“In response to KB - I agree with you totally. I feel we need more Police policing the roads and dealing with the idiots. As I often say on these messages we need education backed up with enforcement, not signposts which allow a false sense of security should the number on them be kept to.

Rod I hear you but along with an increase in numbers of cars has been an increase in road numbers and conditions. Car technology in brakes, chassis design and tyre design has improved safety massively. I don't think a comparison with the early 20th century is a fair measure. Even the stopping distances in the Highway Code don't take into account any advance in technology since the drum brake. We're now past plain old discs and into ABS, EBD, ASC and all the other gizmos, not to mention the new automatic collision avoidance systems. The danger here is that these take even more control away from the driver leading to yet less thought being needed. Drivers gradually become passengers...

Saying "20 is plenty" is a dangerous over simplification as I have mentioned in other posts. 10mph may be too much sometimes, 30 may be totally safe at others. People still need to be taught how to adjust their progress for the conditions.

Over all I do agree things need to be done, but I'm not a fan of blanket legislation. :)”

“Nice to see a little sanity coming to transport thinking.

The 30 mph default speed limit was set in 1934 when there were 2m motor vehicles on the roads. It was done so to protect pedestrians and cyclists.

Now we have 33 million motor vehicles on the road. Do we really think that it is justifiable that we should not reduce that default speed to take account of the far greater frequency and complexity of motorised traffic.

To those who say that some roads can only be driven at 20 mph then surely that is a good justification for making that the maximum.

Whilst travelling at a steady 20 mph may just produce a few more emissions than at a constant 30 mph, a 20 mph maximum speed produces far less acceleration than a 30 mph limit where cars are constantly varying their speed between 10 and 30 mph, hence lower emissions.

Average speeds are more dictated by time stopped than maximum speed of vehicles.

The time has come for people to take a civilised attitude to the way the roads are shared. A fact endorsed by 70% of motorists asked about 20 mph for residential roads. Those who argue otherwise are in a minority.

So well done Bristol for debating this subject.

Best regards

Rod King
20's Plenty For Us”

“"but people need to use appropriate speed". Pete, unfortunately, there are too many idiots who shouldn't be allowed to drive sheep let alone a motor vehicle. If, for example, a motorist can't be bothered to clear their screen/windows of ice (as witnessed several times this morning), how can they be trusted to use appropriate speeds?”

“Steve, Bristol..

Nah, cyclists wouldn't get a speeding ticket.

Rather strangely cyclists aren't covered by normal road speed limits and as such face no action for breaking them.

There are a few places that set speed limits specifically for cyclists (mosts of the parks in London for example) by the use of local byelaws.

Of course whilst you may not be done for speeding the law can punish you for offences such as endagerment, reckless riding, and a host of others.”

“Most people drive according to road conditions and the perceived risk to themselves and others. No driver wants to run people down though there are a fair few sociopathic idiots who treat roads like race tracks.

For myself, and most other motorists I see driving in built up areas, I doubt a 20mph limit would make a difference. If it's heavily built up, I drive at around 20mph anyway - and see most other motorists doing the same.

If I was to put up my hand to one measure I think would make a practical difference, it would be to ask for more police patrol cars. Over-reliance on cameras to curb speeding has cost us the capacity (in my opinion) to police inconsiderate and even dangerous driving.

I'm not surprised this idea for a strict limit has come from a Labour ppc - as though there's someing wrong with relying on common sense and a bit of sensible public education. Every time I hear a Labour politician spout on about how some new bit of social engineering will require yet more legislation with ever stricter enforcement, I just want to click my heels, thrust an arm out in salute, and hold a finger across my top lip. After all, with over 3,000 new criminal offences created by this bunch what's one or two more eh?”

“Spot on, Groucho..”

“...Would people instead stop making out that roads are places to play and socialise. They're not, they're for traffic. ...

A very sad comment.

It's not strictly true either, because if it was many householders in my area wouldn't be able to leave their homes! And the road outside is a main A class road. Your comment reflects how we've lost the sense of community life resulting from the car culture. We must remember that people were walking on the roads for millennia before the first car coughed into life. My earlier comment about roads in residential areas in the Netherlands shows what can be done with the right attitude and a desire to make the areas where we live more like communities where people can walk and meet and talk and all the other things that make up a such a thing. Please don't make out that this is an anti-car statement - I'm not interested in taking part in the ongoing car/bike/pedestrian wars that go on in these comment columns - I'm not a cyclist anyway. I just believe that we need to have more control over unfettered car use. We all have a right to walk on the roads but we have to buy a licence to use a car there. The car is a guest on the public highway and car drivers (like me - my family run 2 vehicles) should behave like a guest on someone else's property. The vehicle taxes we drivers pay doesn't give us right of ownership on the roads; they're "public estate" paid for out of all our taxes.

Don't forget we are talking about residential streets here, not the main thoroughfares. Surely it can't be that hard to give precedence to people in such streets? We've got all the other main roads, trunk roads and motorways where we have more priority.

In a sentence: people first, machines second. Not difficult is it?”

“"Can people who propose running down cyclists and pedestrians please stop it. Someone is in hospital today after a range rover ran her and her bike over, and its not funny."

In a word - No.

This morning's incident has no bearing on this thread as it was out of town and more than likely a slippery road incident.

Would people instead stop making out that roads are places to play and socialise. They're not, they're for traffic. People belong on pavements and should cross safely.

Teach the basics. Oh and as I said before the 20mph zone I live in is utterly futile.

People need to stop blaming cars for everything and take a little responsibility.

30mph limits are fine, but people need to use appropriate speed for eh conditions. Oh hang on, that means thinking and it's much easier just to stick a 20 on a sigh than make people use their brains.”

“No.

Enforce the 30mph limit on main roads so that 30 means 30.

By all means 20mph outside schools, nurseries, hospitals etc.

On main arterial routes like Whiteladies, Stapleton Rds etc you can't drive faster than 20 most of the day anyway - but just imagine finishing a shift late at night and driving home through the largely deserted streets at 20mph - how frustrating would that be!

Most cyclists going downhill would break a 20mph limit anyway - should we get speed tickets too (yes, I'm both a cyclist and a motorist)?

I'm afraid that this is simply soundbite politics by a Prospective Parliamentary Candidate.”

“-labour held it from 1997 for two elections; lost after iraq. The boundaries have changed since then.

-Can people who propose running down cyclists and pedestrians please stop it. Someone is in hospital today after a range rover ran her and her bike over, and its not funny.”