Manual for streets / 20mph limits.

[tomstickland]

One of my pet hates is the obsession with 20 limits magically making roads safer. Properly designed road layout and shared space schemes can achieve this, but changing road signs from 30 to 20 achieves virtually nothing IMO.
For example, I already travel at 20mph in my local estate because there's parked cars etc; I don't need my intelligence to be insulted by a bunch of busy bodies proclaiming how they've made the world a safer place.

Anyway, as part of my research I've been reading the government manual for streets, published in 2007.
It's a very well written document IMO.
Anyway, if you ever wonder what it says about residential speed limits start at page 87:
http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/sustainable/manforstreets/pdfmanforstreets.pdf

[Inactive]

One of my pet hates is the obsession with 20 limits magically making roads safer. Properly designed road layout and shared space schemes can achieve this, but changing road signs from 30 to 20 achieves virtually nothing IMO.
For example, I already travel at 20mph in my local estate because there's parked cars etc; I don't need my intelligence to be insulted by a bunch of busy bodies proclaiming how they've made the world a safer place.




You may well do Tom, however sadly many do not, if they did, there would be no need for such legislation.

The same applies to other speed limits, many drivers see them as a target limit, instead of a maximum limit, that should only be reached in ideal conditions.

[Keith]

Many of my local roads have had the limit reduced from 40 to 30.

Council minutes revealed that 3 of 4 councilors wanted them to remain at 40.

Yet they chose to reduce the speed limit and then fit speed cameras to enforce them.

[tomstickland]

You may well do Tom, however sadly many do not, if they did, there would be no need for such legislation.

The same applies to other speed limits, many drivers see them as a target limit, instead of a maximum limit, that should only be reached in ideal conditions.
My argument is more a "stop the meddling and self congratulation".
Every tin pot local politician can be seen to be "doing something" by proclaiming their brilliance in asking for 20 limits, when it'll actually achieve virtually nothing.

Most research I've read about has found that reducing a posted limit has a very weak effect on the 85th percentile speed. As the manual says, road layout is key to reducing speeds.

[Debt_Free_Chick]

My argument is more a "stop the meddling and self congratulation".
Every tin pot local politician can be seen to be "doing something" by proclaiming their brilliance in asking for 20 limits, when it'll actually achieve virtually nothing

Completely agree. Putting up a sign achieves nothing at all - we get "sign blindness" after a while. And most of those guilty of speeding are locals - they know the road. They know they can travel "safely" at 30, 40 or 50 mph.

However, in my experience, it's local residents that lobby for reduced speed limits. And if sufficient lobby, the local politicians have little choice. After all, that's a large part of their job - to deliver what the electorate want.

In my tiny rural Parish, the Parish Council have been campaigning for reduced speed limits for more than 10 years!!!! And they've built reserves to pay for it. Why? Because the local Highways Agency repeatedly advises that putting up new signs will not work - what's needed are measures that lead drivers to believe that there's a hazard/risk in travelling too fast. So they've recommended the PC consider build-outs, chicanes, rumble strips etc etc. None of these are ideal, IMHO, in a very rural area within an AONB.

Nevertheless, the local residents want a lower speed limit and the PC keeps banging on about it :mad:

There's a law against murder - it still happens. Telling drivers that the speed limit is 20mph is no way at all of getting them to drive at that speed - or at any speed which is safer to all concerned. They know the road. They know what they can get away with ... most of the time. Until there's a fatality.

[tomstickland]

Removing the white lines from the centre of the road makes a lot of difference.

[Debt_Free_Chick]

Removing the white lines from the centre of the road makes a lot of difference.

Removes a "target" or a guideline?

We have very few white lines. None at all in the village, but that doesn't stop people driving through at 50 mph when there's only just enough room for two vehicles to pass eachother. No chance if one is a tractor!

And ... one of the culprits is ..... Chairman of the Parish Council!!!! :mad: :rotfl:

[hewhoisnotintheknow]

i dont like the 20 limits but i also dont like the shared space schemes (allthough i agree they are probably the best solution.

The reason i dont like them is you get stupid people in bmw x5's etc pushing their way about as there are no markings etc telling them where they should be, then if you have an accident with one, theres no obvious right or wrong, just your word against theirs

[thescouselander]

Thats nothing compared to the number of speed bumps, chicanes and raised junctions we have round our way - its completely out of hand.

The parish council, supported by the local residents are trying to lobby the local counil to get the excessive traffic calming measures removed but there has been no progress. Its rubbish.

