Talks on 20mph speed limit (From York Press)

20's plenty? MPH or pints PH Speed gun training, Does this mean these campaigners will be monitoring the 20 limit areas and what authority will they have to challenge anyone?

Here we go again. No doubt it will be the same debate that we've had previously. Nobody listening to common sense.
This morning on my drive to work I was thinking, as I passed the new 20mph signs on Price's Lane (off Nunnery Lane), how for me they were pointless. I've very rarely seen anyone walking along that road let alone crossing it. We should be able to rely on common sense, perhaps there are times of the day when 20mph would be safer along that road, I don't know, but it's pointless at 7am.

i just hope one of these interfering busy bodies walks out in front of me with a speed gun.total waste of time because they ve got no power to enforce anything.

the Yorkshire Terrier Pub ?!?!? Capacity about 12. That will be a full frank and lively debate then wont it

Bunch of interfering useless busybodies! It's not wanted and hardly anyone is obeying the new speed limits, including me. Does that not tell you anything you bunch of idiots.

Is the council using this calculator. 20MPH SPEED LIMIT = More Congestion = More pollution = More Deaths through pollution = More Miles per Gallon = More revenue for Police, Council through Speed Fines = Benefits Government through extra tax on Fuel and VAT. This is only another City Council ploy to get around the congestion charge.

I know these 20's plenty lot are full of good intentions, and they think they're right. But in this case they are indefinably....WRONG !
To hold a 'safety campaign meeting' in a boozer is Daft !

Is the council using this calculator. 20MPH SPEED LIMIT = More Miles per Gallon...

Less, actually. Your typical saloon or hatchback is designed to cruise efficiently at 30 (around 1,500 revs in fourth gear), because that's the most widespread urban speed limit. It is not designed to cruise at 20. If you do so, you'll find yourself doing around 2,000 revs in third gear, burning a lot more fuel and chucking a lot more exhaust gas into the atmosphere as a result.

Will be intersting to see if some cyclist get pulled for speeding as they have no speedo on the bikes.

All these 20mph signs going up around the place must be anathema to the "Decluttering Csar" Sir Ron Cooke!

"hardly anyone is obeying the new speed limits, including me..."
So if everyone breaks the Law, that makes it acceptable does it? You think that the Law doesn't apply to you? As a member of the Institute of Advanced Motorcyclists, I'm only too aware of the vulnerability of other road users, especially cyclists, pedestrians, motorcyclists, etc. I get sick of doing 30mph in a built up area, and being tailgated by an impatient angry car driver who believes that the legal limit doesn't apply to them and thinks that tailgating me will bully or intimidate me into driving faster or letting them past. It won't. If it says 20mph then 20mph is the limit. And speed limits are just that - a limit, NOT a target. I see stupid drivers doing 70mph+ on dual carriageways in appalling weather. People refuse to drive/ride according to the conditions. Why is everyone SO impatient? I will ALWAYS ride/drive within legal limits, accounting for traffic, weather, road conditions. Speed KILLS. Tailgating KILLS. There's no excuse for it! A car will happily "cruise" at 20mph - if the correct gear is selected. All engines vary. The 'lower rpm means using less fuel' idea is rubbish. Modern gearboxes will take a range of rpm to achieve the required torque. Many road users (including motorcyclists) are driving in too high a gear, in the mistaken belief that they are saving fuel. this leads them to speed up - over the legal limit. They justify it with the "well everyone's doing it, so it's OK for me to do it too" attitude. A lower gear will give more control and effectively utilise engine braking, coordinated with progressive foot braking. If the limit is 30mph, people will do 40mph. And that will KILL a pedestrian. If the limit's 20mph, a 30mph impact will likely not resist in a lethal impact. It's not about getting away with it! It's about safety!!! Slow down and DO NOT TAILGATE!

So our council tax is rising (despite being offered a handout) and York Council still manage to find great ways to throw away our money on pointless exercises.

Everybody who lives in the Bishopthorpe Rd area can surely see that it's rare a car can go round there at more than 20pmh as traffic usually runs from the top of the hill all the way into town. There are countless crossings on the busy areas...use them!

And that when it is quiet people who break the law and drive 40mph in a 30mph zone aren't going to slow down to 20mph. Surely that makes it more dangerous as people will be expecting cars to be slower when they will actually be as fast as before.

I've also lived in Dringhouses and Woodthorpe for about 10 years in each place and the traffic there certainly does not warrant 20mph zones.

And yes, fuel emissions are actually worse at 20mph than 30mph, so it's not very green either.

Not only was the council propaganda on this 20mph zone as waste of time and money, it was false.

When do we get some council leaders with common sense or actual awareness of the city?

Please don't waste another £1/2 million on something that is not needed and makes the city ugly!

deathwatch wrote:
"hardly anyone is obeying the new speed limits, including me..."
So if everyone breaks the Law, that makes it acceptable does it? You think that the Law doesn't apply to you? As a member of the Institute of Advanced Motorcyclists, I'm only too aware of the vulnerability of other road users, especially cyclists, pedestrians, motorcyclists, etc. I get sick of doing 30mph in a built up area, and being tailgated by an impatient angry car driver who believes that the legal limit doesn't apply to them and thinks that tailgating me will bully or intimidate me into driving faster or letting them past. It won't. If it says 20mph then 20mph is the limit. And speed limits are just that - a limit, NOT a target. I see stupid drivers doing 70mph+ on dual carriageways in appalling weather. People refuse to drive/ride according to the conditions. Why is everyone SO impatient? I will ALWAYS ride/drive within legal limits, accounting for traffic, weather, road conditions. Speed KILLS. Tailgating KILLS. There's no excuse for it! A car will happily "cruise" at 20mph - if the correct gear is selected. All engines vary. The 'lower rpm means using less fuel' idea is rubbish. Modern gearboxes will take a range of rpm to achieve the required torque. Many road users (including motorcyclists) are driving in too high a gear, in the mistaken belief that they are saving fuel. this leads them to speed up - over the legal limit. They justify it with the "well everyone's doing it, so it's OK for me to do it too" attitude. A lower gear will give more control and effectively utilise engine braking, coordinated with progressive foot braking. If the limit is 30mph, people will do 40mph. And that will KILL a pedestrian. If the limit's 20mph, a 30mph impact will likely not resist in a lethal impact. It's not about getting away with it! It's about safety!!! Slow down and DO NOT TAILGATE!

Personally I don't fit into any of those driving attitudes that you mention. Apart from ignoring the unneccecary 20mph speed limit imposed in the area that I live. And I shall continue to do so.

10 comments so far and I agree with all of them.
I wonder if Anna Semelyn will bother to stand as a Labour councellor next time, or will she revert back to the Green party from which she came. Her stupid mission for 20 mph limits has now been implemented, the lasting damage has been done.
I am a Labour suporter but would rather vote Tory than vote for her. She is a disgrace and embarrasment to the Labour Party, and I for one can't understand how all this nonesense has been allowed to happen.

