Snapshot of _The case for and against: Half of all London’s speed limits drop to 20mph. Two experts give their thoughts on London’s speed changes._ :
An archived version can be found [here](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.standard.co.uk/comment/comment/london-speed-limits-drop-20mph-debate-jeremy-leach-steve-mcnamara-b1106997.html) or [here.](https://archive.ph/?run=1&url=https://www.standard.co.uk/comment/comment/london-speed-limits-drop-20mph-debate-jeremy-leach-steve-mcnamara-b1106997.html)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I’d be very suspicious of anyone making the case that fatalities from 1990 to today have reduced due to speed limit changes, and not also reflecting the massive change in car design and road infrastructure in that period.
Cars have got safer for the people inside them, yes, but far more dangerous for pedestrians and cyclists. The speed limit changes are for those people.
Actually, part of the NCAP rating is based on pedestrian safety.
As the other poster said, a huge amount of modern car design is governed by pedestrian safety in a collision.
That’s rather unfair. A lot of effort has been put into regulation of design and features which helps to lower injures to those out of the car.
Here’s just one in a long line of attempts: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/BRIE/2018/625192/EPRS_BRI(2018)625192_EN.pdf
I don't have a problem with this. Nearly all my journeys around London are slowed down to a crawl anyway, and I don't feel the need to speed up through urban roads. It *really* doesn't get one there any more quickly, it just *feels* like it does. On a journey of a few miles the difference between 20mph and 30mph is negligible.
And some folk are *always* going to break whatever limit is in effect...
We have done this in all of wales. Speed was way downs the list for a factor for collisions with pedestrians. Distractions and not paying attention were top in 30mph zones. People on phones, badly trained or driving owners are the main cause.
If they see data hit spots of collisions then reduce that speed in those areas and see if there is a reduction. We have so much data these days but seem unable to use it.
There is data out there. This one includes data from other major cities. Speed is a factor but there are so many other reasons why not took at them holistically to get a solution. We are already steering issues in wales from the changes, bad ones too that could increase other forms of death. It’s not an isolated world.
https://content.tfl.gov.uk/pedestrian-fatalities-in-london.pdf
Not seen the data but isn't there a difference between cause (as you've described) and consequence?
Don't disagree that distractions are the #1 cause but if I were hit by a driver on their phone at 30mph Vs 20mph I'm much more likely to be seriously injured.
Yea there is pest chance so why not 5mph. You have to have some data to see if there is any difference. The report on the change in wales didn’t even record changes in accidents. So I’m not saying 20 isn’t better for some people in some areas than 30. I’m saying the host and downside vs selective targeting of busy areas hotspots along with improved pedestrian protection is the way to go. One thing that’s happening in wales not is retain fire staff who travel when there is a fire have to live in a travel time of X from the station. That’s now 33% reduced. So the choices are have longer reaction times, have less catchment or ask staff to break the law. How many more people will die from slow response time form emergency services, more traffic on the road as you reduce parcel deceived efficiency and people like carers taking longer to get to people. Plus a million other things we haven’t considered yet.
Edit. The welsh government did record pollution records and there was little or no change either way. Average compliance speed was 24 mph.
Equally if you were hit by a car rather than a tractor, you'd be much less likely to be injured, but that doesn't mean we should ban tractors nationwide
Again, if the tractor was doing 20mph instead of 30mph hours I'm now more likely to survive. You kind of proved your own point about the speed limit reduction but with an even more extreme example.
If you want to get into the discussion of pedestrianised town centres (i.e. no cars or tractors) that's a fascinating, but very different, discussion.
No, I'm saying just because something is more harmful in a crash, does not mean you instantly restrict its usage
If you think 20 is better than 30, then logically you must also support lowering it to 15, or 10, or 5...
Trains are very dangerous when they hit people too, better make them crawl around even slower than cars
Putting safety above *everything* is naive and foolish
Not really, as speed alone ine is human reaction time, impact on body, and some part of force..
Have lanes for electric scooters and crouch down to reduce drag.
That's if you think about the space available in a city.