[Pew Pew Pew Lasers!]

If you want safer roads, then get safer drivers. To do that, get extra police, and extra training.

No amount of silly signs, painted lines, and stupid road calming measures can compete.

[rog2]

Our local council has recently dropped the 'main road' speed limit from 40 to 30 mph.
This was their 'response' to years of requests for a 'pedestrian crossing' which had been strongly resisted by the local convenience shop keeper, as he stood to lose one, possibly two 'parking spaces' where 'passing' lorries would pull in, on the opposite side of the road, and their drivers would run accross to make their 'purchases'.
Unfortunately, in March of this year, an 84 year old lady, who had lived all her life in the village, tried to negociate her way around one of these 'passing trade' lorries to get accross to the shop to buy milk - she was hit, and killed, by another lorry driver, whose visibility had been 'impaired' by the parked lorry.
We now have our pedestrian crossing.

[Throbbe]

Removing the white lines from the centre of the road makes a lot of difference.

It does, but the effect wears off in time as regular road users get used to it. The same is true of most 'visual' traffic calming, like gateways.

I'm quite impressed with the Manual for Streets, using it in a professional capacity. As you (and others) say, speed limits need to be self enforcing or they'll be almost entirely ignored.

[headpin]

.........
Unfortunately, in March of this year, an 84 year old lady, who had lived all her life in the village, tried to negociate her way around one of these 'passing trade' lorries to get accross to the shop to buy milk - she was hit, and killed, by another lorry driver, whose visibility had been 'impaired' by the parked lorry.
We now have our pedestrian crossing.


Unfortunate and sad as it is, the old lady was the issue here not the parked lorry(ies) or speed limit.

At 84 she should well have known her highway code and the “advice” of not attempting to cross near or between parked vehicles. It is not safe to do so. She should have put herself in a situation where she could see the road clearly and where road users could see her. She was trying to save time and her actions were clearly responsible for the shocking consequences.

What is very often never mentioned, if ever at all, is the actions of pedestrians in accidents. Many accidents involving pedestrians are as a direct result of their own behaviour. You only have to drive a few miles to see pedestrians who think they can step off the kerb without checking the prevailing traffic conditions and their environment. Roads are safe if everyone pays attention to their surroundings. Drivers have the safety of a metal box. Pedestrians do not and yet they often act as if they are invincible.

In many respects this is the fault of parents and of the current way children are transported everywhere by car. By being ferried everywhere by car very few now have any road sense or understand the potential hazards on the road. They do not realise that roads are dangerous and treat them as just another piece of harmless tarmac. If they are unlucky they will find that is not so.

It is a fact that it is not speed that is the problem, but inappropriate speed. In my opinion if motorists were treated as being sensible we would be better off. There will always be the idiots who travel too fast for the conditions regardless of what the limit may be. Remember, most limits have no scientific basis are facts to back them up. They are called for by groups of people, usually as a reaction to something that has happened as a result of inappropriate speed. Of course a lower limit would probable have had no affect as the driver would still have taken absolutely no notice of it. Really the speed reduction is just a knee jerk reaction.

[Hintza]

I would much prefer a 20mph speed limit to the teeth jarring speed humps they have put in on our local main street. Our council have also reduced road width by extending the pavement out for bus stops on each side. Now if two buses stop their is total grid lock. Parking spaces have been reduced whereby it is very hard to park now.

I only go into town for the Post Office and to be honest I now prefer to travel elsewhere rather than get messed around. I suspect that the few shops remaining will not be in business for much longer.

Apparently the reasoning was to stop the boy racers at night!! What about proper policing instead. (The police station closed a few years ago so yopu never see one now, when you do they are just their to slap tickets on all the cars trying to get to the shops)

[rog2]

Unfortunate and sad as it is, the old lady was the issue here not the parked lorry(ies) or speed limit.

I wasn't actually 'trying' to apportion 'blame' and I'm sorry if my post came accross that way.
The point was that it actually took a pedestrian's death for the council to realise that proper measures, such as pedestrian controlled electronic crossing lights are the only real measures for 'slowing' the traffic - changing the 'speed' limit from 40 to 30 made virtually no difference whatsoever - other than the additional 'revenue' collected by the 'Safety Partnership' mobile speed camera which seems, now, to have taken up residence in the local pub car park.
I have to say, though, that at 84 an old lady, who incidentally had never driven a car in her life, can be forgiven if she is not 100% au fait with the Highway Code.
Nor would it have been expecting too much for any lorry, either then or now, to have parked in such a way that they were not causing a potential obstruction - I should add that there is a foot path to the local school and housing estate which comes out opposite the local shop and, until the introduction of the pedestrian crossing was often blocked by 'passing customers', whether lorries or cars, making it difficult for pedestrians to pass, other than by going on to the road.