Deathwatch wrote

"hardly anyone is obeying the new speed limits, including me..."

How can you admit driving over the speed limit on a public forum and then twitter on about safety and that everyone should obey the speed limit. As an advanced motorist ' shame on you'.

best set off now if anybody is going to this, I hope old bill is waiting with his breatheliser just down the road.

AMAJET wrote:
Deathwatch wrote "hardly anyone is obeying the new speed limits, including me..." How can you admit driving over the speed limit on a public forum and then twitter on about safety and that everyone should obey the speed limit. As an advanced motorist ' shame on you'.

Facepalm, he/she was quoting a previous poster.

deathwatch wrote:
"hardly anyone is obeying the new speed limits, including me..." So if everyone breaks the Law, that makes it acceptable does it? You think that the Law doesn't apply to you? As a member of the Institute of Advanced Motorcyclists, I'm only too aware of the vulnerability of other road users, especially cyclists, pedestrians, motorcyclists, etc. I get sick of doing 30mph in a built up area, and being tailgated by an impatient angry car driver who believes that the legal limit doesn't apply to them and thinks that tailgating me will bully or intimidate me into driving faster or letting them past. It won't. If it says 20mph then 20mph is the limit. And speed limits are just that - a limit, NOT a target. I see stupid drivers doing 70mph+ on dual carriageways in appalling weather. People refuse to drive/ride according to the conditions. Why is everyone SO impatient? I will ALWAYS ride/drive within legal limits, accounting for traffic, weather, road conditions. Speed KILLS. Tailgating KILLS. There's no excuse for it! A car will happily "cruise" at 20mph - if the correct gear is selected. All engines vary. The 'lower rpm means using less fuel' idea is rubbish. Modern gearboxes will take a range of rpm to achieve the required torque. Many road users (including motorcyclists) are driving in too high a gear, in the mistaken belief that they are saving fuel. this leads them to speed up - over the legal limit. They justify it with the "well everyone's doing it, so it's OK for me to do it too" attitude. A lower gear will give more control and effectively utilise engine braking, coordinated with progressive foot braking. If the limit is 30mph, people will do 40mph. And that will KILL a pedestrian. If the limit's 20mph, a 30mph impact will likely not resist in a lethal impact. It's not about getting away with it! It's about safety!!! Slow down and DO NOT TAILGATE!

Good post, I think once the new 20mph limits become widespread they'll gradually become accepted and all the gnashing of teeth and wringing of hands will cease, and we'll see a reduction in speed and a more pleasant environment for everyone. I'm also one of the motorists who sticks to the new limit and has to suffer tailgating and aggresive driving, ho-hum, I know who's in the right.

Yorkshire Terrier .
founder Rod King will be at the Winning Post pub ??

well thats 2 pubs i will be givin a miss this fri/sat

I don't agree that once it becomes widespread it will be accepted. It is a pointless exercise so I don't think people will stick to the limits at all. If people can see sense in it they'll obey but there is no sense to it.

As for those going over 30 presently, yes there are some people that drive agressively and want to go speeding round town and I can't stand them. But they're not going to change. Most people know how to drive safely, those that don't aren't going to suddenly become perfect considerate drivers just because the speed limit's been changed. I always say a speed limit is there to protect you but I won't be saying that any more as I can't see the sense in a blanket 20mph.

As for deathwatch saying just select the appropriate gear, my car is an automatic!!! It selects what it wants, and what it doesn't want is to be grinding along at 20mph!!

If the limit is 30mph, people will do 40mph. And that will KILL a pedestrian.

Not if the pedestrian stays on the pavement, it won't.

piaggio1 wrote:
Yorkshire Terrier . founder Rod King will be at the Winning Post pub ?? well thats 2 pubs i will be givin a miss this fri/sat

Maybe you should go along and heckle .... er, I mean give a sensible point of view.

I find it incredible that people can get so petty over this.
A new speed limit has been introduced, it's the law, it's designed to make our streets a more pleasant place to be regardless of your mode of transport, deal with it.
There's more to life than driving.
Nobody is more important than anyone else.
If you're all so worried about your liberties being eroded, why not start a legal campaign to have the limit raised back up again instead of bleating about it on the press comments?
sad sad people.

A legal campaign won't be necessary, council elections are just around the corner, and hopefully the more sane citizens will be able to vote these lunatics back to the asylum!

Thing is, this isn't about having our liberty to drive fast taken away.
It's about having our freedom of thought legislated away. As in our freedom of thought to make sensible and rational decisions.

When this law comes to pass, people will gradually come to accept it as stated above. But they will also gradually come to forget why it is they are driving at that speed. They will just do it because they are supposed to.

I'd much prefer to have thinking drivers around me knowing why it is they are expected to drive a certain way.

For an example I will cite the use of indicators.
More than 50% of drivers indicate inappropriately and pointlessly.
They indicate when they've already manoeuvred.
The point of indicators is to signal to other road users and pedestrians the intent to turn, if you're already turning, what's the point?
Yet people still pointlessly click them on too late because they feel they are supposed to.

They aren't doing it for its intended purpose, just because it's law.
It shows they obviously don't know why they are even ding what they are doing.

20s Plenty is like giving aspirin for toothache - better to deal with the root of the pain.
Far, far more productive would be more rigorous and/or regular testing of driving ability and better education improving social conscience.

20s Plenty? Pfffft!

New 20mph speed limit signs on Bishopthorpe Road but its difficult to see them for all the cars parked on the footpath. When are all these road safety campaigners going to start targeting those who park illegally on the public footpaths along both sides of Bishopthorpe Road ?

Excellent post 'Buzz' I don't need some Green Fairy to tell me 20's Plenty !

Buzz Light-year wrote:
Thing is, this isn't about having our liberty to drive fast taken away. It's about having our freedom of thought legislated away. As in our freedom of thought to make sensible and rational decisions. When this law comes to pass, people will gradually come to accept it as stated above. But they will also gradually come to forget why it is they are driving at that speed. They will just do it because they are supposed to. I'd much prefer to have thinking drivers around me knowing why it is they are expected to drive a certain way. For an example I will cite the use of indicators. More than 50% of drivers indicate inappropriately and pointlessly. They indicate when they've already manoeuvred. The point of indicators is to signal to other road users and pedestrians the intent to turn, if you're already turning, what's the point? Yet people still pointlessly click them on too late because they feel they are supposed to. They aren't doing it for its intended purpose, just because it's law. It shows they obviously don't know why they are even ding what they are doing. 20s Plenty is like giving aspirin for toothache - better to deal with the root of the pain. Far, far more productive would be more rigorous and/or regular testing of driving ability and better education improving social conscience. 20s Plenty? Pfffft!

