Does York need a city-wide 20mph limit? (From York Press)

Drivers are capable of deciding the appropriate speed based on their surroundings. Those that don't won't whatever limit you decide to put up.
This just treats the majority of people like idiots, nanny state nonsense.

I shall continue to attempt to drive in a safe and respectful manner at 30mph regardless of these ridiculous 20mph zones.

(In reality I rarely ever reach that speed in York anyway)

Torkie wrote:
Drivers are capable of deciding the appropriate speed based on their surroundings. Those that don't won't whatever limit you decide to put up.
This just treats the majority of people like idiots, nanny state nonsense.

If drivers we so capable of driving at appropriate speeds based on their surroundings then I wouldn't see other drivers tailgating my car when doing the speed limits. I wouldn't see cars passing too closely and too quickly when out on the roads cycling my bike. Empirical evidence shows why we need limits and enforcement and you have to question whether the Nanny State as you call it has come into existence due to the sheer volume of adult children within it.

interesting opposition from Mike Natt. Focuses on only the pedestrian safety aspect, ignoring other purported benefits such as cyclist integration, pollution, traffic noise and congestion. Fair enough. So lets look at what he's saying. Lack of granular data from DfT to suggest 20 zones definitely make an improvement of safety. Ok. He then suggests, with no data to substantiate the claim that "There is a real danger that in 20mph zones, you are encouraging pedestrians to take less care". Maybe he's talking about risk compensation here but this is speculation without data. He then goes on to highlight the severity of injury at lower speeds, yet makes no reference to the massive changes to reaction time and braking distance at such speeds. The fact of the matter is that a drop from 30 to 20 mph virtually doubles the overall stopping distance of a car thus providing more time to react. This is backed up by the laws of physics, not some speculation. He then goes on to say that pedestrians adhering to the highway code would save more lives than 20s Plenty. Well ignoring the classic victim blaming going on here, yes he's right. If people simply didn't go out of their houses at all, this would also probably save more lives too. The fact of the matter is that pedestrians do get distracted, do make poor decisions and do end up in the road when they shouldn't be. If the ability to stop a vehicle is doubled due to the car traveling at 20 instead of 30 mph then there is a greater chance of it stopping in time.

I might add that if drivers were to adhere to the highway code and pay attention to what's going on, presence of parked cars, shops, crossings, schools, and not be faffing about with car stereos, sat nav units, mobile phones etc and maybe even left sufficient distance between vehicles so not having the car in front obscure the view of potential pedestrians or cyclists in the road, this may also save more lives. Who knows?

Woody G Mellor wrote:
I shall continue to attempt to drive in a safe and respectful manner at 30mph regardless of these ridiculous 20mph zones.

(In reality I rarely ever reach that speed in York anyway)

I can only hope that enough people do adhere to such limits to make such a pig headed statement a moot point.

When I was at school I was able to "Keep Myself Safe" on the roads, rather than relying on others to do it for me.
How?
Easy.., by learning the 'Green Cross Code' ~ because then it didn't matter what speed the traffic was moving, "I was safe".

As it's obviously served me well for more than 50 years it proves it works very well so, the real debate (rather than speed limits) should be about.., Why doesn't the 'Green Cross Code' work for the people of today?

I often think of safety like this...
If I was walking near to a cliff edge where I could be seriously injured or even killed if I didn't take adequate care, is this any different to being safe either near to, or on a road?

When I was at school I was able to "Keep Myself Safe" on the roads, rather than relying on others to do it for me.
How?
Easy.., by learning the 'Green Cross Code' ~ because then it didn't matter what speed the traffic was moving, "I was safe".

As it's obviously served me well for more than 50 years it proves it works very well so, the real debate (rather than speed limits) should be about.., Why doesn't the 'Green Cross Code' work for the people of today?

I often think of safety like this...
If I was walking near to a cliff edge where I could be seriously injured or even killed if I didn't take adequate care, is this any different to being safe either near to, or on a road?

Dandy1950 wrote:
When I was at school I was able to "Keep Myself Safe" on the roads, rather than relying on others to do it for me.
How?
Easy.., by learning the 'Green Cross Code' ~ because then it didn't matter what speed the traffic was moving, "I was safe".

