What’s the big idea?
Safety, health and community are the three key benefits of introducing a reduction from 30mph to 20mph on Bristol’s roads.
Lower road speeds mean that walking and cycling are more attractive choices, making us healthier; they also support local communities making crossing the road and using local facilities and businesses easier, and increase opportunities to meet and mix with other people living and working in our neighbourhoods.
And of course, reduced road speeds mean that collisions are less likely, and the injuries, when they do occur, are less serious.
How could it work in practice?
There has already been a successful pilot scheme in areas of South and East Bristol where we trialled 20mph. Results from the pilots showed a drop in average speed, an increase in walking and cycling and no change in journey times and reliability for buses. 82% of those who live in the pilot areas support 20mph.
In July 2012, the Council gave its approval to bring in a 20mph speed limit in Bristol, meaning that all roads except 40mph, 50mph and dual carriageways will be considered for a 20 mph speed limit. The speed limit change would be introduced throughout Bristol in six phases. The first phase, which covers central Bristol begins in July 2013. The speed limit applies to all vehicles on the road.
Who’s paying for it?
Funding to cover the £2.3 million it costs to implement the scheme will come from the Local Sustainable Transport Fund, awarded to the Council by the Government in 2012.
How would it be enforced?
The 20mph speed limit is the new legal limit. If you drive over the legal limit, you are breaking the law. As with the current 30mph speed limit, it is intended to be self-enforcing with periodic endorsement from the Police.
Vehicle Automated Signs (VAS) will be used to remind drivers of their speeds, and a communications campaign to highlight the lower speed limit and tell people about the benefits will take place as the roll out of each phase begins.
How do I find out more?
You can find out more information on www.bristol.gov.uk/20mph.
Update and progress report
This consultation closed on 29th October 2012. A Progress Update for the 20 mph project has been produced incorporating the feedback from the Neighbourhood Forums, meetings, briefings, survey and displays that were carried out in central Bristol and the wider area from September to December last year. This is not your last chance to voice your views as there will also be a further opportunity to express views during the formal Traffic Regulation Order consultation for Phase 1 later this year.
Whist 20 mph speed limits on small side roads where pedestrian safety is paramount is a good thing, the blanket implementation being suggested is nothing short of ludicrous. We have seen the erosion of our high streets due in part to ever tighter parking restrictions, and now we are going to see our roads clogged up as everyone struggles to go about their business. I am a keen cyclist, but to assume that everyone, if anyone will take up cycling as a result of these speed limit reductions is pure folly. Similarly public transport is dirty, expensive and unreliable, so people will always choose to drive. The sooner we stop these schemes that waste OUR public money on eutopian ideals and create roads and cycle ways that actually serve the public, the better it will be. I am Bristol born and bred and I have lived long enough to see successive councils try to impose ridiculous ideas on its citizens that serve no-one. STOP persecuting motorists and create roadways that are fit for purpose!
Funny that I thought the consensus is that high streets are dying because people prefer to shop in supermarkets, not because there are tighter parking restrictions. If you get rid of cars on any given street of shops more people go in them. I have just been to France where many of the towns have decided to get rid of traffic altogether in their centres. Result? Loads of shoppers and everyone else free to walk or cycle in safety. Bustling town centres that people want to be in.
It seems the Council has already made up its mind – as it does with so many things – and then pays lip service to a “public consultation”. Councillors (and indeed MPs) seem to forget that they are public servants, not our “lords and masters”. Back to this topic. I cannot see how this proposed speed limit will achieve anything, apart from slowing down journeys to work, to the shops and causing business to consider whether it actually wants to be in this city. Children should not be playing on the street – there are parks, public spaces and their own gardens for that. All road users – pedestrians, cyclists, drivers – should use the roads with consideration and care in an attempt to avoid accidents. Having said that accidents will happen – that is life. So regrettably yet another waste of money by the Council (what is with the central reservations on Whitelaides Road – how much did that cost in times of austerity where the money could be used for much better things?).
I’m sure the Council will try to justify this – they always do, but in the end all they are doing is yet another disservice to the city and its residents.
The Council took a decision in July to implement a phased roll out of 20 mph limits across Bristol. This will in principle apply to all roads except dual carriageways or roads with a 40 or 50 mph speed limit.
The purpose of the consultation is to listen to the views of residents on which roads should be excluded from the new limit and why. We welcome all contributions to this debate and these views will certainly be taken into account before final plans are drawn up.
Even if one accepts that children should play in a park or playground they still have to get there. Not everyone has access to a car.
The survey is entitled “Bristol’s better at 20 – What do you think?”. This is rather misleading as the posting form the team suggests that the council do not care if we don’t think it is better at 20. If you want people to limit their contributions to naming roads to be excluded from the scheme you should have chosen a more honest title. Alternatively you could recommend to the council that they listen to the views and exclude all roads from the scheme other than those in relation to which there is a reason to include them.
“Think of the children” is a poor and emotive argument.
The children get to the park or playground by walking on *pavements* and by using *pedestrian crossings*, not by walking in the road. As a parent, I have taught my children to have a healthy respect for the road.
You will lull children into a false sense of security with lower speed limits. If they run out into the road between parked cars they will get hurt whatever the speed: and Murphy’s Law suggests they’ll be hit by someone breaking the unenforced 20mph limit.
If one accepts? Is it becoming clear now that BCC are planning to turn our streets into playgrounds so they don’t have to invest in parks?
