestrians, so why shouldn't it be a 30mph road?
Why shouldn't you do 30mph on your road? Isn't it your default speed? If your street hasn't been designed for 30mph then surely it should be demolished and rebuilt to ensure you can drive at 30.
You say "Perfectly practicable to do that [30mph] here." and "I wouldn't dream of doing 30 on our road" - which is it? Is your 30mph road perfectly practicable for 30mph or not?
If its not, they why is the speed limit 30mph?
Bart doesn't want anyone driving at 30mph past his house and his kids, but wants to be able to drive at 30mph everywhere else. And he has the gall to criticise NIMBYs?
No, I'm OK with a 20mph speed limit on residential roads, how many times do I need to say that?
I don't drive at 30mph on any residential estate.
Main through roads aren't residential estates though.
Unless you live in an LTN, all roads are through roads.
I live in a cul-de-sac that ends in water. There's 4 houses past us, with 5 cars between them.
As I said, there's a world of difference between a residential estate and a through road. Any time we've ever lived on a through road, I wouldn't dream of letting the kids play on the road, as its not safe. Its not safe at either 20mph or 30mph on a through road.
A residential estate is a completely different kettle of fish.
What about this road? https://maps.app.goo.gl/e9YN2SjgewKPC4FU6 It's a residential road. But it's also a through road, used as a rat run between the south circular and the A23 to avoid the lights at the junction.
20mph or 30mph?
30mph. Its a through road.
But 20mph if they block it off and turn it into an LTN?
Exactly. And if a new road is built to remove the through traffic, no reason not to do that. So build another road. 👍
Are through road residents half as resilient again as cul de sacers or is it just their own fault for choosing to live there, omelette and eggs and stuff?
Its where they've chosen to live. If they want to move, they should move.
And again, its not just the speed of traffic, its the volume of traffic. If hundreds of vehicles an hour go down your road then its not safe for kids to play on that road. If single digit vehicles a day go down your road, then it is.
Did you not notice the massive housing crisis?
How many people do you think have such riches that they have the freedom to choose not to live on a through road?
We should build more houses. I think I'm pretty clear on that.
And again if its a through road then its not safe to play football on it etc at either 20mph or 30mph, so its not the speed limit that is the issue.
Most of my kids lives we've lived on through roads. I never let them play on the road as a result. Our last house we rented was a through road, so we didn't let the kids play on the road and nor did any of our neighbours.
When we moved last year, that was the first time we let them play on the road, as its safe now. It wouldn't be safe even at 20mph for them on the other roads.
Of course 20mph on, say, the M25 would be a huge increase in average speed.
Seriously, that's why they often drop the speed limit to 40/50mph on motorways - reduces congestion, which in turn reduces collisions, which reduces congestion...
They occasionally do absolutely. But if the speed limit was 20mph on all motorways you would probably reduce deaths on motorways.
Or not even 20mph. What about 50mph on all motorways?
It's a balance! I wouldn't be surprised if they drop the speed limit on the A9 to 40mph for major junctions given the number of collisions.
What local Tory candidate is going to campaign for 30mph in their local area? Just comes across as weird.
Any sensible person should want 30mph as the default everywhere, not just their local area.
There's no good reason to drop it to 20. You've already said you can't pinpoint any area as high risk for fatalities, so there's no justification for dropping the limit.
Why 30mph as the default and not 40? Twenty is plenty for residential roads where all the parked cars, frequency of junctions, etc, means you need the reduced stopping distance to drive safely.
After 30 is when the risk escalates.
A speed limit of 30 means a 93.2% survival rate in the event of an accident, and accidents are rare anyway since stopping distances are short.
A speed limit of 40 means accidents are more likely (as the stopping distance increases) and doubles the fatality rate to 15.7%
30mph works. There simply isn't the justification to go beneath that.
Question - should roads be engineered to make 30mph impossible regardless of the speed limit? My old estate was legally 30mph but you couldn't drive at that speed due to the road layout deliberately slowing traffic.