As it's obviously served me well for more than 50 years it proves it works very well so, the real debate (rather than speed limits) should be about.., Why doesn't the 'Green Cross Code' work for the people of today?

I often think of safety like this...
If I was walking near to a cliff edge where I could be seriously injured or even killed if I didn't take adequate care, is this any different to being safe either near to, or on a road?

Are you going to acknowledge the substantial increase in vehicular traffic over said 50 year period? the "Real" debate isn't just confined to safety of pedestrians, but has a wide scope including noise, congestion, pollution and the increased safety of cyclist integration with traffic at lower speeds.

Glad the green cross code served you well though. It's served me well for 30 odd years too. However, people are not machines, they will make errors of judgment, they have more distractions, traffic is heavier, more parked cars obscuring views etc. Many many factors. If people drove their cars, on the whole, at appropriate speeds for their surroundings leaving sufficient distance then such limits wouldn't be required at all. Unfortunately people don't.

As my old headmaster used to say "rules are for fools". He wasn't wrong.

Whenever the debate for or against 20 mph limits, it seems to me that those in favour do so for reasons of increased safety (for vulnerable road users & the streets in general), congestion reduction, reduced pollution and noise.

Those that are against it seem to do so as it's the nanny state imposing restrictions, cash cow for those that will break the speed limits (and therefore the law) and simply because they want to go faster.

Seriously society, someone's life is more important than getting from A to B as fast as you can.

As for Mr Natt contributions:

"it is true that you are statistically less likely to be killed if you are hit by a car traveling at 20mph than by one at 30mph, this does not tell the whole story".

I think it's the most relevant part of the story isn't it?

"I would like to see more measures such as railings to stop pedestrians getting onto roads."

As a Police accident investigator he must be fully aware of the additional dangers to cyclists of installing railings? Or does he expect cyclists to stay off the roads as well as pedestrians?

It's amazing how people can talk about a nanny state and that drivers are responsible, and the in the same breath say we need railings to protect pedestrians from themselves. Hypocritical?

Um, pollution? Any fool should realise this will increase pollution, not reduce it - most cars can't manage 20 in fourth. It's very common that a gear box will be designed such that 20 in 3rd requires more revs than 30 in 4th.

Markyjl wrote:
Whenever the debate for or against 20 mph limits, it seems to me that those in favour do so for reasons of increased safety (for vulnerable road users & the streets in general), congestion reduction, reduced pollution and noise.

Those that are against it seem to do so as it's the nanny state imposing restrictions, cash cow for those that will break the speed limits (and therefore the law) and simply because they want to go faster.

Seriously society, someone's life is more important than getting from A to B as fast as you can.

You clearly believe that a life does have an actual value, otherwise you'd be campaigning for everyone to be permanently strapped down and kept alive indefinitely on an IV, just to make sure they don't die before their time.

So just how valuable *is* a life? Can you predict how many lives these changes will save, and thus show that the benefit out weighs the cost that increased lateness, congestion, pollution, and wear and tear will cause?

Or is this just hand-wringing do-gooding to assuage a misplaced sense of guilt, with no hard figures to back it up?

lis0r wrote:

Markyjl wrote:
Whenever the debate for or against 20 mph limits, it seems to me that those in favour do so for reasons of increased safety (for vulnerable road users & the streets in general), congestion reduction, reduced pollution and noise.

Those that are against it seem to do so as it's the nanny state imposing restrictions, cash cow for those that will break the speed limits (and therefore the law) and simply because they want to go faster.

Seriously society, someone's life is more important than getting from A to B as fast as you can.

You clearly believe that a life does have an actual value, otherwise you'd be campaigning for everyone to be permanently strapped down and kept alive indefinitely on an IV, just to make sure they don't die before their time.

So just how valuable *is* a life? Can you predict how many lives these changes will save, and thus show that the benefit out weighs the cost that increased lateness, congestion, pollution, and wear and tear will cause?

Or is this just hand-wringing do-gooding to assuage a misplaced sense of guilt, with no hard figures to back it up?

"lis0r wrote:So just how valuable *is* a life? Can you predict how many lives these changes will save, and thus show that the benefit out weighs the cost that increased lateness, congestion, pollution, and wear and tear will cause?"

