5 years hard labour ?

[Heidfirst]

Glasgow is progressing to a point where 20mph will be the default limit. Tbh I am all for it in residential areas as long as main arterial roads, motorways etc. have higher limits where appropriate.

https://glasgowgis.maps.arcgis.com/apps/instant/interactivelegend/index.html?appid=1f697be870c6448f80c8a0c41782294a

[Bper]

1 hour ago, Heidfirst said:

Glasgow is progressing to a point where 20mph will be the default limit. Tbh I am all for it in residential areas as long as main arterial roads, motorways etc. have higher limits where appropriate.

https://glasgowgis.maps.arcgis.com/apps/instant/interactivelegend/index.html?appid=1f697be870c6448f80c8a0c41782294a

Hi Scott,The new low speed limits have been met with mixed feelings from drivers. Some people think it just leads to more traffic and longer travel times, while others feel it's a good move for residential areas and schools since it could reduce accidents and fatalities.That said, if councils across the UK roll out 20 mph zones everywhere, we might see a new issue, increased pollution. Vehicles in these zones often produce more emissions because they’re constantly stopping and starting, which is less efficient than driving at a steady speed. This could lead to higher fuel consumption and more pollutants. It might even give councils a reason to introduce a pollution tax for those driving in 20 mph zones.☹️

[Heidfirst]

Bob, believe it or not I'm a driver. 😛

I'm also a resident & community councillor. As I said, on balance I am in favour of 20mph limits for residential as long as arterial roads etc. have higher limits where appropriate. Why should a car stop & start more in a 20mph limit than a 30 (we haven't said anything about traffic calming)?

LTNs with associated traffic calming however, are a much more nuanced thing.

[Haliotis]

I had 1947 book - The ABC of British cars, and the road tax was based on horse power.  A Morris 8 was £8 per year, and I believe a Humber Pullman was £48 per year.  When I had my first car in 1953 (a 1938 Standard 9) all cars had a flat rate of £12.10s.0d (£12.50). 

[Bper]

2 hours ago, Heidfirst said:

Bob, believe it or not I'm a driver. 😛

I'm also a resident & community councillor. As I said, on balance I am in favour of 20mph limits for residential as long as arterial roads etc. have higher limits where appropriate. Why should a car stop & start more in a 20mph limit than a 30 (we haven't said anything about traffic calming)?

LTNs with associated traffic calming however, are a much more nuanced thing.

Hi Scott, it’s important to recognise that 20mph zones can have mixed effects on pollution. On one hand, driving at 20mph can sometimes result in higher emissions compared to 30mph zones. This is because cars may operate less efficiently at lower speeds and are often in lower gears, which can lead to increased fuel consumption and emissions. Additionally, frequent stopping and starting in 20mph zones due to traffic-calming measures if introduced can further contribute to higher pollution levels.On the other hand, the impact on pollution can vary based on factors like traffic conditions and vehicle types. In some cases, a steady 20mph might lead to smoother driving in congested areas, which could reduce overall emissions compared to erratic driving at higher speeds.So,while 20mph zones are designed to improve safety, they can also lead to higher pollution in certain contexts. It’s a nuanced issue where both the benefits and drawbacks need to be considered.

However, the concern is ULEZ demonstrated that councils or governments can introduce policies aimed at reducing emissions despite public resistance. Similar measures, such as pollution taxes, could be introduced if there's a perceived need to address environmental issues. Like ULEZ, which was introduced to tackle high levels of pollution in certain areas, a pollution tax in response to increased emissions from 20mph zones could be considered if it's seen as necessary for achieving environmental goals.This push to net zero may well give local authorities the ammunition to levie such a tax.

[Bper]

7 minutes ago, Haliotis said:

I had 1947 book - The ABC of British cars, and the road tax was based on horse power.  A Morris 8 was £8 per year, and I believe a Humber Pullman was £48 per year.  When I had my first car in 1953 (a 1938 Standard 9) all cars had a flat rate of £12.10s.0d (£12.50). 

