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.
Last edited by Trainman; 04-04-14 at 13:12.
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.