Is 20 plenty?
A recent survey by road safety charity Brake revealed almost 80% of motorists think that 20mph should be the default speed limit for urban areas and support Brake's campaign - known as GO 20. Find out more here: http://bit.ly/1s7W3aH
Has your local village, town or city moved to a 20mph limit? And if so, have you noticed any improvements?
Most of the small villages near us have all got 20 speed limits, I must admit, I find it difficult to keep at that speed, as it's not comfortable for my ankle, to keep my foot at the angle required to keep at that speed?Another thing, they all have these really High speed bumps, which you have to crawl over if you want to keep your suspension and springs working?Why do we all have to suffer them speed humps, just because a "small minority" of motorists will not keep to the speed limits?
My town has adopted the 20 is plenty at a projected cost of £552,000. Do we really need a limit so low that is totally ignored by many of those who want it a such huge costs. All this in the name of safety. Worst culprits for exceeding the speed limits are young girls. I have mentioned this farcical unpolicable expense to the public before. Yes we should also have a person with a red flag in attendance when driving. The do gooders with no common sense on how to enforce this limit are once again costing us £1000's all in the name of safety. No doubt this reply will cause uproar and I am inviting you all to my public hanging.
No wish to have you publicly flogged. Nor do I think there is anything wrong with being a do gooder. Surely better than a do badder. However, lacking in common sense is a problem. Who decides what common sense actually is ? It seems common sense to me that if you are travelling slower you have more time to avoid an accident and even if you can't there is less likelihood of serious injury. The recurring problem is a lack of responsibility shown by some motorists. I think there is general agreement that unless regulations are properly enforced they serve little, if any, purpose. This applies to all motoring regulations.
Yes we do agree over the reasons and have discussed it in my thread before this one. It is sensible to travel slower in many circumstances and that is the reason I am not happy with, what I consider to be, a waste of public money on the project. In France, on their motorways, if it is raining, an automatic reduction of 20KPH becomes enforcable. We cannot enforce 30 - 70mph limits successfully.Those limits are mostly ignored by Joe Public with only a few on the motorways sticking to the prescribed limit. Here though there is a very high chance of being caught speeding because it is policed. I doubt that the police would bother anywhere to enforce a 20 limit. The only case I know of was in Cumbria when an ITV camera crew were with the patrol car. How unlucky that was for the driver as I bet it would have been ignored had the crew wasn't there.
Originally Posted by belucky22
Your comments re "The lack of responsibility by some motorists" hits the nail on the head but may I suggest that the "some" is about 95% of the driving population and many are those that support the 20 limit. How on earth do they have the cheek to support the 20 limit when they are guilty of stopping outside schools and speeding around them. There are many out there that automatically think urban dual carriageways are a 40 mph limit, when many are actually 30mph. We have one near us that was 70mph and it was reduced to 40mph. The police disagreed with the reduction and it has never been policed. Most traffic travels at speed well aboe 50mph on it and if you travel at 40 mph 99% of following cars will overtake. So who will police side roads at 20mph?? Answer, I bet, is nobody.
You are right : I was wanting to be generous. The hypocrisy you refer to sadly occurs in quite a few situations. There needs to be stricter control on driving standards but there appears to be little or no political will to make this happen. The number of road deaths and accidents would cause a public outcry if they happened through any other cause. Again public money is too often wasted and the money expended on this would possibly have had greater impact being spent enforcing what already exists.
The main causes of accidents are (a) driving too fast in inappropriate conditions, (b) driving too close to the vehicle in front, and (c) impatience and lack of self-discipline. It is all very well for the various regulations to be pumped out, but who will police them? The greatest pity is that too many drivers are not prepared to police themselves. Common sense is good, but that alone is too much of a variable that is dependent on the individual; so of all those drivers who claim to apply common sense, some will be safe whilst others will still not be safe.
I met one example today of senseless driving. I turned left from traffic lights and commenced to accelerate up towards the 30 mph limit. This wasn't fast enough for the driver behind me, so he swerved around me, pulled back in front of me, then braked to turn into a shopping car park only about 150 metres further on.
Poor driving standards , sad to say, are with us to stay. The necessary force of traffic police to make any difference is simply not economically viable, and technology beyond that of the relatively simple speed cameras seems a long way off.
If they really wanted to enforce the 20 mph, all they would have to do is set up speed cameras, as that seems to be the cheapest way to enforce such a limit. As that tends to be they way of things on our motorways and trunk roads.With our modern day cars, that glide along quietly at 70 on the motor way, driving through a built up area at 20, makes you feel like you are walking?So, yes, driving at 20 does take concentration, as it's so easy to exceed that speed?
Not a viable option if they really want to set a blanket speed limit of 20 mph. The number of speed cameras to ensure enforcement would be enormous, have to spring up like mushrooms everywhere, and installation and servicing costs would be through the roof.
Originally Posted by smudger
Average Speed Cameras MIGHT be a better option, but these would be more likely to catch 'passing through' drivers - those already within an area would most probably miss any of the first cameras. Can an Average Speed Camera work in isolation? But then, the end-of-journey could occur before reaching what would be one of the second cameras.
There is no doubt that too many drivers blatantly ignore speed limits - within or outside urban areas. Some form of control to make drivers obey the rules would be a good thing, but this is more easily said than done.
From my own perspective, based on what I see with my own eyes, I find the charity Brake's survey claim of 80% of drivers favouring the 20 mph limit to be a myth - either that or the drivers themselves are incapable of obeying speed limits that they approve of.
Unfortunately, Brake is one more campaigner for road safety that would have the government waste time and money on unworkable 'knee-jerk' solutions, and are in exactly the same helpless position in coming up with a practical answer, as are the government themselves.
The only real answer is for adequate traffic police to enforce obedience to the law by visibility and on-the-spot apprehension. We are all aware that simple economics make this option dead in the water. Tragic though it may be, the government most probably, secretly, consider the current carnage acceptably cheaper than the cost of a manpower policing regime.
Food for thought here, is that all cars are now electronically controlled for engine management. Surely with all the global positioning satellites in use for satnav it can't be hard to install at manufacture a chip that detects speed and forces the car to the designated speed limit. There would have to be exceptions of course such as 999 vehicles. There would also have to be no way that the chip could be altered by the owner to remove the device. If the device was altered the car would be crushed and a £1000 fine given.