Albert,Wow, that’s a blast from the past, It’s almost like car tax back then was a secret incentive to drive a Morris 8. Nowadays, if they taxed based on horsepower, I’d probably need to take out a second mortgage just to fuel my car’s ego.😂

[Heidfirst]

2 hours ago, Bper said:

Hi Scott, it’s important to recognise that 20mph zones can have mixed effects on pollution. On one hand, driving at 20mph can sometimes result in higher emissions compared to 30mph zones. This is because cars may operate less efficiently at lower speeds and are often in lower gears, which can lead to increased fuel consumption and emissions. Additionally, frequent stopping and starting in 20mph zones due to traffic-calming measures if introduced can further contribute to higher pollution levels.On the other hand, the impact on pollution can vary based on factors like traffic conditions and vehicle types. In some cases, a steady 20mph might lead to smoother driving in congested areas, which could reduce overall emissions compared to erratic driving at higher speeds.So,while 20mph zones are designed to improve safety, they can also lead to higher pollution in certain contexts. It’s a nuanced issue where both the benefits and drawbacks need to be considered.

However, the concern is ULEZ demonstrated that councils or governments can introduce policies aimed at reducing emissions despite public resistance. Similar measures, such as pollution taxes, could be introduced if there's a perceived need to address environmental issues. Like ULEZ, which was introduced to tackle high levels of pollution in certain areas, a pollution tax in response to increased emissions from 20mph zones could be considered if it's seen as necessary for achieving environmental goals.This push to net zero may well give local authorities the ammunition to levie such a tax.

Bob, I specifically excluded traffic calming in my original reply & you don't need to traffic calm every 20mph zone (Glasgow certainly does not). There should be no reason why a car should pollute more in a non-traffic calmed area at 20mph than at 30mph (especially if we are talking about Toyota hybrids). Yes, in other cars you may be in a lower gear but, used correctly, you should have the car operating at optimum rpm & drag increases with speed squared (so requires increased power which means more fuel burnt).

I did say that LTNs with traffic calming were a more nuanced issue (& definitely more controversial).

[Bper]

12 minutes ago, Heidfirst said:

Bob, I specifically excluded traffic calming in my original reply & you don't need to traffic calm every 20mph zone (Glasgow certainly does not). There should be no reason why a car should pollute more in a non-traffic calmed area at 20mph than at 30mph (especially if we are talking about Toyota hybrids). Yes, in other cars you may be in a lower gear but, used correctly, you should have the car operating at optimum rpm & drag increases with speed squared (so requires increased power which means more fuel burnt).

I did say that LTNs with traffic calming were a more nuanced issue (& definitely more controversial).

Hi Scott, thanks for the clarification. You’re right that traffic calming measures aren’t required for every 20mph zone, and Glasgow is a good example of this. However, the implementation of 20mph zones is often at the discretion of local councils, which means they may choose to include traffic calming measures where they see fit.For non-hybrid vehicles, the impact on emissions can be more pronounced. While drag increases with speed and driving at 30mph requires more power and fuel, many non-hybrid vehicles might not operate efficiently at 20mph due to less optimal engine RPM. This can lead to higher fuel consumption and emissions, particularly with frequent acceleration and deceleration.So, while drag is a significant factor, the efficiency of driving at 20mph versus 30mph can vary based on the vehicle and driving conditions. And as you noted, LTNs with traffic calming do add another layer of complexity, making this a more nuanced issue. It's certainly going to a talking point that's for sure. Thanks for your input.😃

[Heidfirst]

3 hours ago, Bper said:

 While drag increases with speed and driving at 30mph requires more power and fuel, many non-hybrid vehicles might not operate efficiently at 20mph due to less optimal engine RPM. This can lead to higher fuel consumption and emissions, particularly with frequent acceleration and deceleration.

That's what gears are for ... 😛 & with 20mph limit rather than 30mph there should be less acceleration & deceleration.

Tbh, my experience is the issue is getting drivers to stick to 20mph even in traffic calmed areas let alone those that are not.

(they also ignore the car free zones around our schools during operational hours).

[Bper]

11 hours ago, Heidfirst said:

That's what gears are for ... 😛 & with 20mph limit rather than 30mph there should be less acceleration & deceleration.

Tbh, my experience is the issue is getting drivers to stick to 20mph even in traffic calmed areas let alone those that are not.

(they also ignore the car free zones around our schools during operational hours).

It's irresponsible for anyone not to stick to a speed of 20 mph or lower near schools. It's not as if it takes much understanding to grasp the dangers of speeding in these locations. In these instances, the use of cameras and other speed restrictions is understandable, and penalties for those caught speeding should be severe. However, the introduction of speed limits and traffic-calming measures needs to be carefully considered to ensure they are not implemented in ways that unfairly penalise motorists.😃

[Cyker]

One thing nobody seems to account for is 20mph zones greatly increase traffic; If there wasn't any traffic to begin with it just slows down the flow, but if there was then it all bunches up at the speed change, and the worst is where they go through traffic lights as you halve the number of cars that can clear a traffic junction per light signal which then backs up the traffic further.