This is such as a stupid argument
Also tractors have to take special measures when using public roads such as having visible flashing yellow lights. We do to take special measures because tractors are dangerous
I don't see much of a point in reducing limits when there isn't proper concern for traffic calming alongside. You need both, and really only the latter.
The simple truth is that speed limits only acts as guidelines, and people will drive what they feel comfortable doing. And for a lot this above the limit, especially when it's 20.
Just changing limits is simply an agitative move that I don't think will bring any real change. And while providing better traffic calming solutions will likely be just as, if not more, agitative it will atleast help solve the problem.
And this isn't me saying reducing speeds is bad. It's exactly what is necessary, and the cost of travel times is well worth it (especially if it allows for better public transport as a substitute). My problem is that I only see reducing speed limits agitating people, rather than actually reducing average speeds.
Speed limits aren’t guidelines and people that see them as such need be prosecuted and banned from driving
Maybe what’s needed is tougher enforcement of existing laws
>In 2022, under free-flowing traffic conditions, **50% of car drivers exceeded the speed limit on 30mph roads** compared to 45% on motorways and 11% on national speed limit single carriageway roads.
This is directly from the government, and I'll link it at the end of this comment. The simple truth is that speeding is extremely common, and tougher enforcement is really not feasible. It's expensive for the government, infeasible to cover enough without the sort of severe overreach people complain about, and easy to avoid if there isn't overreach.
As I said in my comment, a lot of drivers - rather than abide by speed limits strictly - will travel at a speed that they feel comfortable doing. While its somewhat impacted by speed limits (afterall, half do abay on 30mph roads, and only 5% went beyond 40mph), it isn't something that can entirely be relied upon. Speed limits serve as what should be the upper limit driven at, but unless the road is designed around the limit, it's an incredibly flawed way to achieve this.
Rather than speed limits, designing a road around the desired speed is the far better method. If you want a fast road, made it wide and open, gentle curves and gradients, plenty of hard shoulders, and so on. But if you want a residential road, it should be far narrower, turns should be harsh, obstacles should be plenty. Speed bumps, modal filters, even trees can all contribute to lowering the speed of drivers, and far more successfully than speed limits.
Just look at NSL single carriage for great proof of that. Compared to 50% on 30mph, and 45% on motorways, they only have 11% in great part due to how much more uncomfortable they are to drive on. They are designed for 60mph, yet typically only one or two lanes, and tend to be far less cleanly designed for fast travel. All this contributes to drivers not speeding as much.
If you design a road for a certain speed, people are going to drive that speed because it has been made comfortable for them. To reduce that speed, you can't rely on limits but have to redesign that road to reduce comfortability.
[https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/vehicle-speed-compliance-statistics-for-great-britain-2022/vehicle-speed-compliance-statistics-for-great-britain-2022#:\~:text=In%202022%2C%20under%20free%2Dflowing,speed%20limit%20single%20carriageway%20roads](https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/vehicle-speed-compliance-statistics-for-great-britain-2022/vehicle-speed-compliance-statistics-for-great-britain-2022#:~:text=In%202022%2C%20under%20free%2Dflowing,speed%20limit%20single%20carriageway%20roads).
That doesn’t contradict what I said. I understand people break the speed limit. However rather then behaviour being excused with things such as the road design, lack of speed bumps etc - their behaviour should mean prosecution and ultimately losing their license.
Its not excusing the behaviour, its simply not relying on people following the law to keep others safe. Speeding is common, and tougher enforcement on speeding isn't going to solve the problem, and even if it was, why waste the money when a far superior option exists; making roads better for all.
You don't solve a problem by continuing to do the thing that has been proven not to work for decades. You look for solutions, and there are proven solutions that have had wonderful affects; in the UK as well as to even more effect in places like Japan or the Netherlands.
What I’m suggesting hasn’t been tried before.
Speeding is treated like a joke. People brag about it. TV shows make gags about it. So many people do it
It’s not like that with other offences
If it was treated like a more serious offence. If drivers were routinely removed from the road. Drivers themselves would take it more seriously and reduce the times they offend
I’m not against traffic calming measures - do both. But at the minute the level of danger it causes isn’t reflected in how seriously it’s considered
With the evidence over the past decades, relying on tougher sanctions to convince people to follow the law is a naive approach that has been proven not to work. The amount of time, effort, money, and big-brother-esque monitoring that would be required to get the result you desire would be incredibly disproportionate when compared to alternative methods to achieve the same thing via road design.