Same with roads where the speed limit is 30mph but there are rows of terraced houses with cars parked outside on both sides and a single lane of traffic down the middle.
30mph is ludicrously fast on a whole load of roads. There's no way to practically enforce a 20mph limit other than by adding obstacles - bends, humps, parked cars.
Anyone who lives on a street where kids play out knows that traffic should be as slow as possible.
Of course they shouldn't, and roads should be designed with off-road parking for cars which both makes the road clearer and safer, and enables the cars to be charged at home which is good for the environment too.
30mph is my default speed I drive in 30mph zones. Perfectly practicable to do that here. Streets kids play out in absolutely should be slower, but that isn't the default everywhere. I wouldn't dream of doing 30 on our road, but the main road our estate is off is another matter, no houses lead onto that road, all the houses are on estates off it, so the road is only for cars not pedestrians, so why shouldn't it be a 30mph road?
Why shouldn't you do 30mph on your road? Isn't it your default speed? If your street hasn't been designed for 30mph then surely it should be demolished and rebuilt to ensure you can drive at 30.
You say "Perfectly practicable to do that [30mph] here." and "I wouldn't dream of doing 30 on our road" - which is it? Is your 30mph road perfectly practicable for 30mph or not?
If its not, they why is the speed limit 30mph?
Bart doesn't want anyone driving at 30mph past his house and his kids, but wants to be able to drive at 30mph everywhere else. And he has the gall to criticise NIMBYs?
No, I'm OK with a 20mph speed limit on residential roads, how many times do I need to say that?
I don't drive at 30mph on any residential estate.
Main through roads aren't residential estates though.
Unless you live in an LTN, all roads are through roads.
Cul de sacs ?
Culs de sac.
Housing estates built in the 1920s and 1930s are full of culs de sac and unnecessary tight traffic islands to calm traffic. Nothing new about LTNs whatsoever.
Comments
In the 1970s the odds of a pedestrian dying if they were hit by a car was 20% at 30mph and 80% at 40mph.
Those figures are still misleadingly used quite often in safety campaigns.
In the 2020s the odds of a pedestrian dying if they are hit by a car are 6.8% at 30mph and 15.7% at 40mph.
If anything, speed limits should be going up not down. A car travelling today at 40mph is safer for pedestrians than a car travelling at 30mph in the past.
It's one of the (many) things I dislike about urban driving.
That's why I've always like the 25mph urban limit. It pretty effectively keep the vast majority of traffic to no more than 30 mph, and is much less onerous to obey.
But I recognise this is a minority view which will get no traction.
Reuters: North Korean hackers breached Russian missile developer for months
Technical data reveals North Korean cyberespionage teams covertly accessed networks at NPO Mashinostroyeniya, a major missile developer, for months in 2021, Reuters reports
https://twitter.com/EuromaidanPress/status/1688815653426212869
So only a 4% difference between 20 and 30. Not remotely enough to justify dropping the speed limit universally, especially given very few accidents even happen at those speeds anyway, vast majority of accidents happen at much lower speeds at intersections anyway.
None of this is remotely justified.
20% at 30mph.
https://www.brake.org.uk/get-involved/take-action/mybrake/knowledge-centre/speed/speed-and-injury
The main place they will be used is supercharger stations.
The problem with using cars as grid storage is the owners seem to be very reluctant. This wasn’t helped by some idiots taking about making such systems non-voluntary for car owners.
Same with roads where the speed limit is 30mph but there are rows of terraced houses with cars parked outside on both sides and a single lane of traffic down the middle.
30mph is ludicrously fast on a whole load of roads. There's no way to practically enforce a 20mph limit other than by adding obstacles - bends, humps, parked cars.
Anyone who lives on a street where kids play out knows that traffic should be as slow as possible.
https://roadsafetygb.org.uk/news/think-speed-campaign-exaggerated-risks-1191/
This is the modern data.