So lets apply that logic to all speed limits then, nice thought but we know it would be mayhem.
This is all about people being resistant to change, give it a few months and it will be second nature to drop your speed coming into a 20 limit. People are sheep, they need direction, as is apparent reading some of the comments above.

Jazzper wrote:
Excellent post 'Buzz' I don't need some Green Fairy to tell me 20's Plenty !

Totally agree.

Wish I could pedal at 20 mph..mind you I clocked 28 mph once on my touring bike going downhill at the time. Fantastic feeling!

Well, Mr Udigawa I take your point but you seem to ignore my final paragraph.

Far, far more productive would be more rigorous and/or regular testing of driving ability and better education improving social conscience

if i travel at 20mph in 3rd gear my car does 30-35 mpg, 30mph in 4th and it is 60-65mpg. I am not sure how producing twice the pollution makes for a 'nicer' environment?

I don't think people are complaining because it's an inconvenience or because someone wants to stop them driving fast. If there was a logical reason for it, like when they introduced it outside schools, then people would go along with it. But when there is no logic then of course people are going to be p***ed off! Not all people are sheep, I have a brain and it is telling me this is pointless!!!

If you're going to do anything, tackle those that currently drive inappropriately and pedestrians. Don't just tell everyone to drive slower because a minority of people can't tell the difference between a path and a road!!

pedalling paul wrote:
Wish I could pedal at 20 mph..mind you I clocked 28 mph once on my touring bike going downhill at the time. Fantastic feeling!

There quite a lot of cyclist who can achieve over 20mph especially with fancy mountain bikes and road bikes.Many years ago i was able to achieve that on my tank of a bike. I wish I still could.
I think that maybe conjestion neds to be looked at too as the poppy road junction is an accident waiting to happen as cars turn on green but because of bottle necking the padestrian crossing then turns to green and kids walk between cars. I have witnessed near miss when mopeds have shot through and just missed a kid. I see the reasons for 20mph but logic dictates a kid wont be playing outside from 11pm till 6am. enforce road regulations that are there now may be 1st step. 20mph should be mandatory in places like school, hospitals etc.

Buzz Light-year wrote:
Well, Mr Udigawa I take your point but you seem to ignore my final paragraph.

Far, far more productive would be more rigorous and/or regular testing of driving ability and better education improving social conscience

No I didn't ignore it, I agree with you, but it's a pipedream.

pedalling paul wrote:
Wish I could pedal at 20 mph..mind you I clocked 28 mph once on my touring bike going downhill at the time. Fantastic feeling!

Micklegate? Cobbles? Seat off?

20's fine by me, as a driver, cyclist, and pedestrian. How many seconds will anyone have added to their morning commute? A few, maybe none; just slightly more time moving, and slightly less time stationary waiting for red lights to change.

Anyway, let's all give it a fair trial, and see the accident figures in a couple of years.

old_geezer wrote:
20's fine by me, as a driver, cyclist, and pedestrian. How many seconds will anyone have added to their morning commute? A few, maybe none; just slightly more time moving, and slightly less time stationary waiting for red lights to change. Anyway, let's all give it a fair trial, and see the accident figures in a couple of years.

That is my point. There are no accident figures actually worth concidering. Yes, there have been accidents in the 27 years that I have lived in South Bank. Hand on heart I dont remember many, and I doubt they were all the motorists fault for travelling over 20mph!

old_geezer wrote:
20's fine by me, as a driver, cyclist, and pedestrian. How many seconds will anyone have added to their morning commute? A few, maybe none; just slightly more time moving, and slightly less time stationary waiting for red lights to change.

Anyway, let's all give it a fair trial, and see the accident figures in a couple of years.

The problem here is people thinking those against it are just in a massive hurry to get somewhere. I agree, it probably won't take much more time but that's not the point. It's not good for your car, especially automatics, mine wants to change gear at 20 so will not be happy at all. And it's not good for you mentally. Yes I know there will people puffing their faces at that comment but when there is no good reason to go at 20 then it's frustrating!! There must be lots of people who had to endure the 50mph limit on the A1, trundling along for no good reason at all, especially at the weekend when they weren't even doing anything. It's that kind of frustration that can make people do stupid things. I don't think that makes it a safer environment, pi**ing people off so they get annoyed.

Why are the drivers always to blame, why not the pedestrians for not crossing the road properly?!

MrsHoney wrote:
I don't agree that once it becomes widespread it will be accepted. It is a pointless exercise so I don't think people will stick to the limits at all. If people can see sense in it they'll obey but there is no sense to it.

As for those going over 30 presently, yes there are some people that drive agressively and want to go speeding round town and I can't stand them. But they're not going to change. Most people know how to drive safely, those that don't aren't going to suddenly become perfect considerate drivers just because the speed limit's been changed. I always say a speed limit is there to protect you but I won't be saying that any more as I can't see the sense in a blanket 20mph.

As for deathwatch saying just select the appropriate gear, my car is an automatic!!! It selects what it wants, and what it doesn't want is to be grinding along at 20mph!!

"...my car is an automatic!!! It selects what it wants, and what it doesn't want is to be grinding along at 20mph!!"
you can override the automatic gearbox. It doesn't just say 'P', 'N' & 'D' next to it - You can MANUALLY retain, say, first and second gear. That function is there for a reason. To give the driver more control and torque WHEN IT IS NEEDED. Even an automatic-geared vehicle will drive fine in the appropriate gear at 20mph! Will you exceed the speed limit, then go to Court and say: ' Oh, I had no choice, Your Honour. My automatic car "didn't want" to do 20mph'? YOU are in control of the vehicle, not the other way around. Blaming the car is no excuse. Nor is justifiying speeding for "environmental" reasons.
'Guy Fawkes' makes a pointless comment about 'pedestrians should stay on the pavement'. Pedestrians consist of vulnerable people, (such as the elderly, children, those with physical and/or mental impairments). They can step out without warning. It's fine to say "oh well, he/she should have looked, should have used the pedestrian crossing, etc. It's not MY fault...!". Will that satisfy you (and their loved ones) after your car has killed or maimed them?
Plus, car indicators are NOT a signal that a vehicle is DEFINITELY going to change direction. All they tell you is that the indicator works! It may not have been cancelled, or may have been activated in error. NEVER assume anything! Also, be aware that the mirrors do not tell you everything that is going on around you. The words "blind spot" don't seem to mean much to a lot of drivers. In built up areas, the situation, re. hazards, can change VERY quickly. Far faster than most people can react. The faster you are travelling, the far greater your reaction time. Speed limits (especially in built up areas) are in place for that very reason. Failure to observe them, either out of sheer arrogance, impatience or lack of due care and attention is simply gambling with other people's lives. Is it REALLY worth that just to get somewhere a bit quicker? Can you not just leave a little earlier? It's alright quoting 'logic' but humans using the roads do not always behave 'logically'. Trying to be more observant when out in the car, and easing off the accelerator will help this. And save lives.