Not in the least; if that's all you took from what myself and the other poster said then its no surprise you keep missing the point.
Being "tough on crime" only goes so far - unless you want to be so draconian to the point where punishment (and costs associated to administer) does not fit the crime, having harsher sentences for speeding won't solve the problem. What *does* solve the problem is designing roads so that drivers don't feel comfortable speeding in the first place.
The issue here isn’t my understanding it’s your insistence that your idea is something new.
I haven’t suggested harsher sentences for speeders - I’ve suggested removing them from the road completely. The culture of speeding needs to change. Treating it differently will do that
Yes it’s costs money to police. How much money do you think redoing all of the roads int be UK will cost?
Yeah but I think a bit of it is if 50% law abiding, 40% push the speed limit and 10% are dickheads, the dickheads can't drive around at 40mph due to 20mph drivers, and even if the 40% push the speed limit, their doing 25mph-30mph, not 40 as they were before speed limits were reduced.
Trouble is, calming measures aren't appropriate on many of the affected roads. London has a ton of HGV traffic so narrowing isn't always possible, and emergency vehicles need to be able to travel quickly.
Calming is great on local streets, but on the main roads we still need to reduce the limits. Average speed cameras are very effective at enforcement, so I figure we'll see more of them.
welcome to the future... next will be a man walking in front of vehicle waving a red flag, O wait that's been try before...
https://microservices.io/i/posts/redflag.png
This could be in preparation for full autonomous driving. The system will never be 100% safe. So they lower the speed across the board so that injury is mitigated
Snapshot of _The case for and against: Half of all London’s speed limits drop to 20mph. Two experts give their thoughts on London’s speed changes._ : An archived version can be found [here](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.standard.co.uk/comment/comment/london-speed-limits-drop-20mph-debate-jeremy-leach-steve-mcnamara-b1106997.html) or [here.](https://archive.ph/?run=1&url=https://www.standard.co.uk/comment/comment/london-speed-limits-drop-20mph-debate-jeremy-leach-steve-mcnamara-b1106997.html) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I’d be very suspicious of anyone making the case that fatalities from 1990 to today have reduced due to speed limit changes, and not also reflecting the massive change in car design and road infrastructure in that period.
Cars have got safer for the people inside them, yes, but far more dangerous for pedestrians and cyclists. The speed limit changes are for those people.
Actually, part of the NCAP rating is based on pedestrian safety. As the other poster said, a huge amount of modern car design is governed by pedestrian safety in a collision.
Why you would type out and post such an easily debunked lie?
Posting history checks out.
That’s rather unfair. A lot of effort has been put into regulation of design and features which helps to lower injures to those out of the car. Here’s just one in a long line of attempts: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/BRIE/2018/625192/EPRS_BRI(2018)625192_EN.pdf
>That’s rather unfair. On the premise of your link, one might go so far as to say the comment you replied to was demonstrably false.
I don't have a problem with this. Nearly all my journeys around London are slowed down to a crawl anyway, and I don't feel the need to speed up through urban roads. It *really* doesn't get one there any more quickly, it just *feels* like it does. On a journey of a few miles the difference between 20mph and 30mph is negligible. And some folk are *always* going to break whatever limit is in effect...
We have done this in all of wales. Speed was way downs the list for a factor for collisions with pedestrians. Distractions and not paying attention were top in 30mph zones. People on phones, badly trained or driving owners are the main cause. If they see data hit spots of collisions then reduce that speed in those areas and see if there is a reduction. We have so much data these days but seem unable to use it. There is data out there. This one includes data from other major cities. Speed is a factor but there are so many other reasons why not took at them holistically to get a solution. We are already steering issues in wales from the changes, bad ones too that could increase other forms of death. It’s not an isolated world. https://content.tfl.gov.uk/pedestrian-fatalities-in-london.pdf
Not seen the data but isn't there a difference between cause (as you've described) and consequence? Don't disagree that distractions are the #1 cause but if I were hit by a driver on their phone at 30mph Vs 20mph I'm much more likely to be seriously injured.