They just really don't understand or apparently care how traffic flow works.

Another case in point - The current massive traffic jams on the M25 are caused, not by the lane closure for the 2 or 3 total-waste-of-money "Smart" motorway layby additions, but because they are taking 70mph traffic and running it into a 50mph zone and that naturally causes a jam because the traffic is flowing in faster than it flows out.

[Bper]

23 hours ago, Cyker said:

One thing nobody seems to account for is 20mph zones greatly increase traffic; If there wasn't any traffic to begin with it just slows down the flow, but if there was then it all bunches up at the speed change, and the worst is where they go through traffic lights as you halve the number of cars that can clear a traffic junction per light signal which then backs up the traffic further.

They just really don't understand or apparently care how traffic flow works.

Another case in point - The current massive traffic jams on the M25 are caused, not by the lane closure for the 2 or 3 total-waste-of-money "Smart" motorway layby additions, but because they are taking 70mph traffic and running it into a 50mph zone and that naturally causes a jam because the traffic is flowing in faster than it flows out.

A 3 year study by Queen's University Belfast looked at whether lowering speed limits from 30 mph to 20 mph actually makes our roads safer. The results showed that it didn’t have a big impact on accidents or fatalities. Interestingly, additional research suggests that cars might produce more nitrogen dioxide at lower speeds because engines aren’t as efficient. Plus, there’s concern that constantly checking your speedometer at 20 mph might be distracting and may lead to more accidents.In London, traffic moves at an average speed of just 6.5 mph, making it one of the slowest cities in the world for driving. There’s a push for more cycle lanes and Low Traffic Neighbourhoods (LTNs) to improve safety and cut pollution. However, many people feel these changes, along with potential hikes in fuel duty which is being touted at10p, could be more about raising money than genuinely improving road safety and the environment. With around 32 million drivers in the UK, the debate over whether these policies are fair or just a revenue-raising strategy is likely divisive.☹️

[Cyker]

From what I've read, the overall effect is that you're less likely to be killed in a 20 zone, only life-changingly maimed, but the chance of an accident isn't significantly impacted as while it gives more reaction time to the driver, it encourages riskier behaviour by e.g. cyclists and pedestrians, and as you suggest dulls driver attention the longer they are. When they are deployed as originally intended, i.e. to highlight areas of specific heightened danger, they are more effective, but deployed as a blanket measure those benefits were shown to be greatly dulled.

From the way these various road schemes have been deployed, it's pretty clear to me they are primarily designed to raise revenue through fines.

In one of the boroughs I frequent, they've even begun removing some LTN roadblocks and replaced them with signs that you can only see once it's too late, and cameras, for collecting that juicy fine revenue.

It's difficult to be anything but skeptical in the face of all of that sort of behaviour by them...

[Mjolinor]

Far worse than people doing 30 in a 20 zone are people that do 20 in a 30 zone, 30 in a 40 zone and seem to drive cars that have a maximum speed of 35 unless they are on motorways.

 

[AndyN01]

12 hours ago, Mjolinor said:

......and seem to drive cars that have a maximum speed of 35 unless they are on motorways.

 

Which creates frustration if the road can be "easily" driven at the (60mph) limit which, in turn, leads to a queue then tailgating, reckless overtakes etc. etc.

Like many things it's not really that difficult to have a good idea on the likely effects of certain actions is it?

 

[Bper]

14 hours ago, Cyker said:

From what I've read, the overall effect is that you're less likely to be killed in a 20 zone, only life-changingly maimed, but the chance of an accident isn't significantly impacted as while it gives more reaction time to the driver, it encourages riskier behaviour by e.g. cyclists and pedestrians, and as you suggest dulls driver attention the longer they are. When they are deployed as originally intended, i.e. to highlight areas of specific heightened danger, they are more effective, but deployed as a blanket measure those benefits were shown to be greatly dulled.

From the way these various road schemes have been deployed, it's pretty clear to me they are primarily designed to raise revenue through fines.

In one of the boroughs I frequent, they've even begun removing some LTN roadblocks and replaced them with signs that you can only see once it's too late, and cameras, for collecting that juicy fine revenue.

