20mph urban limit

spindrift wrote:
On 2 Oct, 18:48, "Brimstone" wrote:
It seems that reducing the speed limit in residential areas makes no
significant difference to the number of injuries suffered in collisions.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/...sts-could-get-...

Will those who shout for such a reduction now reconsider their stance?

(I suspect I know the answer to that question.)

The area surveyed had an average annual serious injury rate of fewer
than 19 people. With such a small sampling base any results can easily
be skewed. For instance, if you took statistics at face value you
would think you were far more likely to be murdered in 2002*.

Wouldn't it be wonderful if we had a far-reaching, statistically
robust study of 20mph zones!

Hang on.


Typically within Hull, 20 mph zones have achieved reductions[106] in
injury accidents of:
...

You have a very short memory don't you.

http://groups.google.co.uk/group/uk.rec.cycling/msg/b2441169d2a7d332?hl=en

Speed reduction (which lowers collision risk) has NOTHING to do with 20
mph speed limits - they are completely ineffective, it is achieved by
traffic calming.

--
Matt B

OG wrote:

"Nobby Anderson" wrote in message
o.uk...
Simon Mason wrote:
Thanks, I was just going to mention our 10 years experience of 20 mph
zones
here in Hull. There have been a resounding success and more zones are
welcomed.

They have to be sensibly applied, though. Near where I live there is a
wide road with very wide footpaths (wider even than the road) that
recently
had a 20mph limit applied to it. The road's an arterial route into the
town - not a major one, but well used anyway. The houses on the road are
well set back in large gardens, all at least 100' from the road itself.
The nature of the road is such that there are never ever cars parked on
it. The road had a 20mph limit imposed because it runs near a high school
and a primary school, said the council.

Turn off that road, into the much more densly packed residential areas
around it, and you are immediately allowed to speed up to 30. That's
irrespective of the fact that those roads run immediately past the
entrances of both the schools. Not to mention the narrow footpaths
and cars parked all the way along and the cheek-by-jowl housing.

The whole thing's absolutely bizzare, and completly the wrong way round.
There is no obvious reason to make the main road a 20mph zone, if you
accept that 30mph is an acceptable speed on large roads in towns, but
whatever, that's a matter of opinion and I can see both arguments. What
really gets me is the 30 limit on the side streets. Why??? If they
thought 20pmh was needed on the main road, surely it's even more needed
on the side roads! Surely??


Not necessarily. Speeds on the side roads will probably be nearer 20 than 30
anyway, because of the obvious hazards; whereas on the main road, the
motorists would not perceive the hazards, so speeds would probably be nearer
40 than 30.

That's possible, but why not make the point by at least keeping the 20 limit on
the side streets? We all know the speed limit's a target, no matter what
the apologists say. I'm also not sure I agree with setting the limits
knowing they're going to be broken, so compensating for that. It leads to
the circular argument "They only set the speed at 30 because they new most
people would drive at 40, so if they really think 40 is OK I'll push it a
bit and drive at 50", ad infinitum. And even if they set speed limits
knowing that they'll be broken, using your argument they'll presumably
be broken less on the side streets resulting in, for example, 30 on the
main road and only 25 on the side roads if they all have 20 limits.
Either way, it's stupid. Irritates me every time I drive down there. :-(

Nobby

"Nobby Anderson" wrote in message
o.uk...
OG wrote:

"Nobby Anderson" wrote in message
o.uk...
Simon Mason wrote:
Thanks, I was just going to mention our 10 years experience of 20 mph
zones
here in Hull. There have been a resounding success and more zones are
welcomed.

They have to be sensibly applied, though. Near where I live there is a
wide road with very wide footpaths (wider even than the road) that
recently
had a 20mph limit applied to it. The road's an arterial route into the
town - not a major one, but well used anyway. The houses on the road
are
well set back in large gardens, all at least 100' from the road itself.
The nature of the road is such that there are never ever cars parked on
it. The road had a 20mph limit imposed because it runs near a high
school
and a primary school, said the council.

