[Stuart Wright]

What do you think?

[mjcairney]

Originally Posted by Stuart Wright

What do you think?

I think that the 30 limit should be cut to 20 in built-up areas where there are liable to be lots of kids playing, but see no reason as to why the 60 limit needs to be changed.

Cheers,

Martin.

[Stuart Wright]

We already have slow zones around schools. And kids should not be playing in or near the road anywhere.

[John7]

Originally Posted by Stuart Wright

We already have slow zones around schools. And kids should not be playing in or near the road anywhere.

Yes but they do now, because of the perceived "safety" created by the speed bump culture (they do round my way, anyway!)

[kingfats]

Yes.

[mjcairney]

Originally Posted by Stuart Wright

And kids should not be playing in or near the road anywhere.

Yes, but as we all know, what kids "should" do and what kids "do" do are two very different things.

Cheers,

Martin.

[CH_Peter]

Firstly, in these days of green everything, why hasn't anyone - rightly or wrongly - considered the environmental impact? Like many I'm sure, I have a car with 6 forward gears. 50mph is just too slow to cruise comfortably in sixth, especially when in a 50 limit, most people do somewhere between 40 and 50. That means 5th gear, when I could be in 6th. More fuel, more noise and that goes for 20mph (2nd gear!) where it was previously 30mph.

And secondly, it's not speed that kills. It's the misuse of speed. I don't believe that road deaths will be reduced by lowering speed limits. I was almost hit head on by someone coming round a corner at a crossroads last night, tyres screeching as the took the blind bend - probably doing 25mph. It's a 30 limit. 30mph isn't always safe. Neither is 20mph. And I think there will always be some idiot that will drive at their own reckless pace without due care and attention, regardless of what the sign at the roadside says.

So, I would suggest that we are making the vast majority pay for the sins of the very, very few without likely being able to further curb their bad driving habits. Did I read there were something like 2700 road deaths per year? This is a tiny number, considering the number of cars on the road and journeys undertaken every day. Aiming to squeeze that number down by making those drivers' journeys longer, more costly and inconvenient isn't right and I would bet that any statistic trotted out stating that road deaths are down where speeds are down could be easily countered with the argument that road deaths continue to fall due to safer cars being built every year.

[Stuart Wright]

I too had considered the environmental issue.
Our 30-40 minute 7.4km round trip school run is all in 30mph roads with 4 (read it 4!) speed cameras. If we were doing 20mph max then it would be a 40-50 minutes journey adding between 10 and 20 minutes of extra diesel pollution twice a day.

My cousin died after being hit at about 20mph, so it's not like I am unsympathetic towards people who are pushing for a lower speed limit based on emotional motives. But where do we end?

The ability to drive at a certain speed - 30mph is a trade off between a necessity to allow people to travel at a certain speed in order to maximise the use of our valuable time, plus the undeniable fun of driving faster against safety.

I think there is a problem with driving too slowly from the point of view of mental health. Driving along the same route at bang on 30pmh (yes I use crusie control when I can cos them stupid speed cameras aren't getting me again) twice a day five days a week is soul destroying. If it weren't for the ability to listen to music at deafening levels, I would go bonkers.
20mph would be hair pullingly tedious.

I've been looking around for a 4 seater bike with canopy and I can't find a single retailer in the UK. Cos if 20mph is the limit, there is no point in taking a car. Unless there is megga precipitation.
A 4 seater bike would get us healthier (assuming we're wearing those gas masks) and be better for the environment.

[signs]

No

[mikim]

Agreed with most of the comments so far... I think dynamic speed limits are a good idea, this day and age we have the technology to implement it... solar powered road signs etc. (especially on dual carriageways and motorways).
Cars these days are so comfortable and smooth to drive that I find that I get extremely sleepy if I am doing a long stretch of road at slow speeds.. this has to be far more dangerous than slight increases in speed.
There is also the issue of frustration caused by long periods of slow driving. I hate to think of the increase in traffic accidents if the speed limit was reduced even further.
I'm sure there are good arguments for a reduction, but nationalising it rather than focusing on specific stretches of road is absurd!

[coops233]

Educated drivers would be better.

I am a member of the IAM (Institute of Advanced Motorists) and fully understand why we have speed limits - especially in built up areas.

Most people stick to the limits - its just the minority that don't.

If it was up to me - I would make everyone take 2 driving tests.

1. Normal driving test
2. IAM driving test

Some of my friends scare me with their driving.

[IAN P]

No.

[mikim]

Originally Posted by coops233

Educated drivers would be better.

I am a member of the IAM (Institute of Advanced Motorists) and fully understand why we have speed limits - especially in built up areas.

Most people stick to the limits - its just the minority that don't.

If it was up to me - I would make everyone take 2 driving tests.

1. Normal driving test
2. IAM driving test

Some of my friends scare me with their driving.

Personally I have always thought that everybody should take a test every 10 years! It would clear the roads of a huge amount of people that just "can't drive properly". The public transport system would improve as more people would be using it, the environment would be cleaner, the roads would be safer,....there are a huge amount of positives from this... it will never happen though as the government would loose a HUGE amount of tax!!