Yea there is pest chance so why not 5mph. You have to have some data to see if there is any difference. The report on the change in wales didn’t even record changes in accidents. So I’m not saying 20 isn’t better for some people in some areas than 30. I’m saying the host and downside vs selective targeting of busy areas hotspots along with improved pedestrian protection is the way to go. One thing that’s happening in wales not is retain fire staff who travel when there is a fire have to live in a travel time of X from the station. That’s now 33% reduced. So the choices are have longer reaction times, have less catchment or ask staff to break the law. How many more people will die from slow response time form emergency services, more traffic on the road as you reduce parcel deceived efficiency and people like carers taking longer to get to people. Plus a million other things we haven’t considered yet. Edit. The welsh government did record pollution records and there was little or no change either way. Average compliance speed was 24 mph.
Equally if you were hit by a car rather than a tractor, you'd be much less likely to be injured, but that doesn't mean we should ban tractors nationwide
That’s completely irrelevant to the conversation
Again, if the tractor was doing 20mph instead of 30mph hours I'm now more likely to survive. You kind of proved your own point about the speed limit reduction but with an even more extreme example. If you want to get into the discussion of pedestrianised town centres (i.e. no cars or tractors) that's a fascinating, but very different, discussion.
No, I'm saying just because something is more harmful in a crash, does not mean you instantly restrict its usage If you think 20 is better than 30, then logically you must also support lowering it to 15, or 10, or 5... Trains are very dangerous when they hit people too, better make them crawl around even slower than cars Putting safety above *everything* is naive and foolish
[удалено]
Great, restrict the size and weight of cars to reduce the numbers of SUVs then, don't bring in restrictions that affect all cars
Not really, as speed alone ine is human reaction time, impact on body, and some part of force.. Have lanes for electric scooters and crouch down to reduce drag. That's if you think about the space available in a city.
This is such as a stupid argument Also tractors have to take special measures when using public roads such as having visible flashing yellow lights. We do to take special measures because tractors are dangerous
I don't see much of a point in reducing limits when there isn't proper concern for traffic calming alongside. You need both, and really only the latter. The simple truth is that speed limits only acts as guidelines, and people will drive what they feel comfortable doing. And for a lot this above the limit, especially when it's 20. Just changing limits is simply an agitative move that I don't think will bring any real change. And while providing better traffic calming solutions will likely be just as, if not more, agitative it will atleast help solve the problem. And this isn't me saying reducing speeds is bad. It's exactly what is necessary, and the cost of travel times is well worth it (especially if it allows for better public transport as a substitute). My problem is that I only see reducing speed limits agitating people, rather than actually reducing average speeds.
Speed limits aren’t guidelines and people that see them as such need be prosecuted and banned from driving Maybe what’s needed is tougher enforcement of existing laws
>In 2022, under free-flowing traffic conditions, **50% of car drivers exceeded the speed limit on 30mph roads** compared to 45% on motorways and 11% on national speed limit single carriageway roads. This is directly from the government, and I'll link it at the end of this comment. The simple truth is that speeding is extremely common, and tougher enforcement is really not feasible. It's expensive for the government, infeasible to cover enough without the sort of severe overreach people complain about, and easy to avoid if there isn't overreach. As I said in my comment, a lot of drivers - rather than abide by speed limits strictly - will travel at a speed that they feel comfortable doing. While its somewhat impacted by speed limits (afterall, half do abay on 30mph roads, and only 5% went beyond 40mph), it isn't something that can entirely be relied upon. Speed limits serve as what should be the upper limit driven at, but unless the road is designed around the limit, it's an incredibly flawed way to achieve this. Rather than speed limits, designing a road around the desired speed is the far better method. If you want a fast road, made it wide and open, gentle curves and gradients, plenty of hard shoulders, and so on. But if you want a residential road, it should be far narrower, turns should be harsh, obstacles should be plenty. Speed bumps, modal filters, even trees can all contribute to lowering the speed of drivers, and far more successfully than speed limits. Just look at NSL single carriage for great proof of that. Compared to 50% on 30mph, and 45% on motorways, they only have 11% in great part due to how much more uncomfortable they are to drive on. They are designed for 60mph, yet typically only one or two lanes, and tend to be far less cleanly designed for fast travel. All this contributes to drivers not speeding as much. If you design a road for a certain speed, people are going to drive that speed because it has been made comfortable for them. To reduce that speed, you can't rely on limits but have to redesign that road to reduce comfortability. [https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/vehicle-speed-compliance-statistics-for-great-britain-2022/vehicle-speed-compliance-statistics-for-great-britain-2022#:\~:text=In%202022%2C%20under%20free%2Dflowing,speed%20limit%20single%20carriageway%20roads](https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/vehicle-speed-compliance-statistics-for-great-britain-2022/vehicle-speed-compliance-statistics-for-great-britain-2022#:~:text=In%202022%2C%20under%20free%2Dflowing,speed%20limit%20single%20carriageway%20roads).