A lot of people would have their driving licences cancelled if I was in charge.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/aug/08/britain-poor-people-leisure-victorian-workhouse
As the article suggests, I think the attitudes describe reflect a general feeling that times are difficult - that makes people willing to support a right to essential food and basic utilities, but not to any kind of frivolity. And there's a mean-spirited tendency to embrace any evidence that people on benefits are just ripping everyone off. Some will be, as in any group of people, but most are just trying to live a vaguely decent life in difficult circumstances - and sometimes they will define that as a visit to McDonalds or a cheese sandwich.
More generally, we should try to reach what we think is a fair society in terms of income, without attempting to have the state or society dictate what people do with that income. I'm in favour of a wealth tax and want Mr and Mrs Sunak to chip in a moderate proportion of their assets over time, but I don't care whether they spend their remaining cash on helicopters or Californian holidays. In the same way, if we decide that £X is a reasonable guaranteed income on benefits, it really is none of our business whether the poor spend that £X on one thing or another. We can argue what £X should be, and how far the State should ensure it, but perhaps we can agree on the principle that details of life preferences are *not* a business of the State.
And its a dramatic reduction in speed, a 33% reduction, not a small change.
No justification for it at all. Roads are safer than they ever have been, there is no reason or excuse for this change to happen.
And you are carefully omitting the injuries, incluyding life-altering ones.
Speed needs to be tret the same as drink driving or seat belts. You might not like the rule, but you need to obey for the good of everyone.
I hope that BR is talking about roads which have a faintly ridiculous 30mph limit on them. If so we would probably agree. But residential streets? Where the only traffic is people going to and from houses?
In that kind of environment a speed limit is irrelevant. Nobody will enforce it. Ever. No speeding tickets will be handed out. So it is about awareness and it is about driver standards.
This (https://goo.gl/maps/7injhivDaTs3SDag8) is a 30mph limit. You'd have to be an absolute lunatic to try and do 30mph here. And a few taxis and delivery drivers tried it. You can complain but the bosses ask if they were speeding. Despite 30mph being crazy.
That is why we need 20mph limits in residential areas. Not to enforce them legally. To change behaviours.
30mph is my default speed I drive in 30mph zones. Perfectly practicable to do that here. Streets kids play out in absolutely should be slower, but that isn't the default everywhere. I wouldn't dream of doing 30 on our road, but the main road our estate is off is another matter, no houses lead onto that road, all the houses are on estates off it, so the road is only for cars not pedestrians, so why shouldn't it be a 30mph road?
His 93% survival (ie 7% killed) is actually one number quoted (others are 95% or 97%) for pedestrian survival when hit at 20mph). The figure for pedestrian deaths in 30mph collisions is often quoted as closer to 20%.
There are various numbers around from different dates and eg the increase in SUV ownership causes an increase - poorer visibility for the driver, and more dangerous bodywork on the vehicle which impacts torso more than legs, for example. It's worth a note that USA 'Light Truck' SUVs are even more dangerous than European ones, since they are exempt from safety regulations (eg bumper height).
If I ask Google "how many pedestrians die at 20-mph accidents", it says:
at 35 mph there is a 50 percent chance they will be killed. at 30 mph there is a 20 percent chance they will be killed. at 20 mph there is a 2.5 percent chance they will be killed.
https://www.roadwise.co.uk/using-the-road/speeding/the-chance-of-a-pedestrian-surviving/
(But I'd say that page has been optimised to get that snippet)
The stopping distance at 30mph is 75 feet (5 car lengths); at 20mph it is 40 feet (<3 car lengths). The numbers speak for themselves.
The right have hardened the souls of a lot of impressionable people. Hair shirts for all - except me. That way I won't notice the billions stolen from us by Tory spivs because I am So Angry about these foreign scroungers getting an en-suite shower on their floating gulag.
*50% of the deaths at 35, not 50 percentage points.
They must be very confident that, regardless of whether the police/LA know who they are - which I suspect they do - they'll never be able to get enough evidence together for a successful prosecution. Or, if they do, it'll only be the small fry who get hit with a perfectly tolerable penalty dwarfed by the profit they'll make overall.
You say "Perfectly practicable to do that [30mph] here." and "I wouldn't dream of doing 30 on our road" - which is it? Is your 30mph road perfectly practicable for 30mph or not?