It's difficult to be anything but skeptical in the face of all of that sort of behaviour by them...

You’re right there’s definitely a trade-off with 20 mph zones. While it’s true that lower speeds reduce the severity of accidents, the fact that they don’t necessarily decrease the overall number of accidents is concerning. It’s interesting that you mention how these zones can lead to riskier behavior from cyclists and pedestrians; that’s an aspect that’s often overlooked. And I agree that when 20 mph zones are used in specific high-risk areas, they can be more effective, but as a blanket policy, the benefits seem to diminish.The point about revenue generation is hard to ignore. The way these road schemes are being implemented, especially with what you’ve described about the sneaky signage and cameras, does make it feel like the focus is shifting from safety to revenue collection. It’s frustrating when it seems like these measures are more about filling coffers than genuinely making the roads safer for everyone.It’s no wonder people are skeptical when these kinds of tactics are used. It would be much better if road safety policies were transparent and clearly aimed at improving safety, rather than leaving people feeling like they’re being set up for fines.☹️

[Mjolinor]

AFAIK, at least where I live, they do not prosecute under 30 in a 20 zone. I am sure that will change when some dorky type realises how much revenue they are losing.

[AndyN01]

IMHO Road safety has very little, if anything, to do with fines.

Being safe involves skill, attitude, application, awareness, experience, and a "thinking" sort of behaviour.

A fine simply involves opening your piggy bank.

One is about doing something, the other is a simple "punishment."

One shall actually make a difference, the other probably not.

Imagine if the consequence was to spend a month in A&E to see the results of various choices/behaviours, being the person who has to explain the death of a loved one or the likely effects of the life changing injuries following "accidents" and then take and pass the initial Police test for their advanced drivers/riders.

Perhaps that might change the way people use the roads?

[Bper]

41 minutes ago, AndyN01 said:

IMHO Road safety has very little, if anything, to do with fines.

Being safe involves skill, attitude, application, awareness, experience, and a "thinking" sort of behaviour.

A fine simply involves opening your piggy bank.

One is about doing something, the other is a simple "punishment."

One shall actually make a difference, the other probably not.

Imagine if the consequence was to spend a month in A&E to see the results of various choices/behaviours, being the person who has to explain the death of a loved one or the likely effects of the life changing injuries following "accidents" and then take and pass the initial Police test for their advanced drivers/riders.

Perhaps that might change the way people use the roads?

Andy,You make a good point about how fines alone do not improve road safety. Road safety is more about the driver’s skill, awareness, and attitude rather than just paying a fine. Your idea of making drivers see the real-life impacts of accidents or requiring advanced driving tests could lead to a better understanding of road safety and might make people more cautious on the roads. It’s definitely something that should be considered as part of a wider approach to improving safety.😄

[Bper]

2 hours ago, Mjolinor said:

AFAIK, at least where I live, they do not prosecute under 30 in a 20 zone. I am sure that will change when some dorky type realises how much revenue they are losing.

It seems like enforcement can vary quite a bit depending on the area. Hopefully, changes like that will be communicated clearly to drivers if they do come into effect. Not sure if they will.😄

[Mjolinor]

56 minutes ago, Bper said:

It seems like enforcement can vary quite a bit depending on the area. Hopefully, changes like that will be communicated clearly to drivers if they do come into effect. Not sure if they will.😄

It varies enormously on area. I know that in Lancs it is 10% +3 so owt over 35 is risky and owt up to 80 is OK on motorways.

[Cyker]

3 hours ago, Bper said:

You’re right there’s definitely a trade-off with 20 mph zones. While it’s true that lower speeds reduce the severity of accidents, the fact that they don’t necessarily decrease the overall number of accidents is concerning. It’s interesting that you mention how these zones can lead to riskier behavior from cyclists and pedestrians; that’s an aspect that’s often overlooked. And I agree that when 20 mph zones are used in specific high-risk areas, they can be more effective, but as a blanket policy, the benefits seem to diminish.The point about revenue generation is hard to ignore. The way these road schemes are being implemented, especially with what you’ve described about the sneaky signage and cameras, does make it feel like the focus is shifting from safety to revenue collection. It’s frustrating when it seems like these measures are more about filling coffers than genuinely making the roads safer for everyone.It’s no wonder people are skeptical when these kinds of tactics are used. It would be much better if road safety policies were transparent and clearly aimed at improving safety, rather than leaving people feeling like they’re being set up for fines.☹️

Something I've said before is, most drivers will drive at an appropriate speed for the conditions regardless of the speed limit - There are roads through villages that are technically 30/40mph that no sane person would drive at that speed at because the roads is narrow and unsighted, often with parked cars on either side.