Woody G Mellor wrote:

deathwatch wrote:
"hardly anyone is obeying the new speed limits, including me..."
So if everyone breaks the Law, that makes it acceptable does it? You think that the Law doesn't apply to you? As a member of the Institute of Advanced Motorcyclists, I'm only too aware of the vulnerability of other road users, especially cyclists, pedestrians, motorcyclists, etc. I get sick of doing 30mph in a built up area, and being tailgated by an impatient angry car driver who believes that the legal limit doesn't apply to them and thinks that tailgating me will bully or intimidate me into driving faster or letting them past. It won't. If it says 20mph then 20mph is the limit. And speed limits are just that - a limit, NOT a target. I see stupid drivers doing 70mph+ on dual carriageways in appalling weather. People refuse to drive/ride according to the conditions. Why is everyone SO impatient? I will ALWAYS ride/drive within legal limits, accounting for traffic, weather, road conditions. Speed KILLS. Tailgating KILLS. There's no excuse for it! A car will happily "cruise" at 20mph - if the correct gear is selected. All engines vary. The 'lower rpm means using less fuel' idea is rubbish. Modern gearboxes will take a range of rpm to achieve the required torque. Many road users (including motorcyclists) are driving in too high a gear, in the mistaken belief that they are saving fuel. this leads them to speed up - over the legal limit. They justify it with the "well everyone's doing it, so it's OK for me to do it too" attitude. A lower gear will give more control and effectively utilise engine braking, coordinated with progressive foot braking. If the limit is 30mph, people will do 40mph. And that will KILL a pedestrian. If the limit's 20mph, a 30mph impact will likely not resist in a lethal impact. It's not about getting away with it! It's about safety!!! Slow down and DO NOT TAILGATE!

Personally I don't fit into any of those driving attitudes that you mention. Apart from ignoring the unneccecary 20mph speed limit imposed in the area that I live. And I shall continue to do so.

Actually you DO fit into 'one of the categories', as you arrogantly put it: You are one of the people who think that the law doesn't apply to them and, because you disagree with it personally, you think you're justified in breaking the Law! I'd be tempted to say: 'Oh well, suit yourself - it's your licence'. But it's the lives of others that you arrogantly endanger...

deathwatch wrote:

Woody G Mellor wrote:

deathwatch wrote:
"hardly anyone is obeying the new speed limits, including me..."
So if everyone breaks the Law, that makes it acceptable does it? You think that the Law doesn't apply to you? As a member of the Institute of Advanced Motorcyclists, I'm only too aware of the vulnerability of other road users, especially cyclists, pedestrians, motorcyclists, etc. I get sick of doing 30mph in a built up area, and being tailgated by an impatient angry car driver who believes that the legal limit doesn't apply to them and thinks that tailgating me will bully or intimidate me into driving faster or letting them past. It won't. If it says 20mph then 20mph is the limit. And speed limits are just that - a limit, NOT a target. I see stupid drivers doing 70mph+ on dual carriageways in appalling weather. People refuse to drive/ride according to the conditions. Why is everyone SO impatient? I will ALWAYS ride/drive within legal limits, accounting for traffic, weather, road conditions. Speed KILLS. Tailgating KILLS. There's no excuse for it! A car will happily "cruise" at 20mph - if the correct gear is selected. All engines vary. The 'lower rpm means using less fuel' idea is rubbish. Modern gearboxes will take a range of rpm to achieve the required torque. Many road users (including motorcyclists) are driving in too high a gear, in the mistaken belief that they are saving fuel. this leads them to speed up - over the legal limit. They justify it with the "well everyone's doing it, so it's OK for me to do it too" attitude. A lower gear will give more control and effectively utilise engine braking, coordinated with progressive foot braking. If the limit is 30mph, people will do 40mph. And that will KILL a pedestrian. If the limit's 20mph, a 30mph impact will likely not resist in a lethal impact. It's not about getting away with it! It's about safety!!! Slow down and DO NOT TAILGATE!

Personally I don't fit into any of those driving attitudes that you mention. Apart from ignoring the unneccecary 20mph speed limit imposed in the area that I live. And I shall continue to do so.

Actually you DO fit into 'one of the categories', as you arrogantly put it: You are one of the people who think that the law doesn't apply to them and, because you disagree with it personally, you think you're justified in breaking the Law! I'd be tempted to say: 'Oh well, suit yourself - it's your licence'. But it's the lives of others that you arrogantly endanger...

And I shall continue to arrogantly do so. Especially if it pees off arrogant, selfish, drivel spouting idiots like you.

Anyone else noticed that whenever there is an article on this subject the objectors overwhelm the amount of pro-20mph posters.

Something stinks to high heaven about this whole thing.

Woody G Mellor wrote:

deathwatch wrote:

Woody G Mellor wrote:

deathwatch wrote:
"hardly anyone is obeying the new speed limits, including me..."
So if everyone breaks the Law, that makes it acceptable does it? You think that the Law doesn't apply to you? As a member of the Institute of Advanced Motorcyclists, I'm only too aware of the vulnerability of other road users, especially cyclists, pedestrians, motorcyclists, etc. I get sick of doing 30mph in a built up area, and being tailgated by an impatient angry car driver who believes that the legal limit doesn't apply to them and thinks that tailgating me will bully or intimidate me into driving faster or letting them past. It won't. If it says 20mph then 20mph is the limit. And speed limits are just that - a limit, NOT a target. I see stupid drivers doing 70mph+ on dual carriageways in appalling weather. People refuse to drive/ride according to the conditions. Why is everyone SO impatient? I will ALWAYS ride/drive within legal limits, accounting for traffic, weather, road conditions. Speed KILLS. Tailgating KILLS. There's no excuse for it! A car will happily "cruise" at 20mph - if the correct gear is selected. All engines vary. The 'lower rpm means using less fuel' idea is rubbish. Modern gearboxes will take a range of rpm to achieve the required torque. Many road users (including motorcyclists) are driving in too high a gear, in the mistaken belief that they are saving fuel. this leads them to speed up - over the legal limit. They justify it with the "well everyone's doing it, so it's OK for me to do it too" attitude. A lower gear will give more control and effectively utilise engine braking, coordinated with progressive foot braking. If the limit is 30mph, people will do 40mph. And that will KILL a pedestrian. If the limit's 20mph, a 30mph impact will likely not resist in a lethal impact. It's not about getting away with it! It's about safety!!! Slow down and DO NOT TAILGATE!

Personally I don't fit into any of those driving attitudes that you mention. Apart from ignoring the unneccecary 20mph speed limit imposed in the area that I live. And I shall continue to do so.