[Figment]

I voted no but not for the usual reasons. I wonder if the vast majority of the public are aware that changing the urban limits to 20mph is a carte blanche
invitation to allow every man and his dog to drive flat out in these areas without fear of prosecution. 20mph limits as far as I am aware have to be self enforcing as far as speed is concerned by means of engineering such as speed bumps, chicanes etc. They are not enforced by the Police and camera equipment is not approved for use below 30mph. So unless the government intend to fund sufficient engineering works for every road that is changed which I seriously doubt then lowering the limit is a very bad and dangerous idea.
As for bad driving I would love to see statistics for accidents that include the country of origin and type of licence held by the driver. I am pretty certain it would be an eye-opener to see just how many do not hold a UK licence and fall into the catagory of visitor, new migrant, or actually have either a hookey licence or one belonging to a relative that the family share. I believe the number of unlicenced and uninsured drivers on our roads is actually frightening.

[Rikki Tikki]

Travelling at 20mph or 50mph is using the internal combustion engine at a highly reduced efficiency as is 70mph and over.
Travelling at these speeds causes frustration hold ups and accidents. A byproduct of travelling at these speeds is high fuel consumption resulting in MORE TAXATION and greater income for HM treasury and in my opinion that is the reason for the suggestions being made.
Until such time as drivers awaken to the fact that they have a deadly weapon, and CONSIDER the damage that can be caused to other families both physical and emotional, RTA's will not be reduced. Spending £XK on a motor vehicle DOES NOT give you a license to kill.
I leave you with two comments,
1. The most dangerous component in a motor vehicle is THE NUT BEHIND THE STEERING WHEEL.
2. There is no law that says you have to be first.

Please drive with consideration

[T800]

There was a woman on the radio yesterday saying her village should be changed from 30mph to 20mph because people speed through at 50mph

Changing the rules won't effect people who don't abide by them.

[AgentCool]

One of the biggest misconceptions amongst drivers is that a red circle with '30' in the middle means you're supposed to drive at 30mph at all times. In reality, it means that is the MAXIMUM speed you're supposed to travel on that particular road relative to the conditions. So, if I was driving along a '30' road where there was a school and there were lots of kids hanging around at that moment in time, I'd be more liable to drive at around 20-25mph. Likewise, if I'm on a '60' rural road and the visibility isn't great or it's raining heavily, I'll probably travel at 45-50mph.

Being a good driver is all about driving to the conditions, not driving as fast as you can legally get away with. As such, these speed limit changes are completely unnecessary because good drivers will already abide by them when the conditions dictate that it makes sense to do so and bad drivers will continue to ignore them regardless.

[mikim]

It is interesting to see that at this point 27 people have answered "yes" to the poll, yet I have seen little (if any) argument/discussion to back their opinion?

Anybody care to divulge?

[criticalmass]

Agree with all the posts so far, changing it to 20mph isn't going to stop people who speed because they dont care. If they're doing 40 in a 30 then they'll still do 40 in a 20. It'll also mean i'll have to drive in 3rd or 2nd gear at 20mph which inturns means more pollution.
The government just doesn't think! The solution to a problem always seems to be punish the majority or tax it beyond belief.

[richard plumb]

Originally Posted by CH_Peter

And secondly, it's not speed that kills. It's the misuse of speed. I don't believe that road deaths will be reduced by lowering speed limits. I was almost hit head on by someone coming round a corner at a crossroads last night, tyres screeching as the took the blind bend - probably doing 25mph. It's a 30 limit. 30mph isn't always safe. Neither is 20mph. And I think there will always be some idiot that will drive at their own reckless pace without due care and attention, regardless of what the sign at the roadside says.

So, I would suggest that we are making the vast majority pay for the sins of the very, very few without likely being able to further curb their bad driving habits. Did I read there were something like 2700 road deaths per year? This is a tiny number, considering the number of cars on the road and journeys undertaken every day. Aiming to squeeze that number down by making those drivers' journeys longer, more costly and inconvenient isn't right and I would bet that any statistic trotted out stating that road deaths are down where speeds are down could be easily countered with the argument that road deaths continue to fall due to safer cars being built every year.

sums up my views perfectly.

Cars these days are safer for occupants and pedestrians than they have ever been. They can stop more quickly than ever, without losing control (ABS).

I'm fine with 20 limits around schools etc, but not a general urban speed.

[Trollslayer]

There places where a 20pmh limits is a good idea but as a blanket limit it is likely to cause more problems and more people ignoring limits in general.

[eric pisch]

i dream of driving at 20 mph on my daily commute in and out of london

[True Romance]

two words for this latest govermnet idea......'cash cow'

[Jamezinho]

As above, lower speed limits will equal more speeders due to the frustration of driving around at these new limits. It's inevitable. Throw in speed cameras and it's a nice contribution to the governments budget black hole.

Leave the speed limits as they are. Modern cars are safe enough with an attentive driver within these limits, it's the people behind the wheel. If anything clamp down on people using their phones while driving. Still a huge problem from what I see.