The trick is to design roads for those conditions - Roads that were designed to be 20mph or 30mph roads will feel right to drive at those speeds. Taking 30 and 40mph roads and just sticking 20mph signs on them with no other effort spent, which is the typically lazy way most authorities try to do these things, will have a much lower compliance rate because good experienced drivers can *see and feel* that is an inappropriate speed for those road conditions.

 

3 hours ago, Mjolinor said:

AFAIK, at least where I live, they do not prosecute under 30 in a 20 zone. I am sure that will change when some dorky type realises how much revenue they are losing.

That may be because those 20mph zones aren't even legal - It's become known around here that a lot of the 20 zones were just put in by the local authorities without the proper permissions and authorizations being sought, and because of that the police won't even try to enforce them (And often don't even obey them themselves!). The problem is unless you're local there's no way to know which ones are and which ones aren't (And ones that aren't may become ones that are as they get authorization after the fact!)

This just leads to more danger as you get drivers who know it won't be enforced driving at 30, running into the back of people that obey the signs. And they do all this in the name of safety. You can only laugh...!

 

[Bper]

3 minutes ago, Cyker said:

Something I've said before is, most drivers will drive at an appropriate speed for the conditions regardless of the speed limit - There are roads through villages that are technically 30/40mph that no sane person would drive at that speed at because the roads is narrow and unsighted, often with parked cars on either side.

The trick is to design roads for those conditions - Roads that were designed to be 20mph or 30mph roads will feel right to drive at those speeds. Taking 30 and 40mph roads and just sticking 20mph signs on them with no other effort spent, which is the typically lazy way most authorities try to do these things, will have a much lower compliance rate because good experienced drivers can *see and feel* that is an inappropriate speed for those road conditions.

 

That may be because those 20mph zones aren't even legal - It's become known around here that a lot of the 20 zones were just put in by the local authorities without the proper permissions and authorizations being sought, and because of that the police won't even try to enforce them (And often don't even obey them themselves!). The problem is unless you're local there's no way to know which ones are and which ones aren't (And ones that aren't may become ones that are as they get authorization after the fact!)

This just leads to more danger as you get drivers who know it won't be enforced driving at 30, running into the back of people that obey the signs. And they do all this in the name of safety. You can only laugh...!

 

Many drivers find themselves constantly checking their speedometers when they spot a speed camera sign, even if there’s no camera in sight. Frequent changes in speed limits and the presence of cameras can make driving stressful. It’s especially tough when entering areas with active cameras, making it hard to stay focused on the road while also trying to avoid speeding fines.Driving used to be a pleasure and a way to travel long distances efficiently. Nowadays, it feels like a constant battle to avoid fines for even the smallest mistakes, even on short trips.☹️

[Cyker]

Yeah I certainly do - It's one reason why the high-collimated speedo in the Mk1 and Mk2 Yaris, and the HUD in my Mk4 are so valuable to me. I credit them as a strong reason why I'm the only person in my family who hasn't had a single speeding fine.

But frequent speed limit changes are another thing I consider very dangerous - I've always said, speed isn't dangerous, it's CHANGES in speed that are dangerous.

It's partly why I dislike Smart Motorways so much, as you can have a speed change every gantry. One of the worst examples I've seen in some time was yesterday, when we went past several gantries that had completely different signs on each display!  (e.g. one showed (National speed limit), (40), <blank>, (40) !!!!   Honestly, what the heck are those idiots at the Highways control centres playing at?!)

 

[Haliotis]

16 hours ago, Mjolinor said:

Far worse than people doing 30 in a 20 zone are people that do 20 in a 30 zone, 30 in a 40 zone and seem to drive cars that have a maximum speed of 35 unless they are on motorways.

 

Criticism here has to be applied with care.  It being necessary to accept that traffic planners have got their sums right, the speed limit is based on a clear, dry day with good road conditions.  As conditions deteriorate from that situation, a drivers should adjust their speed downwards accordingly.  The allowed maximum limit is not a target speed. Within sensible parameters, a driver is not obliged to achieve the speed limit at any time, and harassing a driver to do so is unlawful.