If its not, they why is the speed limit 30mph?
The odds of any individual vehicle or pedestrian being in an accident at that speed limit is already miniscule in the first place. Halving a miniscule chance, is a miniscule change too.
The Australian company set to buy failed battery start-up Britishvolt has missed the deadline to pay for it.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/other/britishvolt-factory-deal-in-doubt-after-buyer-recharge-misses-deadline-for-final-payment/ar-AA1eVeBE?ocid=entnewsntp&cvid=baf314ff68ab4aa1861c78c17dc209ff&ei=8
This is not looking like it is going to happen at all.
Not sure why nuance needs to die just because we now have social media.
I have no qualms with a 20mph speed limit for residential estates or school zones, I've said that all along.
Plus children have been driven off the road space by the huge rise in traffic.
And you are *still* deliberately ignoring the injury stats.
The entire purpose of motorways is to make higher speed traffic safer (and keeping other general road users safer) by keeping the 70-80mph crowd away from everyone else, including intersection conflict, oncoming traffic, and pedestrians. And to make it as safe as possible by reducing speed differential.
Essentially that's a higher speed version of the rationale for LTNs.
I tend to agree that people should be able to spend their money how they like.
But with the caveat that money can only be spent once and once it has been spent you can't start demanding more.
This applies not only to those on benefits but to those who have been using their homes as cash machines to pay for a lifestyle they would otherwise not been able to have.
Hence 20mph for residential, 30mph as default is eminently reasonable.
The push to make 20mph default even outside of residential is absurd though, there's no justification for it.
He's demanding that people drive at 30mph as its "perfectly practicable" but then that he wouldn't dream of driving at 30mph on *his* street - presumably because it isn't "perfectly practicable or likely physically possible.
This is precisely the point. Make residential streets as slow as possible by design. And if the design is old (a terraced street as an example) then slow traffic with obstacles or cut through traffic completely.
"I wouldn't dream of doing 30mph on my street" but demands that people do 30mph down someone else's street - like this one maybe? https://goo.gl/maps/kCV9E5xYDfXJrpcX8
30 MPH https://shorturl.at/duPRX - got done with a speed awareness course for being clocked at 35 on this one.
60 MPH https://shorturl.at/egmr9
I don't drive at 30mph on any residential estate.
Main through roads aren't residential estates though.
I'm not sure there's much to buy.
Or perhaps a different type of driving licence for them?.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pathhead,_Midlothian#/media/File:Pathhead,_Midlothian.jpg
Why should your kids be protected, and not the kids of people who live on a tight 1930s street like this https://goo.gl/maps/kCV9E5xYDfXJrpcX8
It isn't a through route - yes you could use it as such, but other bigger roads are close by. So would you accept a 20mph limit on such a street to protect someone else's kids?
Sorry but if you live on a through road, its not a residential estate. If you live on an estate, that's a different matter. Kids play football etc on residential estates, they don't on through roads, for bloody good reason. Its not just the speed limit, but the volume of traffic, there's a grand total of 5 people a day who might drive past my house. That many could drive down that road in two minutes.
The 20mph limit would come into force for all restricted roads.
These are defined as roads that have lampposts placed not more than 200 yards apart.
They are typically located in residential and built-up areas of high pedestrian activity.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-62134399
And, AIUI (not being Welsh and all that), there;s nothing stopping councils redesignating roads they think suitable as 30 mph roads again.
As I said, there's a world of difference between a residential estate and a through road. Any time we've ever lived on a through road, I wouldn't dream of letting the kids play on the road, as its not safe. Its not safe at either 20mph or 30mph on a through road.
A residential estate is a completely different kettle of fish.
20mph for your kids but not anyone else's if it inconveniences you.
https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/cars/article-10968909/New-EU-vehicles-fitted-speed-limiting-tech-6-July-Britain-follow-suit.html#:~:text=New EU rules will see,ISA
Seems a good plan
What extraordinary hypocrisy. You should demolish your garden and put a through road in.
