Plans for 20mph speed limits "could increase casualties" say campaigners

“It is quite likely that blanket 20 mph limits will be safety-negative in Bristol as they have been in Portsmouth, not safety-positive as claimed. There are many reasons for this.
1) Speed limits have very little effect on most drivers unless the enforcement is 24/7, so artificially low limits tend to increase speed variance, conflicts between vehicles, unwise passing, tailgating, lane changes, aggressive driving, and occasionally even road rage.
2) Some drivers will divert from more main roads where enforcement for revenue is more likely, using smaller and lesser routes that are inherently more risky for having accidents.
3) It is quite difficult to stay at 18-20 mph in modern cars that are high-geared for highway fuel economy, and it will take a lot of time-diversion looking at the speedometer, rather than watching the road, in order to avoid expensive citations.
4) It will give a very false sense of security to many pedestrians and cyclists who will falsely believe that most traffic is coming at about 20 mph, rather than the reality that most will still be coming at about 30 mph. Many pedestrians and cyclists are likely to pay less attention to approaching traffic and thus take more dangerous chances in traffic. When vehicles encounter pedestrians or cyclists at any speed, the score is usually vehicle 1, pedestrian or cyclist 0.

Now add one point not mentioned so far. Areas that make it more difficult and/or more dangerous to drive with artificially low speed limits, and those areas which give drivers more risks for expensive citations, are less likely to draw those drivers to spend their money. Local businesses in Bristol are quite likely to lose custom from some drivers who will go elsewhere to spend their hard earned money. They may well change shopping and entertainment areas to seek out places that are more comfortable to drive and which do not seek to fine them for the "dastardly crime" of driving safely for the conditions.

James C. Walker, National Motorists Association (US equivalent of the ABD), Ann Arbor, Michigan USA (frequent visitor to Britain to see family in West Yorkshire)”

“Sounds to me that it is "another" scheme similar to having speed cameras whcih were so say brought in to cut speed and save lives, instead number of accidents went up and the government pocketed money off the back of the cameras. Eventually they admited this and most cameras now are turned off and those areas have seen a drop in accidents.

I'm sure there will be more accidents dropping a speed limit down to 20mph as to make sure you are going under that you will have to take your eye off the road to check you are doing under that as most cars will want to go faster that why all cars can quite easierly go over 10mph with no trouble yet the max speed limit is 70mph on any road or motorway.

Technology on cars now compared to when speed limits were first brought in has massively increased which includes safety, unfortunately there are far too many drivers on the road that shouldnt, too many young drivers who dont have a care in the world and too many older people who due to age have not got the reaction speeds and sight they once did.

I'd rather see the £2m+ being used in schools to teach about road safety as I'm sure this would be a more positive step.

Also makes you think how many Nurses or Police officers could this money buy a year?”

“A small theoretical decrease in casualties will easily be wiped out by a greater number of incidents as people grow increasingly heedless of the dangers of traffic.
It's not rocket science.”

“Half a ton of metal doing 20 mph isn't 'slowly'. The sarky spokesman misses the point. The accidents happen because the driver is more worried about a number on a pole & tickets instead of driving to the conditions and would've probably have selected a slower speed for the conditions. The police would prefer drivers driving to conditions instead of a needle and number.”

“Counting accidents is nonsense, what is important is the outcome of the accident - was anyone hurt? If so how serious was it? If the number of accidents stays the same or even goes up but the number of people needing to go to hospital goes down (as is likely if average speeds are reduced) then that would be a worthwhile result.

Also if more people are encouraged to walk or cycle then that is a benefit to those who 'have' to drive. Each cyclist, walker or bus passenger going into Bristol is one less car on the road and one less car parking space taken.

In any case it is now out of the Councillor's hands, the scheduled Cabinet meeting for Thurs was cancelled because we are now in the 'purdah' period before the election. All key decisions will now be taken by the Mayor once he or she is elected.”

“Congratulations,

it would appear that all three members of ABD have used all their pseudonyms to post on this thread, and to support all their own posts.

Such a lot of effort to such little effect.