Turn off that road, into the much more densly packed residential areas
around it, and you are immediately allowed to speed up to 30. That's
irrespective of the fact that those roads run immediately past the
entrances of both the schools. Not to mention the narrow footpaths
and cars parked all the way along and the cheek-by-jowl housing.

The whole thing's absolutely bizzare, and completly the wrong way round.
There is no obvious reason to make the main road a 20mph zone, if you
accept that 30mph is an acceptable speed on large roads in towns, but
whatever, that's a matter of opinion and I can see both arguments. What
really gets me is the 30 limit on the side streets. Why??? If they
thought 20pmh was needed on the main road, surely it's even more needed
on the side roads! Surely??


Not necessarily. Speeds on the side roads will probably be nearer 20 than
30
anyway, because of the obvious hazards; whereas on the main road, the
motorists would not perceive the hazards, so speeds would probably be
nearer
40 than 30.

That's possible, but why not make the point by at least keeping the 20
limit on
the side streets? We all know the speed limit's a target, no matter what
the apologists say. I'm also not sure I agree with setting the limits
knowing they're going to be broken, so compensating for that. It leads to
the circular argument "They only set the speed at 30 because they new most
people would drive at 40, so if they really think 40 is OK I'll push it a
bit and drive at 50", ad infinitum. And even if they set speed limits
knowing that they'll be broken, using your argument they'll presumably
be broken less on the side streets resulting in, for example, 30 on the
main road and only 25 on the side roads if they all have 20 limits.
Either way, it's stupid. Irritates me every time I drive down there. :-(


Who said anything about 'setting limits knowing they are going to be broken'
? Is this a standard 'excuse' that people use to ignore limits? -
attributing your own wishes onto the general population so that you can
pretend that 'everyone else'/ sorry 'most people' (your phrase) ignores the
'set' speed.

I fully accept that some local authorities may have 'guidelines' that they
apply inappropriately at some times, but it's equally possible that 20
really is an appropriate limit for that stretch of road - despite motorists
who want to see it as a 'high speed' route into town, the local residents
may see it as a 'barrier blocking access to schools and community', in which
case reducing the speed along that particular road may help to ease
pedestrian access across the road.

Matt B wrote:
Tosspot wrote:
Brimstone wrote:
It seems that reducing the speed limit in residential areas makes no
significant difference to the number of injuries suffered in collisions.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/...hallenge..html



Will those who shout for such a reduction now reconsider their stance?

(I suspect I know the answer to that question.)

Well

http://www.portsmouth.co.uk/travel-l...mit.4080302.jp

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/to...cle3941730.ece

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology...mit?FORM=ZZNR6


Seems to back up my experience. I know of no camera anywhere in the
20mph zone. It's badly implemented and widely ignored. In short a
waste of money.

I must post some of the classic signposting that has resulted, Johny
Foreigner must be completely confused.

TPIAW, 20 mph speed limits have no effect, but traffic calming is very
effective - whether accompanied by 20 mph limits or not. Remember this
previous discussion?
http://groups.google.co.uk/group/uk.rec.cycling/msg/dd2feaebbc79b181?hl=en

shrug They should put a few cameras in where it matters.

On 2 Oct, 18:54, JNugent wrote:
Brimstone wrote:
It seems that reducing the speed limit in residential areas makes no
significant difference to the number of injuries suffered in collisions.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/...sts-could-get-...

First line:

"The introduction of a Britain's first urban 20mph zone in Portsmouth has had
minimal impact in reducing the number of people seriously injured a
Department for Transport study has found."

Will those who shout for such a reduction now reconsider their stance?
(I suspect I know the answer to that question.)

I suspect that most serious injuries didn't take place in residential streets
in the first place, meaning that the scope for reduction in numbers was
always limited.

The second sentence...

"An evaluation of the first 12 months of the scheme has, however, shown a
sharp drop in the number of minor injuries"...

...seems to bear that out.

IOW, speeds haven't changed much, probably because they were already closer
to 20 than 30 in the affected areas.

No more likely because 20mph is largely unenforced anyway. It is just
part of the tokenistic white paintwork we see so much of on our roads.