Actually you DO fit into 'one of the categories', as you arrogantly put it: You are one of the people who think that the law doesn't apply to them and, because you disagree with it personally, you think you're justified in breaking the Law! I'd be tempted to say: 'Oh well, suit yourself - it's your licence'. But it's the lives of others that you arrogantly endanger...

And I shall continue to arrogantly do so. Especially if it pees off arrogant, selfish, drivel spouting idiots like you.

Of course, comments about safe, patient driving and respect for other road users are 'selfish drivel'! You carry on, you dangerous, arrogant old fool!... I'll not rise to your immature petty attitude. Put your foot down and drive at whatever speed you want. To Hell with the Law and everyone else on the road. We'll just have to swerve or dive out of your way and hope for the best.... :) Take care, Pops!

Old?!

Guy Fawkes' makes a pointless comment about 'pedestrians should stay on the pavement'. Pedestrians consist of vulnerable people, (such as the elderly, children, those with physical and/or mental impairments). They can step out without warning. It's fine to say "oh well, he/she should have looked, should have used the pedestrian crossing, etc. It's not MY fault...!". Will that satisfy you (and their loved ones) after your car has killed or maimed them?

So I take it you'd have no problem with the elderly, vulnerable and/or disabled driving cars and causing accidents in them, either, on the justification that being elderly, vulnerable and/or disabled exempts you from the responsibilities that the rest of us have to accept?

deathwatch, get a life! you must be the most boring person I've ever whitnessed on here, and that takes some do I can tell you!

I'm all for road safety, and there's no doubting there are some idiots that do drive too fast, but you can't help but feel these 20mph limits are a load of tosh. If we really wanted to make the roads safer the money it has cost would have been better served maintaining them and enfocing the existing laws governing them.

Woody G Mellor wrote:

deathwatch wrote:

Woody G Mellor wrote:

deathwatch wrote: "hardly anyone is obeying the new speed limits, including me..." So if everyone breaks the Law, that makes it acceptable does it? You think that the Law doesn't apply to you? As a member of the Institute of Advanced Motorcyclists, I'm only too aware of the vulnerability of other road users, especially cyclists, pedestrians, motorcyclists, etc. I get sick of doing 30mph in a built up area, and being tailgated by an impatient angry car driver who believes that the legal limit doesn't apply to them and thinks that tailgating me will bully or intimidate me into driving faster or letting them past. It won't. If it says 20mph then 20mph is the limit. And speed limits are just that - a limit, NOT a target. I see stupid drivers doing 70mph+ on dual carriageways in appalling weather. People refuse to drive/ride according to the conditions. Why is everyone SO impatient? I will ALWAYS ride/drive within legal limits, accounting for traffic, weather, road conditions. Speed KILLS. Tailgating KILLS. There's no excuse for it! A car will happily "cruise" at 20mph - if the correct gear is selected. All engines vary. The 'lower rpm means using less fuel' idea is rubbish. Modern gearboxes will take a range of rpm to achieve the required torque. Many road users (including motorcyclists) are driving in too high a gear, in the mistaken belief that they are saving fuel. this leads them to speed up - over the legal limit. They justify it with the "well everyone's doing it, so it's OK for me to do it too" attitude. A lower gear will give more control and effectively utilise engine braking, coordinated with progressive foot braking. If the limit is 30mph, people will do 40mph. And that will KILL a pedestrian. If the limit's 20mph, a 30mph impact will likely not resist in a lethal impact. It's not about getting away with it! It's about safety!!! Slow down and DO NOT TAILGATE!

Personally I don't fit into any of those driving attitudes that you mention. Apart from ignoring the unneccecary 20mph speed limit imposed in the area that I live. And I shall continue to do so.

Actually you DO fit into 'one of the categories', as you arrogantly put it: You are one of the people who think that the law doesn't apply to them and, because you disagree with it personally, you think you're justified in breaking the Law! I'd be tempted to say: 'Oh well, suit yourself - it's your licence'. But it's the lives of others that you arrogantly endanger...

And I shall continue to arrogantly do so. Especially if it pees off arrogant, selfish, drivel spouting idiots like you.

You lost your argument at this point Woody

Mr Udigawa wrote:

Woody G Mellor wrote:

deathwatch wrote:

Woody G Mellor wrote:

deathwatch wrote: "hardly anyone is obeying the new speed limits, including me..." So if everyone breaks the Law, that makes it acceptable does it? You think that the Law doesn't apply to you? As a member of the Institute of Advanced Motorcyclists, I'm only too aware of the vulnerability of other road users, especially cyclists, pedestrians, motorcyclists, etc. I get sick of doing 30mph in a built up area, and being tailgated by an impatient angry car driver who believes that the legal limit doesn't apply to them and thinks that tailgating me will bully or intimidate me into driving faster or letting them past. It won't. If it says 20mph then 20mph is the limit. And speed limits are just that - a limit, NOT a target. I see stupid drivers doing 70mph+ on dual carriageways in appalling weather. People refuse to drive/ride according to the conditions. Why is everyone SO impatient? I will ALWAYS ride/drive within legal limits, accounting for traffic, weather, road conditions. Speed KILLS. Tailgating KILLS. There's no excuse for it! A car will happily "cruise" at 20mph - if the correct gear is selected. All engines vary. The 'lower rpm means using less fuel' idea is rubbish. Modern gearboxes will take a range of rpm to achieve the required torque. Many road users (including motorcyclists) are driving in too high a gear, in the mistaken belief that they are saving fuel. this leads them to speed up - over the legal limit. They justify it with the "well everyone's doing it, so it's OK for me to do it too" attitude. A lower gear will give more control and effectively utilise engine braking, coordinated with progressive foot braking. If the limit is 30mph, people will do 40mph. And that will KILL a pedestrian. If the limit's 20mph, a 30mph impact will likely not resist in a lethal impact. It's not about getting away with it! It's about safety!!! Slow down and DO NOT TAILGATE!

Personally I don't fit into any of those driving attitudes that you mention. Apart from ignoring the unneccecary 20mph speed limit imposed in the area that I live. And I shall continue to do so.

Actually you DO fit into 'one of the categories', as you arrogantly put it: You are one of the people who think that the law doesn't apply to them and, because you disagree with it personally, you think you're justified in breaking the Law! I'd be tempted to say: 'Oh well, suit yourself - it's your licence'. But it's the lives of others that you arrogantly endanger...

And I shall continue to arrogantly do so. Especially if it pees off arrogant, selfish, drivel spouting idiots like you.

You lost your argument at this point Woody

I lost the argument the moment the 20mph signs went up. It won't stop me fighting though.

Mr Udigawa wrote:

Buzz Light-year wrote: Well, Mr Udigawa I take your point but you seem to ignore my final paragraph.