Hope you find something useful to do soon.”

“Unless strictly enforced (at further expense) It will be widely ignored, driving at 20mph is a complete chore as very few cars have gear ratios designed for it. You'll either be high revving in 2nd or stuttering along in 3rd, either way its bad for the drivers concentration.

Bad for fuel economy too, so thats more expense and increased pollution. Then again, with the rate that all these anti-car polices are being implemented it won't be long till cars are banned from the centre altogether.”

“OK, so now that's now 3 motoring bodies (the big names) that I can think of off the top of my head that are against the blanket residential roll out of 20mph speed limits...
1. Department of Transport
2. The AA
3. The Association of British Drivers
Add to this the following:
* The police are not keen on it.
* Accidents in 20mph zones are on the rise - http://tinyurl.com/9hjsy8n
* The trial zones only showed an average drop in speed by only 1.4mph!
* There will undoubtedly be more Pollution as a result of journeys taking longer
* Portsmouth was the first major city to introduce a blanket residential 20mph speed limit. Since this was introduced, accidents have not gone down..... on the contrary they increased, hugely. Needless to say Portsmouth are now reviewing the 20mph limit altogether.
* Speed is 9th in the list of ten most likely causes of an accident.

Taking all the above into account – Why on earth are the council introducing this limit at a cost of over £2m???? Also, at a time when the council need to actually makes spending cuts!!

Because some extra people have chosen to walk and/or cycle??? If I want to go for a walk or cycle I don't sit down and examine the speed limit of my route before heading out!! I just go ahead and press on, like I've been doing for over 30 years!!

Fact is – there is no sensible, justifiable, and factual (for reducing casualty's) reason for the council to introduce this limit.
They are just wasting more of our money (as usual), ignoring everyone, ignoring common sense, ignoring reports (apart from their own tailored ones), ignoring the facts and ignoring the motoring bodies.

Liberal Democrats = Ignorant twerps.”

“For me the jury is still out on 20mph areas as there is not enough evidence of how they work in various types of area. However, based purely on observation in the North St area there is a potential problem where they hold up traffic flow.

As bs3vale points out, in the Duckmoor Rd area the limit is frequently ignored and North St is the same. This could be because drivers are ignoring the limit, are coming off 30mph roads at either end of North St or have not seen the signs and don't know the area. As drivers become held up by other drivers who are obeying the limits or just emerging from side roads 'vehicle bunching' occurs. Most of the time this is not a great problem but at peak commute times the potential for accidents has increased because...

At the lower end of North St there is a zebra crossing at Merrywood Rd and the next zebra crossing is ~700 metres further up the road at the junction of Luckwell Rd with a traffic island roughly 400 metres from Merrywood Rd near South St. As a result, pedestrians trying to cross North St at any point between these are having to dash between vehicles that are bunched together. For some reason, perhaps because of the position of crossings, filters into North St the bunched together vehicles frequently seem to be staggered so that heavier traffic comes from one direction then when there is a pause it comes from the opposite direction.

As someone who uses North St on a daily basis I have seen more near misses where frustrated pedestrians have tried to dodge between cars since the limit was imposed than in the previous ten years. I don't know what casualty figures are like for the area but if the traffic flow problem forces people to take risks then it is only a matter of time before someone is hit. As an aside there was an accident between vehicles at the junction of Melville Terrace and North St last week, whether or not this was caused by traffic flow problems I don't know.

So, is the 20mph limit a good thing or not in terms of preventing casualties and making things better for pedestrians? On narrower residential roads possibly but on roads with increased traffic flow where it hinders the free flow maybe not. In the case of North St a better option for promoting pedestrian safety might have been an extra zebra crossing as a number of residents have called for over the years.”

“@Green_man - "But if bringing in 20mph limits increases casulaties - because driving more slowly is more dangerous - why would they increase in one area but decrease in another?"


That's what referred to as "inconclusive results". It indicates that either the council's hypothesis is wrong or that more testing is required.

It does definitely indicate that the council SHOULD NOT spend £2.4 million on another vanity project with such dubious test data, but that has never stopped the council in the past!”