One single life is worth it. You seem to think that a life has a value to be weighed against the cost of inconvenience. Even Mr Natt in the article admits that statistically you are more likely to survive an accident at 20 than 30. Simple physics, or is it not simple enough for you?

As for "do-gooding", as opposed to what? Selfish wish to drive your car as fast as you can. I drive a car, I also have children. I read the stories like the women driver that killed two toddlers in Leicester recently. So if do-gooding means wanting to calm our streets to save peoples lives then count me in.

lis0r wrote:
Um, pollution? Any fool should realise this will increase pollution, not reduce it - most cars can't manage 20 in fourth. It's very common that a gear box will be designed such that 20 in 3rd requires more revs than 30 in 4th.

If you could be bothered to research a bit you'll find that it isn't at all clear that lower speeds lead to increased pollution. In built up areas higher speeds cause more acceleration, deceleration, and braking, all of which increase air pollution.

So if you reduce the speeds, and don't use calming measures such as speed bumps, then you can also reduce pollution by limiting these effects.

Markyjl wrote:

lis0r wrote:

Markyjl wrote:
Whenever the debate for or against 20 mph limits, it seems to me that those in favour do so for reasons of increased safety (for vulnerable road users & the streets in general), congestion reduction, reduced pollution and noise.

Those that are against it seem to do so as it's the nanny state imposing restrictions, cash cow for those that will break the speed limits (and therefore the law) and simply because they want to go faster.

Seriously society, someone's life is more important than getting from A to B as fast as you can.

You clearly believe that a life does have an actual value, otherwise you'd be campaigning for everyone to be permanently strapped down and kept alive indefinitely on an IV, just to make sure they don't die before their time.

So just how valuable *is* a life? Can you predict how many lives these changes will save, and thus show that the benefit out weighs the cost that increased lateness, congestion, pollution, and wear and tear will cause?

Or is this just hand-wringing do-gooding to assuage a misplaced sense of guilt, with no hard figures to back it up?

"lis0r wrote:So just how valuable *is* a life? Can you predict how many lives these changes will save, and thus show that the benefit out weighs the cost that increased lateness, congestion, pollution, and wear and tear will cause?"

One single life is worth it. You seem to think that a life has a value to be weighed against the cost of inconvenience. Even Mr Natt in the article admits that statistically you are more likely to survive an accident at 20 than 30. Simple physics, or is it not simple enough for you?

As for "do-gooding", as opposed to what? Selfish wish to drive your car as fast as you can. I drive a car, I also have children. I read the stories like the women driver that killed two toddlers in Leicester recently. So if do-gooding means wanting to calm our streets to save peoples lives then count me in.

If one single life is worth it, then why aren't you actively strapping people down? Since you're not, you're clearly lying.

And yes, benefit must be maximised for the majority, even if that does mean inconvenience, or even death, for a minority. This is why there are prisons, just wars, or indeed any existence greater than gathering berries. One life, many lives, absolutely *must* be weighed against the cost of inconvenience. Simple physics isn't good enough.

By do-gooding, I mean doing good *to be seen to be doing good*. It's quite possible that overall, this change would provide negative net benefit. Pure flim-flammery, holding back humanity.

Woody G Mellor wrote:
I shall continue to attempt to drive in a safe and respectful manner at 30mph regardless of these ridiculous 20mph zones. (In reality I rarely ever reach that speed in York anyway)

And because of the danger posed by people like you who think they're exempt from the rules, I shall be riding my bike - in a safe and respectful manner -in such a way as to ensure that motorists can't get past me on stretches of road where I judge that they can't safely overtake. So you'll actually find yourself doing 10 mph.

Markyjl wrote:

lis0r wrote:
Um, pollution? Any fool should realise this will increase pollution, not reduce it - most cars can't manage 20 in fourth. It's very common that a gear box will be designed such that 20 in 3rd requires more revs than 30 in 4th.

If you could be bothered to research a bit you'll find that it isn't at all clear that lower speeds lead to increased pollution. In built up areas higher speeds cause more acceleration, deceleration, and braking, all of which increase air pollution.

So if you reduce the speeds, and don't use calming measures such as speed bumps, then you can also reduce pollution by limiting these effects.