Far, far more productive would be more rigorous and/or regular testing of driving ability and better education improving social conscience

No I didn't ignore it, I agree with you, but it's a pipedream.

Fair point.
But let's just say as a for instance that a small but doggedly persistent group of well meaning busy bodies got together and campaigned for tougher driving tests and better standards instead, perhaps one of them could switch political allegiance so as to make sure their personal pet project got passed.
They could spam the local paper with their idea and put up stickers and posters all over Fishergate.
They could call the campaign "Better Tests Are Best" or "Stand up for Standards"or something.

With terrier like persistence and a refusal to give in even in the face of widespread resistance they could make it more than just a pipedream...

Buzz Light-year wrote:

Mr Udigawa wrote:

Buzz Light-year wrote: Well, Mr Udigawa I take your point but you seem to ignore my final paragraph.

Far, far more productive would be more rigorous and/or regular testing of driving ability and better education improving social conscience

No I didn't ignore it, I agree with you, but it's a pipedream.

Fair point. But let's just say as a for instance that a small but doggedly persistent group of well meaning busy bodies got together and campaigned for tougher driving tests and better standards instead, perhaps one of them could switch political allegiance so as to make sure their personal pet project got passed. They could spam the local paper with their idea and put up stickers and posters all over Fishergate. They could call the campaign "Better Tests Are Best" or "Stand up for Standards"or something. With terrier like persistence and a refusal to give in even in the face of widespread resistance they could make it more than just a pipedream...

I like it, I like it a lot.......

deathwatch says...

Nor is justifiying speeding for "environmental" reasons.

no but it is one of the reasons that they used to tell us that 20's better

Hope someone markets red flags to attach to the front of cars in place of red noses.

At 20 mph one is one the road for a third longer than at thirty, therefore the chances of being in the same spot as a pedestrian is increased by a third too. Simple maths.

At least I'll still be able to get to all the out of town shopping areas at a reasonable speed.

Woody G Mellor wrote:
Bunch of interfering useless busybodies! It's not wanted and hardly anyone is obeying the new speed limits, including me. Does that not tell you anything you bunch of idiots.

Yes. It tells us that a lot of people driving cars are self-centred, mouthy dolts who, for some unfathomable reason, think they're so special that the law doesn't apply to them.

But then again, anyone who goes round York with their eyes open will have known that already.

Caecilius wrote:

Woody G Mellor wrote:
Bunch of interfering useless busybodies! It's not wanted and hardly anyone is obeying the new speed limits, including me. Does that not tell you anything you bunch of idiots.

Yes. It tells us that a lot of people driving cars are self-centred, mouthy dolts who, for some unfathomable reason, think they're so special that the law doesn't apply to them.

But then again, anyone who goes round York with their eyes open will have known that already.

Your comment also tells "us" that you are part of this unwanted and unpopular pathetic scheme. It also tells us what your lot think of "a lot of people driving cars".

.

Woody Mellor wrote:

Caecilius wrote:

Woody G Mellor wrote:
Bunch of interfering useless busybodies! It's not wanted and hardly anyone is obeying the new speed limits, including me. Does that not tell you anything you bunch of idiots.

Yes. It tells us that a lot of people driving cars are self-centred, mouthy dolts who, for some unfathomable reason, think they're so special that the law doesn't apply to them.

But then again, anyone who goes round York with their eyes open will have known that already.

Your comment also tells "us" that you are part of this unwanted and unpopular pathetic scheme. It also tells us what your lot think of "a lot of people driving cars".

.

Caecilius, you are wasting your time with this arrogant criminal driver. If he personally doesn't agree with the Law, then he flouts it with scant regard for the safety of others, in his impatient quest to get where he's going... He regards any law-abiding, observant sensible driver as "interfering useless busybodies" and "a bunch of idiots". Don't rise to his immature baiting. He gets off on it! Perhaps he could attend the autopsy of a child killed by a speeding driver. Or would he view the child as an "idiot" for running out in front of the speeding car?

20’s Plenty- the number of people who will be attending this talk.

gjh wrote:
20’s Plenty- the number of people who will be attending this talk.

HA Ha....my goodness I've nearly choked on my cuppa!....that really did make me laugh! :-)

If 20 is the law i will stick by it as much as i do not agree with it. My main concern is what if all the slow drivers that do 20 in a 30 decide to do 10 in a 20, this city will come to a stand still. Maybe the police should set their speed guns to fine all the slow drivers as well as the speeders. I wonder if the idiot that thought this up is also a 20mph driver with no confidence or common sense to be behind a wheel.

3.8liter says...
11:09am Tue 23 Oct 12
10 comments so far and I agree with all of them.


How can you when some do not agree with each other

so entertaining,hahaha

Oh don't please, stop stop. My sides are hurting!

At least you know when your beaten.

The whole thing looks fine to me. These 20mph zones will become completely normal as they have (as 30kph zones) on the continent.

The huff and puff will die down as it did after people exploded with fury when 2-weekly bin collections started... Remember then the world was going to end, we were going to have plagues of rats blah blah blah.

It looks like some people are saying that they will obey laws except ones they don't agree with. Well...I'm assuming you're happy for everyone else to do that too?

I'm very happy to slow down a bit to make 20mph zones better places to live...please can I have them in my street too?

You hit the nail on the head, Yorkshirelad! If people followed your sensible example & just eased off the accelerator a little, the World would be a safer place. Anyone can drive fast. There's no skill in that. You simply press the accelerator... It impresses no one.
The REAL skill is knowing when NOT to drive fast!
POP!!!!!!!!!!!!!
What on Earth was that bang?!
Whoa! Looks like Mellor's head's just popped. Or he's broken the sound barrier! Only "around where he lives", of course. So it's OK then!
Stay safe, my friends...

I have seen some people keeping to 20mph along Bishopthorpe Road, generally followed by a procession of 3 - 10 other vehicles, right on each others' bumpers. This didn't seem to happen much when the limit was 30 and surely it makes it harder for pedestrians to cross and traffic to turn etc? I've also witnessed cars travelling within the new limit being overtaken, twice already by the winning post pub. I never once saw an overtake manouver take place on Bishopthorpe Road before the limit changed. The frustration of driving excessively slowly is starting to make people take unnecessary risks and is from what I've seen creating more danger than it has removed.

On sunday I was driving home from the supermarket, I saw a young couple with their kids walking past whilst I waited for the traffic light to change to green. One of the kids was walking on the road, neither of the parents did a thing until a car had to dodge the little girl. The mother was texting at the time, she then yanked the kid off the road still whilst texting, yelled at the child whilst still texting. Yet had that been an accident the driver would legally have been at fault. The speed limit isn't the problem it's people being stupid.

deathwatch wrote:
The REAL skill is knowing when NOT to drive fast!
POP!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Yep. So why do we need a law to disarm us of that skill?
Why should law remove our ability to learn that skill?