[mikim]

Originally Posted by Jamezinho

Leave the speed limits as they are. Modern cars are safe enough with an attentive driver within these limits, it's the people behind the wheel. If anything clamp down on people using their phones while driving. Still a huge problem from what I see.

Worst still is the fact that everybody now 'texts' whilst driving because they know that they shouldn't be on the phone. I don't condone using the phone at all.. but at least people had their eyes on the road before!! I don't think that people should be able to use the phone at all whilst driving, and that includes hand free! Holding the phone to your ear was not the issue.. its being involved in a conversation that removes you from the actual environment where the concentration should be focused.
I know it could be argued that having this conversation with your friend/partner/colleague in the passengers seat or kids playing in the back are as much of a distraction, but again it all comes down to being responsible as a driver.. stop if you have to!

[KUBBY]

I have voted No because it appears to me that,once again,The Government are approaching the problem from the wrong angle.

The basic driving test is fatally flawed.I would like to see a driving test that takes place over two days,(to reduce the "Lucky Drive" effect ) each day being a practical drive of,say, 2 hours and to include a commentary from the candidate to show how much of their surroundings they are noticing.
Prior to the test I would also like to see compulsory Skid Pan training where the effects of speed combined with different road surfaces can be experienced by the learner driver in controlled conditions.

There are finer points to driving,such as correct position on bends,more efficient use of gears,vehicle sympathy etc that aren't concentrated upon until the Pass Plus or even the I.A.M Courses and these are voluntary courses.

I would also like to see a Compulsory retest every 10 years with a week long refresher course and retest for those who fail.

Finally in this rant against The Great British Motorist,I would like to see the acceptance by the CPS and The courts of Third Party reporting of Mobile 'Phone usage.At the moment,I believe that it is still the case that this is a "Seen Committing " by an officer, offence or,at best only allowed to be included in a witness statement as part of evidence leading up to an incident,such as an RTA
The argument has been that if I have a Grudge against Mr Smith for some totally unrelated reason,then I could make continuous malicious complaints against him for using the 'phone while driving,thereby wasting Police Time and causing Mr Smith to suffer undeserved consequences.

This at the moment is a nonsense as so many drivers are still using their 'phones while driving. I have seen 3 this morning on a half hour trip.I aught to be able to note his reg number,report the matter and make a statement.

Sorry to go on,What was the question?

KH.

[mikim]

Well said KH!
I am in particular agreement with the 10 year test. We all pick up bad habits; this would be a great way to refresh. I also believe that 5 tests & fails and you're out for at least a year.
I know of people who have taken their test 15+ times before they passed. "Really, I mean come on"!! If you are not capable of piloting a motor vehicle and understand the Highway Code in theory & practice within five attempts then I don't think you will ever be able to truly grasp the ability.
Essential skid pan testing, night driving, and busy motorway test before you can pass.... and you have to be ABLE to demonstrate that you can park more than once, and in more than one way.. front/back/parallel, so many people simply can't. I have had to get out of my car and park a lady's Merc estate in Fulham before now!! She should not be on the road!
Most people will think I'm an a55 for suggesting these things, but it would clear so many rubbish drivers off the road, reduce the need for stupid speed limits as proposed here on this thread/poll, make our roads less crowded, safer and a more enjoyable place to drive.

Ahhh, good Friday rant.

[Moonfly]

IMO, changing the signs on the roads makes no difference. People still drive at whatever speeds. Young people being silly is what causes most accidents and a change in the law wont stop that, only penalise decent drivers.

Sometimes I think these law changes are just keeping people in jobs. Personally I would remove the limits on motorways between 11pm and say 6am and let the young ones get it out of their system at this time. The police would at least have a definite time and place to patrol and watch whats going on. Dangerous drivers would still be penalised. I would then make the penalties for exceeding the speed limits in other areas more severe. The 20 mph limits we have in residential areas already are fine and dont need to be extended, but better enforcement would be most beneficial.

I think everything else should be left as it is.

[dBrowne]

No. There are less restrictive means to the same ends. Someone else mentioned variable speed limits.

France deals with adverse conditions by signposting 130/110kph dry/wet on the autoroute and 110/90kph dry/wet on the route nationale. Seems like a more sensible method than an overall lowering of the speed limit.

When I lived stateside, they had slower speeds on school roads for drop-off and pick-up signposted with a yellow flashing light during those times, and a warning that speeding fines were then double; the rest of the time, back to normal. That could work here for those times when kids are likely to be in the street.

That aside, anyone else remember the masochistic joy of doing a constant 55mph over there on those interminable straight stretches of road without the slightest active mental involvement with the driving experience to keep one vaguely alert? Too slow can also be dangerous.

Address this with the least amount of needless restriction and there is likely to be more belief in (and compliance with) the purported aims of the law than a blanket 20mph at all times is likely to engender.

[GrahamC]

Re-tests every x number of years will never happen because ..well it's numb idea. Motorway driving, skid pan driving, wet weather driving etc. should all be a compulsary part of 'training' not so much part of the test. The push for lower limits is not to reduce accidents it's to reduce the effects of any given accident.

I myself think that current speed restriction are at practical levels.