You can demonstrate that these effects won't simply be scaled? There will still be acceleration and deceleration - the reality is engines will be consistently revving higher, meaning they have traverse a greater range of revs to make the same speed difference when accelerating or decelerating.

Your argument, if anything, simply suggests we should stick to 30, and remove all the nonsense that makes us have to accelerate and decelerate so much. Achieving constant speeds is best served by increasing capacity, something which can be most easily achieved by increasing speeds.

lis0r wrote:
Um, pollution? Any fool should realise this will increase pollution, not reduce it - most cars can't manage 20 in fourth. It's very common that a gear box will be designed such that 20 in 3rd requires more revs than 30 in 4th.

the pollution argument has been done to death. you'll find traveling from one end of york to the other, after junctions, crossings, lights etc will be on average no where near 30 mph. more energy is required to move a car from standing, up to 30mph only to hit another stop compared to doing so to 20mph. This is why, when I set off to work on a morning on my bike, drivers I encounter at the start of the trip are lucky to be with me by the end, despite my low average journey speed.

lis0r wrote:

Markyjl wrote:

lis0r wrote:
Um, pollution? Any fool should realise this will increase pollution, not reduce it - most cars can't manage 20 in fourth. It's very common that a gear box will be designed such that 20 in 3rd requires more revs than 30 in 4th.

If you could be bothered to research a bit you'll find that it isn't at all clear that lower speeds lead to increased pollution. In built up areas higher speeds cause more acceleration, deceleration, and braking, all of which increase air pollution.

So if you reduce the speeds, and don't use calming measures such as speed bumps, then you can also reduce pollution by limiting these effects.

You can demonstrate that these effects won't simply be scaled? There will still be acceleration and deceleration - the reality is engines will be consistently revving higher, meaning they have traverse a greater range of revs to make the same speed difference when accelerating or decelerating.

Your argument, if anything, simply suggests we should stick to 30, and remove all the nonsense that makes us have to accelerate and decelerate so much. Achieving constant speeds is best served by increasing capacity, something which can be most easily achieved by increasing speeds.

Scaling is the point. At greater speeds drivers accelerate, decelerate, and brake at a higher rate. Research has shown traffic calming reduces braking, idle times, gear changing, and fuel consumption. The key is to not introduce measures which detract from this e.g. speed bumps.

Markyjl wrote:

lis0r wrote:

Markyjl wrote:

lis0r wrote:
Um, pollution? Any fool should realise this will increase pollution, not reduce it - most cars can't manage 20 in fourth. It's very common that a gear box will be designed such that 20 in 3rd requires more revs than 30 in 4th.

If you could be bothered to research a bit you'll find that it isn't at all clear that lower speeds lead to increased pollution. In built up areas higher speeds cause more acceleration, deceleration, and braking, all of which increase air pollution.

So if you reduce the speeds, and don't use calming measures such as speed bumps, then you can also reduce pollution by limiting these effects.

You can demonstrate that these effects won't simply be scaled? There will still be acceleration and deceleration - the reality is engines will be consistently revving higher, meaning they have traverse a greater range of revs to make the same speed difference when accelerating or decelerating.

Your argument, if anything, simply suggests we should stick to 30, and remove all the nonsense that makes us have to accelerate and decelerate so much. Achieving constant speeds is best served by increasing capacity, something which can be most easily achieved by increasing speeds.

Scaling is the point. At greater speeds drivers accelerate, decelerate, and brake at a higher rate. Research has shown traffic calming reduces braking, idle times, gear changing, and fuel consumption. The key is to not introduce measures which detract from this e.g. speed bumps.

quite right. the problem here is people picking holes with individual elements. the whole thing needs to be though about holistically.

The AA already released a misleading piece on the matter some time ago (link here http://www.theaa.com
/public_affairs/news
/20mph-roads-emissio
ns.html ).

The premise seems to be that in a 30mph zone people will be driving at 30mph. Again, it's a limit, not a recommendation and the idea is that people should be driving at a speed appropriate for the surrounding environment which is often not 30mph. That's before even looking at junctions and various other reasons, already mentioned, for having to slow / stop and start again.