[rog2]

Apparently the reasoning was to stop the boy racers at night!! What about proper policing instead. (The police station closed a few years ago so yopu never see one now, when you do they are just their to slap tickets on all the cars trying to get to the shops)

Hence the name - 'Sleeping Policemen'. :rotfl: :rotfl:

[epninety]

One of my pet hates is the obsession with 20 limits magically making roads safer. Properly designed road layout and shared space schemes can achieve this, but changing road signs from 30 to 20 achieves virtually nothing IMO.

Great link tomstickland, fascinating reading, and I do rather agree about the magic 20mph cures. Around here the council has gone in for 20mph zones in a big way (some not entirely legal I now know from reading your link).
From my experience what's missing from the plans is any approach on controlling pedestrian behaviour. I know the current paradigm is that pedestrians and cyclists can do no wrong, but it makes a lot of the road planning a complete joke.

Theres a road I drive most days, dead straight and fairly wide, which the council has made a 20mph limit - fair enough. It also has 4 pedestrian crossings within about 200 yard distance. Apart from slowing the taxis from 40 to 30, the only effect I've noticed since the reworking is an increase in kids playing chicken, and more people just walking into the road instead of using the crossings).

I suspect there will have been an initial drop in accidents (caused by the changed circumstance making the regulars pay attention for a while) but overall the numbers will stay the same or even increase. I just feel sorry for the poor sod who hits one of the little gits who loiter at the crossings paying no attention and then dash out at the last second.

Every time they trot out 'accident statistics' as a reason for all this stuff, I'd just like someone to check their working out.

Right, putting my soapbox away now :rolleyes:

[Debt_Free_Chick]

The point was that it actually took a pedestrian's death for the council to realise that proper measures, such as pedestrian controlled electronic crossing lights are the only real measures for 'slowing' the traffic - changing the 'speed' limit from 40 to 30 made virtually no difference whatsoever

Interestingly, one of the statistics that Local and Central Government use to determine where money should be spent on things like crossings is the KSI - Killed or Seriously Injured.

The higher the KSI, the more likely the spot is to get some money thrown at it.

No KSI - no money. Hence the residents & Parish Council get lobbying!

[tomstickland]

Well, many thanks for an interesting and intelligent discussion. To balance it out we need someone to accuse posters of being car crazed speed freaks. Ideally they could also claim that lifes will be lost as a result.

Most of the local councillor blogs just seem to make the glib assumption that their campaigning is going to magically make their town safer. Of course, the most abused word of the times is "safe".

I hadn't really considered the Hawthorne effect of a change in street layout. The idea that pedestrians take less care makes sense; there's a compensationg effect. They think "20 limit, oh that's safe" and pay less attention. Whatever mode of transport I'm using, I'm always amazed at how little attention some people pay.

[epninety]

Well, many thanks for an interesting and intelligent discussion. To balance it out we need someone to accuse posters of being car crazed speed freaks. Ideally they could also claim that lifes will be lost as a result.

Ah, but that would be countered by one of the accused 'car crazy speed freaks' invoking Godwin's law, and bringing an enjoyable discussion to a close. :rolleyes:

[rog2]

The higher the KSI, the more likely the spot is to get some money thrown at it.

No KSI - no money. Hence the residents & Parish Council get lobbying!

Should we, then, seriously consider 'sacrificing' oldies in order to get money 'thrown' at the roads? :rotfl: :rotfl:

The 'system' is a mess. :mad:

[headpin]

.............
I have to say, though, that at 84 an old lady, who incidentally had never driven a car in her life, can be forgiven if she is not 100% au fait with the Highway Code.
..................

And that is, perhaps, where one of the great problem lies. It is the Highway Code. It is for the guidance of everyone who uses the Highway. That includes pedestrians.

As I said before, my view as a car driver, cyclist and pedestrian is that many accidents involving pedestrians are the pedestrians fault. However, the powers that be like to blame the motorist. It's nice and easy and wins votes from naive people. How many more adverts do they need to make of little girls getting run down and killed because the motorist was doing 30 mph rather than 20 mph? Hang on a minute! The little girl ran out in to the road without looking in to the path of an on coming car. So who is the guilty party? The little girl (or her parents for allowing her out without ensuring she knew how to cross safely). Who is the ad targetted at? The motorist. Why? surely the money should be spent on eductaing children on the correct way to cross from one side of the road to another.