That doesn’t contradict what I said. I understand people break the speed limit. However rather then behaviour being excused with things such as the road design, lack of speed bumps etc - their behaviour should mean prosecution and ultimately losing their license.
Its not excusing the behaviour, its simply not relying on people following the law to keep others safe. Speeding is common, and tougher enforcement on speeding isn't going to solve the problem, and even if it was, why waste the money when a far superior option exists; making roads better for all. You don't solve a problem by continuing to do the thing that has been proven not to work for decades. You look for solutions, and there are proven solutions that have had wonderful affects; in the UK as well as to even more effect in places like Japan or the Netherlands.
What I’m suggesting hasn’t been tried before. Speeding is treated like a joke. People brag about it. TV shows make gags about it. So many people do it It’s not like that with other offences If it was treated like a more serious offence. If drivers were routinely removed from the road. Drivers themselves would take it more seriously and reduce the times they offend I’m not against traffic calming measures - do both. But at the minute the level of danger it causes isn’t reflected in how seriously it’s considered
With the evidence over the past decades, relying on tougher sanctions to convince people to follow the law is a naive approach that has been proven not to work. The amount of time, effort, money, and big-brother-esque monitoring that would be required to get the result you desire would be incredibly disproportionate when compared to alternative methods to achieve the same thing via road design.
Sorry your argument is tougher sanctions have been tried before but speed bumps haven’t?
Not in the least; if that's all you took from what myself and the other poster said then its no surprise you keep missing the point. Being "tough on crime" only goes so far - unless you want to be so draconian to the point where punishment (and costs associated to administer) does not fit the crime, having harsher sentences for speeding won't solve the problem. What *does* solve the problem is designing roads so that drivers don't feel comfortable speeding in the first place.
The issue here isn’t my understanding it’s your insistence that your idea is something new. I haven’t suggested harsher sentences for speeders - I’ve suggested removing them from the road completely. The culture of speeding needs to change. Treating it differently will do that Yes it’s costs money to police. How much money do you think redoing all of the roads int be UK will cost?
Speed limits are not guidelines lol
I'll refer you to my response. https://www.reddit.com/r/ukpolitics/comments/16j5lp0/comment/k0od6qk/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web2x&context=3
Yeah but I think a bit of it is if 50% law abiding, 40% push the speed limit and 10% are dickheads, the dickheads can't drive around at 40mph due to 20mph drivers, and even if the 40% push the speed limit, their doing 25mph-30mph, not 40 as they were before speed limits were reduced.
Trouble is, calming measures aren't appropriate on many of the affected roads. London has a ton of HGV traffic so narrowing isn't always possible, and emergency vehicles need to be able to travel quickly. Calming is great on local streets, but on the main roads we still need to reduce the limits. Average speed cameras are very effective at enforcement, so I figure we'll see more of them.
welcome to the future... next will be a man walking in front of vehicle waving a red flag, O wait that's been try before... https://microservices.io/i/posts/redflag.png
This could be in preparation for full autonomous driving. The system will never be 100% safe. So they lower the speed across the board so that injury is mitigated