I am sure there may well be small strips of 30mph roads where a conversion to 20 may cause an increase in fuel consumption for that stretch. However, you have to look at the overall picture and also secondary benefits, especially in a city like York, where many people already cycle and more may do it more often due to being able to share the road more safely with traffic limited to 20mph. Even with it being practically impossible to measure with any kind of accuracy, any additional trips by foot or bike that would have been made by car should be held in mind when thinking about total accounting for carbon emissions etc.

farmer_robot wrote:

Torkie wrote:
Drivers are capable of deciding the appropriate speed based on their surroundings. Those that don't won't whatever limit you decide to put up.
This just treats the majority of people like idiots, nanny state nonsense.

If drivers we so capable of driving at appropriate speeds based on their surroundings then I wouldn't see other drivers tailgating my car when doing the speed limits. I wouldn't see cars passing too closely and too quickly when out on the roads cycling my bike. Empirical evidence shows why we need limits and enforcement and you have to question whether the Nanny State as you call it has come into existence due to the sheer volume of adult children within it.

The majority are fine, non of this is going to prevent tailgating or people passing too close, it will make it worse. I'm not saying we don't need a limit but they need to be reasonable.
There's a 20 zone on askham lane where there's 10 meters of grass on either side of the road, you would have to be a mindless drone to drive down there at 20mph.
Being forced to would be rediculous, but then that's probably why no one pays attention to it as it is.
Drivers know what's safe and what isn't, by that i mean the majority.
People get stressed when they're forced to drive slower than they know is safe. This reminds of those that think they're safer going 45 on a A road when they're actually a menace.
Expect much more tailgating and risky maneuvers in these 20 zones.

Problem we have today is a generation who have grown up in a car culture, assuming 30mph is a target speed to reach as soon as possible, not a MAXIMUM. That is why the more we can get people who cycle as well as drive in York the more we create a tolerant culture with drivers who give space when passing cyclists. As commented above, cycling on Micklegate I am frequently passed by a driver accelerating in order to overtake me, only for them to be passed by me on reaching the queue for the lights. If they had driven at the 20mph behind me they would simply have had less idling time at the junction and used less fuel getting there. At the end of the day, if a cyclist or pedestrian steps out in front of a car driving at 30mph their chances of surviving are less: if the limit is 20mph the driver is liable whereas if it were 30mph it would be simply put down as a tragic incident. Lower speed limits shift the burden of responsibility back onto the driver to avoid a collision, which is what I was taught when I first passed my test nearly 40 years ago. Drive at a speed that you can safely stop from if anything happens, including inattentive young/old/ vulnerable road users. Any driver who has been involved in an accident will tell you afterwards they would rather have added 30 secs more delay to their journey even if it was 'not their fault'.

It's funny how things change, i failed my first test by going 20 through a 30 zone.
If only i had waited 5 years i might have saved myself the expense of redoing it all.

Maybe the council should make the outer ring road a dual carriageway instead of the single lane grid lock it is now. Maybe then more cars would use it than cut across town. As far as the idea of less pollution from 20mph zone goes are you off your head, one of worst air polluted streets in York is Gillygate and traffic moves at a steady 10-20mph. No money for green bins but plenty of money for new signage and speed humps!

farmer_robot wrote:

lis0r wrote:
Um, pollution? Any fool should realise this will increase pollution, not reduce it - most cars can't manage 20 in fourth. It's very common that a gear box will be designed such that 20 in 3rd requires more revs than 30 in 4th.

the pollution argument has been done to death. you'll find traveling from one end of york to the other, after junctions, crossings, lights etc will be on average no where near 30 mph. more energy is required to move a car from standing, up to 30mph only to hit another stop compared to doing so to 20mph. This is why, when I set off to work on a morning on my bike, drivers I encounter at the start of the trip are lucky to be with me by the end, despite my low average journey speed.

That's because bikes don't obey traffic lights and simply go through them.

Markyjl wrote:

lis0r wrote:

Markyjl wrote:

lis0r wrote:
Um, pollution? Any fool should realise this will increase pollution, not reduce it - most cars can't manage 20 in fourth. It's very common that a gear box will be designed such that 20 in 3rd requires more revs than 30 in 4th.