--
UK Radical Campaigns
www.zing.icom43.net
A driving licence is a licence to kill.

"Matt B" wrote in message
...

You agreed previously that that it wasn't the 20 mph speed limits, but the
speed _humps_ in Hull which were key.[1]

We've also seen before that 20 mph speed limits themselves have no effect
at all, remember? 20 mph limits without humps are ineffective, but humps,
whether accompanied by 20 mph limits or not have the same effect.[2]


Indeed. All of our 20mph zones are backed up with humps, if not, they would
be ignored.


--
Simon Mason
http://www.simonmason.karoo.net/

"Doug" wrote in message
...
On 2 Oct, 18:54, JNugent wrote:
Brimstone wrote:
It seems that reducing the speed limit in residential areas makes
no
significant difference to the number of injuries suffered in
collisions.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/...sts-could-get-...

First line:

"The introduction of a Britain's first urban 20mph zone in
Portsmouth has had
minimal impact in reducing the number of people seriously injured a
Department for Transport study has found."

Will those who shout for such a reduction now reconsider their
stance?
(I suspect I know the answer to that question.)

I suspect that most serious injuries didn't take place in
residential streets
in the first place, meaning that the scope for reduction in numbers
was
always limited.

The second sentence...

"An evaluation of the first 12 months of the scheme has, however,
shown a
sharp drop in the number of minor injuries"...

...seems to bear that out.

IOW, speeds haven't changed much, probably because they were
already closer
to 20 than 30 in the affected areas.

No more likely because 20mph is largely unenforced anyway. It is
just
part of the tokenistic white paintwork we see so much of on our
roads.

The majority of the 20mph limits in Portsmouth are in areas where a
motorist would be hardpushed to attain 20 mph anyway - narrow, long,
streets, dense housing, on-street parking (both sides)...

There are a few streets (Queen Street for one) which are wide, with
some parking restrictions, but there, the 20 mph limit has been
applied for different reasons.

Brimstone wrote:
It seems that reducing the speed limit in residential areas makes no
significant difference to the number of injuries suffered in
collisions.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/...hallenge..html

Will those who shout for such a reduction now reconsider their stance?

(I suspect I know the answer to that question.)

Has the mean speed of the motorists actually decreased since the limit was
introduced i.e. are they either obeying the new limit of were they driving
at close to 20 mph before anyway?

"Brimstone" wrote in message
...
It seems that reducing the speed limit in residential areas makes
no significant difference to the number of injuries suffered in
collisions.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/...hallenge..html

Will those who shout for such a reduction now reconsider their
stance?

(I suspect I know the answer to that question.)

In the USA the speed limit is generally 15 mph near schools when the
yellow lights are flashing

As others have already noted, your mind blanked out the word
"serious" before injuries.

Seriousness is relative, of course. Even those recorded as "slight"
got police excited enough to put them in the accident database. Some
of those accidents might well have got into insurance companies' data
bases, too, to show up at no-claims-bonus review times.

Accidents rated as serious are fewer than those rated "slight". Thus
it takes a bigger swing to show up the "serious" accidents as
"significant"

Jeremy Parker.

On 3 Oct, 11:38, "Adam Lea" wrote:
Brimstone wrote:
It seems that reducing the speed limit in residential areas makes no
significant difference to the number of injuries suffered in
collisions.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/...sts-could-get-...

Will those who shout for such a reduction now reconsider their stance?

(I suspect I know the answer to that question.)

Has the mean speed of the motorists actually decreased since the limit was
introduced i.e. are they either obeying the new limit of were they driving
at close to 20 mph before anyway?

Speeds have lowered so accidents have declined. Hit at 20mph only 3%
of pedestrians die.

Narrow, terraced streets with cars parked both sides should
automatically be a 20mph limit. The Portsmouth scheme is only the
first of many, Norwich is introducing more and more after pressure
from residents. The only tactic the council have employed so far is
slalom-planting. A raised bed with a tree growing in it to slow idiots
in cars.

It doesn't stop them.

More 20mph zones, more cameras to enforce them, are inevitable.