Oh, I forgot, that means you cannot then put your cash cow cameras in place then if it's not speed that is the problem. Silly me.

[rog2]

And that is, perhaps, where one of the great problem lies. It is the Highway Code. It is for the guidance of everyone who uses the Highway. That includes pedestrians.

Hi hp - It is, indeed, a pity that I used the 'death' of a poor old lady as an example to show what it 'appeared to take' in order to get something done about an 'unsafe' road.
Even more 'unfortunate' given that I do not disagree with what you are saying about the 'responsibility of all road users, including pedestrians'. I agree, although not totally, when you say that the child who 'runs into the path of a car' must accept some of the blame, although, legally, that 'blame' would probably be shifted on to that child's parents, as the child would be under the age of 'legal responsibility'. The Law is not quite so clear cut when dealing with people at the other end of life's spectrum.
I never intended to point the finger of responsibility at the drivers - either the one who was parked, or the driver of the van that actually collided with Mrs. B. I have, since reading your reply, walked along to the particular part of the road and, whilst now the pedestrian crossing markings areon the road, at the precise spot, I can confirm that, at the time of the unfortunate accident, ther were double yellow lines, painted along this stretch of the road, meaning, to me, that the driver of the 'parked' lorry was, in fact, committing an offence by parking on 'double yellow lines' and obstructing the view of both the old lady and of the driver of the van that actually collided with her.
Now I know that 'two wrongs don't make a right' and I fully agree that every road user should be continuously checking ever-changing road conditions, so it is, of course diffcult, even wrong, to aportion 'blame' to anybody.
The fact that the pedestrian crossing has, now, been installed will, hopefully put an end to any further similar tragic accidents/incidents in the future.
Now that the crossing is fully installed and functioning, there has, certainly, been a marked reduction in the speed of vehicles (of all sizes) through the village, backing up what the OP said about the 'speed signs' making little or no difference, whereas the 'set of lights' at the crossing certainly has made a difference.
I often go to Italy, on business, and Italy certainly does not have a reputation for respecting speed limits, although this is changing - it is, after all, the birthplace of Professor GATSO, inventor of those infamous 'speed camera cows'. However, some of the other ways in which they are attacking 'excessive speeding' are certainly worth looking at in greater detail.
One such 'deterrent', used in Alto Adige, is a aset of fixed Traffic lights which turn red if the approaching vehicle is driving in excess of the legal/safe limit. These 'lights' will remain on 'red' for several seconds, as normal traffic lights, before turning green and allowing the motorist to continue on his journey. In some cases these lights are connected to a 'camera' which, if the motorist ignores the red light, will 'flash' and the motorist will receive a fine for 'jumping a red light'. I can assure you that these measures are much more effective in reducing speeding than a 'Safety Partnership' revenue collection van 'hidden' in a layby or pub car park.

[SCROOGE]

The traffic calming bumps in our area seem to be getting ever more viscious each time there are renewed (some contractors are doubtless on a nice earner there!). What is needed, in my view, is to do away with them altogether and for motorists to adopt a German-like discipline: when it says '20' you don't go above it; this coupled with fully-camouflaged, randomly-placed speed cameras should do the trick. Our traffic system overall needs a radical re-think in order to increase flow, part of which means - inevitably - increasing speed limits WHERE SAFE TO DO SO. In the case of motorways I would propose three measures: 1) Turning the inside lane into a lorry only lane with absolutely no overtaking: the motorway system is choked by lorries doing 61 mph overtaking lorries doing 60 mph, thus forcing cars out into the outside (overtaking) lane and snarling up the entire system. 2) Operating the outside lane (whether on a two-, three-, or four-lane highway) strictly as an overtaking lane (as per Highway Code and again as in Germany) with a fleet of speed cops on bikes enforcing it. 3) Remove the general speed limit on all motorways - yes, that too is the case in Germany. Oh, and can government please take action to curtail buses sitting at stops for five minutes, clogging up the traffic and spewing out noxious fumes, while people fumble with change, buy season tickets etc? What is wrong with a simple token system? I'm sure drivers would approve, and they could get on with the job in hand, namely driving the bus in a safe and efficient manner.