If you could be bothered to research a bit you'll find that it isn't at all clear that lower speeds lead to increased pollution. In built up areas higher speeds cause more acceleration, deceleration, and braking, all of which increase air pollution.

So if you reduce the speeds, and don't use calming measures such as speed bumps, then you can also reduce pollution by limiting these effects.

You can demonstrate that these effects won't simply be scaled? There will still be acceleration and deceleration - the reality is engines will be consistently revving higher, meaning they have traverse a greater range of revs to make the same speed difference when accelerating or decelerating.

Your argument, if anything, simply suggests we should stick to 30, and remove all the nonsense that makes us have to accelerate and decelerate so much. Achieving constant speeds is best served by increasing capacity, something which can be most easily achieved by increasing speeds.

Scaling is the point. At greater speeds drivers accelerate, decelerate, and brake at a higher rate. Research has shown traffic calming reduces braking, idle times, gear changing, and fuel consumption. The key is to not introduce measures which detract from this e.g. speed bumps.

20 mph zones are not traffic calming measures. The traffic that was in the 30 zone dose not dissaper as it rolls into a 20 it just gets closer together. Honestly

At some point in time gone past, it was decided that 30mph was a sensible speed limit for residential streets as opposed to the 40mph and above seen on less urban roads. Now a few glorified hippies have decided that it should be reduced to 20mph - if this is allowed to go ahead what is there to prevent the limit being lowered to 10mph? after all, there are less fatal collisions at 10mph than there are at 20mph!!!!! The line in the sand was drawn at 30mph, when drivers adhere to that whilst also driving sensibly (not racing cyclists to traffic islands or narrow bits of road, or flooring it past cyclists/pedestrians with very little room being allocated) there is no meritable reason to further reduce the speed limit.

farmer_robot wrote:

Dandy1950 wrote:
When I was at school I was able to "Keep Myself Safe" on the roads, rather than relying on others to do it for me.
How?
Easy.., by learning the 'Green Cross Code' ~ because then it didn't matter what speed the traffic was moving, "I was safe".

As it's obviously served me well for more than 50 years it proves it works very well so, the real debate (rather than speed limits) should be about.., Why doesn't the 'Green Cross Code' work for the people of today?

I often think of safety like this...
If I was walking near to a cliff edge where I could be seriously injured or even killed if I didn't take adequate care, is this any different to being safe either near to, or on a road?

Are you going to acknowledge the substantial increase in vehicular traffic over said 50 year period? the "Real" debate isn't just confined to safety of pedestrians, but has a wide scope including noise, congestion, pollution and the increased safety of cyclist integration with traffic at lower speeds.

Glad the green cross code served you well though. It's served me well for 30 odd years too. However, people are not machines, they will make errors of judgment, they have more distractions, traffic is heavier, more parked cars obscuring views etc. Many many factors. If people drove their cars, on the whole, at appropriate speeds for their surroundings leaving sufficient distance then such limits wouldn't be required at all. Unfortunately people don't.

As my old headmaster used to say "rules are for fools". He wasn't wrong.

Yes I do acknowledge there is more traffic ~ as there are more roads to carry it, and it would be very nice to have less noise and pollution but 20mph isn't going to cut that when vehicles have to run in probably 2nd or 3rd gear at subsequent higher engine rpm so, pumping out more fumes and more noise.
But ultimately, drivers are not machines and will also make errors too.
I consider myself to be a responsible driver and I'm rewarded with a much smoother, quieter ride and extra fuel savings.
"Rules are for those who are 'not' fools" and when adhered to work for the greater good of all.

This evening, I drove car+gps twice around 1.3 mile residential loop:

20-limit-driving-sty
le: av 19.0 mph 53 mpg

30-limit-driving-sty
le: av 22.5 mph 46 mpg

Pre-heated 1.6 diesel modern small-family car, suburban residential streets, 3 junctions. On 20mph loop, had to stop extra time to allow oncoming drivers to pass obstruction. All very unscientific and took me about 10 minutes so don't take too seriously.

This shows two things: (a) driving doesn't take anything like 50% longer as simple arithmetic might suggest (b) the 12% fuel saving quoted above seems right.

Peak speed on my 30 loop was around 36mph, and 26mph on 20 loop: this seems to be how today's British drivers "respect" their speed limits.