Through roads have a volume of traffic that it is simple not safe for kids to play on the road, so yes 30mph is safe for those roads.
Estates do not. Kids play on those roads, so 20mph is better for those roads.
Volume of traffic is the bigger issue than the speed limit.
https://aaafoundation.org/impact-speed-pedestrians-risk-severe-injury-death/
We need 2022 UK numbers from UK Stats Authorities.
However, the figure for 20mph is not the correct one to use, since the usual habit for 20mph zones is to drive at 25mph or more - as normal road speed is based on what the road looks like, not the posted speed limit, plus the enforcement threshold for 20mph would be 24-25mph. That is shown by the Belfast study linked yesterday.
The monitoring report for trial areas in Wales already shows a significant average speed reduction in trial areas (3-4mph iirc), and a large uplift (+20% or so) in vehicles driving at <24mph), which safety benefit imo fully justifies the measures.
The politics will be interesting, as we can expect reports in Wales in March or September 2024, which will show safety improvements in Wales, whilst Rishi and his Motohoon Ministers will be publicly demonstrating that they don't give a damn for road safety if it gets them a few votes.
We also need redesign of road corridors to make the perceived safe speed the same as the actual safe speed, and measures such as the below to tip the road design process from prioritising capacity / speed towards safety. That part is a culture war.
https://maps.app.goo.gl/e9YN2SjgewKPC4FU6
It's a residential road. But it's also a through road, used as a rat run between the south circular and the A23 to avoid the lights at the junction.
20mph or 30mph?
It's stop the boats week yet 90% of posts here are about speed limits.
Election slogan for the Tories: "We'll stop the boats. Starmer just wants to stop the cars".
So I'm living exactly as I suggest.
Sounds like it should be ITV's regional news programme for London.
https://maps.app.goo.gl/zYJGj2hZewW5ZbGN7
20mph or 30mph?
I would never do that under normal traffic conditions.
Why would you need to block off one end of the road to not do 30mph along it?
Didn't think you were a loathsome rat-runner too.
Not a through road https://goo.gl/maps/9UW1WW9bDuwfVXkY9
Through road https://goo.gl/maps/dMEShmbDmj6aKCzn8
What about where the estate is 1930s? This is a through road - 30mph for you? https://goo.gl/maps/fPXXsgxANRi15CX78 Or this one https://goo.gl/maps/7QZWK2JFadeCsz4t7
And again, its not just the speed of traffic, its the volume of traffic. If hundreds of vehicles an hour go down your road then its not safe for kids to play on that road. If single digit vehicles a day go down your road, then it is.
If its not being used for through traffic, then 20 is plenty.
If it is, then 30.
Is that rocket science?
The point is there's no need for it to be one size fits all.
But Aberystwyth, Tywyn, Bala, Blaenau Ffestiniog, Corwen, Llangollen, Penrhyndeudraeth, Denbigh, can go whistle for anything similar because Drakeford has said 'no new roads.'*
He's doing this instead because ultimately he only wants to reduce traffic, without putting the necessary investment into public transport (in Wales it would have to be railways for various reasons) to make that feasible.
Which is pretty unfair on the people who live in those areas.
*I'm not sure whether that list should include Merthyr, which was due to be bypassed as the last link between the A470 and the Heads of the Valleys. I think work had started so it was exempted. This of course has nothing to do with Merthyr voting Labour.
How many people do you think have such riches that they have the freedom to choose not to live on a through road?
You can explain to each community why their kids are less important than drivers shaving a couple of minutes off their 2 mile commute.
And again if its a through road then its not safe to play football on it etc at either 20mph or 30mph, so its not the speed limit that is the issue.
Most of my kids lives we've lived on through roads. I never let them play on the road as a result. Our last house we rented was a through road, so we didn't let the kids play on the road and nor did any of our neighbours.
When we moved last year, that was the first time we let them play on the road, as its safe now. It wouldn't be safe even at 20mph for them on the other roads.
Consider eg Worcester Park, Sutton, Surrey. Part of commuter-land built with railway expansion.