Mizi123 wrote:
If 20 is the law i will stick by it as much as i do not agree with it. My main concern is what if all the slow drivers that do 20 in a 30 decide to do 10 in a 20, this city will come to a stand still. Maybe the police should set their speed guns to fine all the slow drivers as well as the speeders. I wonder if the idiot that thought this up is also a 20mph driver with no confidence or common sense to be behind a wheel.

Its worth noting that although you can get charged with dangerous driving for going too slow it is both rare and unlikely in a built up area. Both 20mph zones and 30mph zones are a MAXIMUM speed limit not a recommended speed.

72 posts, when I last looked!
And all because you are being asked to reduce your speed by 10 mph!
In ten years' time, you will wonder what all the fuss was about. It's a bit like all those folk who used to go on about restrictions on smoking.
I suggest that you concentrate on some of the real problems in society.

Haywire wrote:
72 posts, when I last looked!
And all because you are being asked to reduce your speed by 10 mph!
In ten years' time, you will wonder what all the fuss was about. It's a bit like all those folk who used to go on about restrictions on smoking.
I suggest that you concentrate on some of the real problems in society.

Luckily the people of this country didn't have your defeatist, "we should just put up with it" attitude when Germany invaded Poland.

Bit extreme in comparison I know, but do you catch my drift?

Silver wrote:
On sunday I was driving home from the supermarket, I saw a young couple with their kids walking past whilst I waited for the traffic light to change to green. One of the kids was walking on the road, neither of the parents did a thing until a car had to dodge the little girl. The mother was texting at the time, she then yanked the kid off the road still whilst texting, yelled at the child whilst still texting. Yet had that been an accident the driver would legally have been at fault. The speed limit isn't the problem it's people being stupid.

Indeed, and I saw a kid get knocked down by a car in Haxby a while back.... kid didn't even look and just ran straight into the road (no parents around at all) and got sideswiped by a car that was well out from the pavement edge and was going cautiously because it was near playing fields (even though it's a 30mph zone)... kid wasn't hurt but has likely learnt a lesson that their parents never bothered to instill.

--

My main issue with the 20mph limits is quite simply where is the line drawn in the sand? Where do we say "yes that's a suitable speed for this area but it must not go any less"? Because it had been 30mph with 20mph reserved for SPECIAL areas where careful driving is required... if you put everywhere at 20mph then you lose the significance of setting 20mph up for the purpose of having cars going carefully near schools etc. And once everywhere has become 20mph, what is there to stop a new campaign with some stupid name like "10 for the fens" (yes I'm going down to cambridgeshire now, but it's hard to think of words rhyming with ten that make any sense!) - a campaign that then says 20mph is too high and every road must be reduced to 10mph? In general the layout of a road environment will dictate the general expected speed: if the road is only just wide enough for 2 cars to pass, is residential, has low level street lighting, and/or maybe has cars parked along the side(s) then you go at between 20 and 30; if the road is wide (possibly wide for 3 cars next to each other) with high level street lighting then you should expect to be able to do 30, with 40 if the repeater signs are there. A blanket 20mph restriction is not the way to go and reduces the importance of the use of this lower speed limit.

Plus when I'm in the South Bank areas I can be cycling at 17mph and still be having cars going past doing notably more than 3mph beyond my speed, so clearly the limits are not suitable and not being adhered to.

I have never ever been prosecuted or even had a warning regarding my driving. Now, when someone tells me that, I can work out that they are a safe driver.

Not necessarily. All you can work out is that they haven't been caught, and that if they have driven unsafely, they got away with it. I get really annoyed at people who assert that 'I've been driving for XX years without being in an accident, therefore I am a safe driver'. It is like saying 'I'm 70 and have never had cancer, therefore I lead a healthy lifestyle'. I knew a lifelong vegan teetotaller who ran five miles a day and died of cervical cancer aged 32, and had a relative who drank a bottle of whisky a day, chain smoked into his 60s and wouldn't eat anything that began life as a plant if he could help it, and lived to 96. Both, of course, were exceptions to the rule. Eating and exercising sensibly will certainly boost your chances of a long and healthy life, but it won't guarantee one. Likewise, taking care behind the wheel will increase your chances of never causing an accident, but can never eliminate the possibility that you'll be distracted by something unforeseeable at the crucial moment, such as the driver whose baby started screaming seconds before she rear-ended me (in her car - not the sort of rear-ending Jimmy Savile got up to, I hasten to add!) at a queue for traffic lights.

Whether you're on foot, two wheels or four, you're on the road because you're trying to get somewhere. The rules of the road, therefore, should represent a sensible compromise between getting us there and keeping us safe in the process. It seems pretty clear that with the exception of the residents of the streets concerned and a minority of extreme left, anti-motorist jihadis, the vast majority do not believe that 20mph limits represent that compromise, but rather the pendulum swinging too far in one direction. The problem with unpopular laws that do not command public respect is that at best they are widely ignored, and at worst their enforcement breeds contempt for the police and the rule of law more generally.

'Anti-motorist Jihadis'.

Is this sort of language really a sensible way to discuss this sort of thing? We're discussing a policy which is pretty widespread across Europe...are they all 'anti-motorist jihadis'?

There is, without doubt a shift towards lower residential area speed limits. Of course, this represents a compromise but for me, 20mph is a reasonable compromise. 30mph feels too fast, is more dangerous if a pedestrian or cyclist is hit by a car and creates more noise disturbance. All these are true to an extent at 20 too...just much less.

My car trips across these areas are barely altered by this tiny reduction so for the benefits obtained I think.'What's the problem?'.

I can see it being a slight issue for delivery drivers and taxi-drivers but really not much of one. Re taxis, I'm not sure they are that strict about current 30mph limits anyway (to put it mildly!).

It is without doubt a shift...but yes, just as the 'no-smoking' policy was a shift. Kicking and screaming reaction initially, of course, but ultimately good for us all.

The oft-repeated assertion about 20mph outside schools... my children don't walk to school just past the school - they need wider protection than that!

The decent majority will respect these limits; there will always be people who choose not to just as burglars choose not to abide by certain laws. .

Is this sort of language really a sensible way to discuss this sort of thing?

It's no less sensible than comparing those who do not accept the need for 20mph speed limits to burglars.

We're discussing a policy which is pretty widespread across Europe...

Higher motorway speed limits than ours are pretty widespread across Europe, too. I take it, then, that you would be in favour of those here, too?

The decent majority will respect these limits...

The majority do not respect the 30-limit on most urban streets at present, let alone a putative 20-limit. If you try to obey the former for any significant distance, you'll find yourself being tailgated aggressively within minutes. The last time I drove in a 20-limit, through the Rotherhithe Tunnel in London, I was overtaken by a stream of vehicles, including a London Transport bus. You only need to look at current driving behaviour to see clearly that a majority of the population do not believe that lowering the urban speed limit is acceptable, analogous to the smoking ban in pubs (which, incidentally, is also widely ignored, especially in rural pubs), or liken those who break it to burglars.

yorkshirelad wrote:
'Anti-motorist Jihadis'. Is this sort of language really a sensible way to discuss this sort of thing? We're discussing a policy which is pretty widespread across Europe...are they all 'anti-motorist jihadis'? There is, without doubt a shift towards lower residential area speed limits. Of course, this represents a compromise but for me, 20mph is a reasonable compromise. 30mph feels too fast, is more dangerous if a pedestrian or cyclist is hit by a car and creates more noise disturbance. All these are true to an extent at 20 too...just much less. My car trips across these areas are barely altered by this tiny reduction so for the benefits obtained I think.'What's the problem?'. I can see it being a slight issue for delivery drivers and taxi-drivers but really not much of one. Re taxis, I'm not sure they are that strict about current 30mph limits anyway (to put it mildly!). It is without doubt a shift...but yes, just as the 'no-smoking' policy was a shift. Kicking and screaming reaction initially, of course, but ultimately good for us all. The oft-repeated assertion about 20mph outside schools... my children don't walk to school just past the school - they need wider protection than that! The decent majority will respect these limits; there will always be people who choose not to just as burglars choose not to abide by certain laws. .

Common sense, simple. I suppose it's just human nature to lash out at something we fear.

Guy Fawkes wrote:

Is this sort of language really a sensible way to discuss this sort of thing?

It's no less sensible than comparing those who do not accept the need for 20mph speed limits to burglars.

We're discussing a policy which is pretty widespread across Europe...

Higher motorway speed limits than ours are pretty widespread across Europe, too. I take it, then, that you would be in favour of those here, too?

The decent majority will respect these limits...

The majority do not respect the 30-limit on most urban streets at present, let alone a putative 20-limit. If you try to obey the former for any significant distance, you'll find yourself being tailgated aggressively within minutes. The last time I drove in a 20-limit, through the Rotherhithe Tunnel in London, I was overtaken by a stream of vehicles, including a London Transport bus. You only need to look at current driving behaviour to see clearly that a majority of the population do not believe that lowering the urban speed limit is acceptable, analogous to the smoking ban in pubs (which, incidentally, is also widely ignored, especially in rural pubs), or liken those who break it to burglars.

Guy Fawkes asks about the widespread (approx) 80mph limit in Europe.
Yes...I would support these in the UK.

Broadly, lower residential area speed limits and slightly higher motorway speed limits seems reasonable to me.

So I'm going to have to lose 10 mph occasionally for the sake of the odd loss of life. ****!

Hoofarted wrote:
So I'm going to have to lose 10 mph occasionally for the sake of the odd loss of life. ****!

Yes. You risk getting fined and or points on your licence. Its well worth trundling along spewing out even more petrol fumes whilst putting more strain on your vehicle to bring down the high number of York road accidents that we read about everyday. Or the odd loss of life as you put it.

Funny, I'm not really aware of all these traffic accidents, loss of lives.

Yes sod the residential areas and sod the odd pedestrian and cyclist (as very regularly detailed in this paper being knocked off their bike by a motorist.

We must demand we can drive faster or, or, or we'll vote the barstuards out!

I'm with you Hoofarted, I was absolutely outraged this morning when I had to trundle through the streets of South Bank this morning at a much reduced speed. It took me at least 30 seconds longer then usual to reach the car park, and i very nearly lost my favourite space because of it.

Mr Udigawa wrote:
I'm with you Hoofarted, I was absolutely outraged this morning when I had to trundle through the streets of South Bank this morning at a much reduced speed. It took me at least 30 seconds longer then usual to reach the car park, and i very nearly lost my favourite space because of it.

Ever asked yourself WHY you are made to do it?

Thought not. Keep licking the boots boy.

Don't lower yourself again Woody, you start sounding like a child who's not getting his own way.
as I've said before, I'm happy to slow down whilst driving through residential areas, not just in terms of safety, but also because I don't believe I've got any more right to be there than anyone else, the pedestrian, the cyclist, the other driver, the cat crossing the road, etc, etc.

"if i travel at 20mph in 3rd gear my car does 30-35 mpg, 30mph in 4th and it is 60-65mpg. I am not sure how producing twice the pollution makes for a 'nicer' environment?"
If I walk or cycle instead of driving everywhere I produce no pollution and save even more money! Actually calculations based on average speed are irrelevant when most time is spent sat at junctions waiting for the lights (0 miles for some of that precious fuel burning just keeping the engine warm) Most modern cars are designed to run most efficiently at 40- 50mph in 4th gear and 60 in 5th and you will use more fuel accelerating from 20mph to 30mph then braking to 0 than you will doing a more steady 20mph, then spending less time waiting at the next junction. Does annoy me on a bike when drivers accelerate to pass me when there is a queue of standing traffic some 50 yards down the road!

Re taxis, I'm not sure they are that strict about current 30mph limits anyway (to put it mildly!). This is a good point. As professional drivers you would think they would be more concerned than most not to risk points on their licence but they seem more motivated by saving 30 seconds on getting back to the station for another fare. When the police actually set up a speed trap on Broadway it was mostly taxis that got stopped! Perhaps they should have tachographs fitted to record their driving like lorry drivers? Last time I came back from the station late at night in a taxi the speedo was barely under 40mph most of the way down Fulford Rd - even past the schools in the 20 limit was over 30mph!

Woody G Mellor wrote:

Hoofarted wrote:
So I'm going to have to lose 10 mph occasionally for the sake of the odd loss of life. ****!

Yes. You risk getting fined and or points on your licence. Its well worth trundling along spewing out even more petrol fumes whilst putting more strain on your vehicle to bring down the high number of York road accidents that we read about everyday. Or the odd loss of life as you put it.

Funny, I'm not really aware of all these traffic accidents, loss of lives.

Except you won't, as in common with the majority of police forces, N.Yorks constabulary have said that they won't enforce these limits. I do agree with woody's comments though.

What a complete and utter joke changing the limits are, I won't be sticking to them that's for sure, if I get caught by the Police (and not one of the busy bodies) then fair cop, if not, then I'll be driving as I see fit.

To be honest, I don't particularly see who has the right to say what is legal/illegal and telling us all what we can/can't do In another few years some other bright spark will come up with the idea of driving around at 15mph, you heard it here first!

I pay my road tax/insurance, so gives me the right to drive on the roads.

Any cyclists on here that have posted, and don't pay any tax/insurances as drivers of motor vehicles, your opinions are invalid.

You want a right to speak here, you get insurance and pay road tax, then you have the right to share the roads, and have a say about what speeds are right/wrong!!