All we need to do is remember this at the next council election and if you feel this is a stupid idea, vote for someone else. I most definitely will.
I just wish you could identify an intelligent candidate who can see how to make things work rather than those with bigoted agendas…
“and increase opportunities to meet and mix with other people living and working in our neighbourhoods.”
Oppose introduction of this speed control measure and deplore use of spurious and entirely speculative attempts at rationalisation/justification–traffic “planners” are not hired to be social engineers.
When current road works around Downs/Westbury Park areas are finished is proper time to evaluate enormous expenditure on GBBN works–introduction of bus lanes and potential creation of “rat runs” to circumnavigate bus lane effects. Do not introduce further inconvenience for motorist until all these major road works have been long completed and properly evaluated.
.
Just another piece of dogma from elected representative and paid officers of council to support maximisation of inconvenience to motorists. Sight of inadequately used “protected territories” (bus lanes) is grotesque for those of us that pay for these roads to be built and maintained.
We all pay for these roads to be built and maintained, through income tax and council tax.
Road funding depends on the classification of road. The original intention of the road fund licence was to pay for the road network. Only some roads are paid for via council tax.
yes but the road fund licence doesn’t exist anymore. It is the vehicle excise licence and is zero rated for electric cars. It certainly does not pay for roads!
On your first point – mere semantics (RFL, VED and VEL are still used by government, depending on which department).
Secondly, please state your source because I’d love to know where ‘road tax’ is being spent. It’s a moot point with whichever government has its greasy grasp on the country’s reins. However, it was designed to pay for the construction and upkeep of the nation’s roads, but has been diverted elsewhere by the treasury demigods for decades.
Much like VAT on motoring related goods and services, MoT inspection fees, road tax, insurance premium tax (on car insurance) and fuel duty, finding out where the ‘road tax’ take goes is nigh on impossible.
But yes, electric cars (a minority of motorised road traffic) are exempt from road tax. Just like cyclists!
Nearly all taxes and duties go directly into one big revenue budget. Where it gets spent has nothing to do with where it came from. That is the norm and always has been. “Hypothecated” money – gathered by one means to spend exclusively on something related is very rare. 70 years ago the idea was put about that a “road fund” could be built up by taxing vehicles. It was Churchill who stopped that fiction and insisted on renaming it “vehicle excise duty”. There are lots of places where you can read about this – but one I have just spotted is Guardian artilce here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/bike-blog/2011/nov/22/cycling-road-tax-confused
If you want to know where all the money is spent, there are various places to look and budgets are published every year by central and local governement. There’s quite a good chart here that can be enlarge to get more detail.
Meant to include this from the OED: bicycle n. a vehicle of two wheels held in a frame…
I am a professional driver covering 70,00 miles a year, over 60% within Bristol City. Apart from the waste of 2.3m during the current climate that could be spent on 100 better projects, the cost to the citizens of this city is going to be enormous. You only have to do some simple maths to realise that bus fares, taxi fares and local deliveries must go up to pay for the extra time taken.
A cross-city bus service covers about 15 miles say from Hartcliffe to Cribbs Causeway and is priced for roads at 30mph and 1hr to get from A to B, reduce that speed by 1/3 and the journey time is now 1hr20mins, multiply that by all journeys and all routes and someone (yes, you and me) are going to pay for it! And this goes for every delivery driver, taxi and bus.
Further more, I entirely agree with all the comments posted that 20mph is generally ignored, is an inappropriate speed for modern cars, and the Police wont even enforce it.
90% of drivers in this city are quite capable of driving carefully and well allowing for conditions. Because it says 30 doesnt mean you do 30 when the road is narrow, busy, has obstuctions or near schools. Those who do, do so whether the speed limit is 10,20 or 30 and its these drivers that should be targeted by education and enforcement.
But 2.3m when you’re cutting vital services to the young and elderly? I don’t think so
20mph is fine on residential side roads but on main routes results in drivers tail gating you causing more accidents and road rage. If we have a 20mph limit are cyclists going to slow down? maybe they will obey red lights as well? I have seen many near misses caused by cyclists jumping red light, cycling on the pavement and across zebra crossings without any pause. We need to enforce current traffic laws before introducing expensive new ones that most road users will ignore and the police say are unworkable. It will be like the Greater Bristol Bus fiasco. Millions of pounds to reduce bus times by 45 seconds and increase congestion by putting bus stops out in the road so that all traffic stops when the bus stops or people make dangerous overtaking manouvers on the worng side of the road!!
I support the proposal, but feel that without proper enforcement the lowering of the speed limit will be ineffective.
I live in an area of the city that already has a 20mph limit imposed on residential areas. Since the introduction of the reduced speed limit I have seen little or no change in the behaviour of drivers, and little or no evidence of enforcement.
On most evenings City Road (BS2) sounds like a drag strip with many drivers (including bus drivers) exceeding the speed limit by a considerable degree, presumably because they know that they probably wont get caught.
Unless funds are going to be invested in enforcement it would probably be more cost effective to leave the speed limit at 30mph and invest in more speed bumps, cameras and traffic police.
For those who oppose the proposal, consider the evidence regarding survivability of impacts at 20mph in comparison with higher speeds:
http://www.livingstreets.org.uk/make-a-change/urgent-actions/20-mph
Also consider that the difference in journey time from one side of the city to the other (roughly 10 miles) would be only around 10 mins at 20mph rather than 30mph. Not an onerous delay considered the potential benefits.
Finally, it would appear that even with a 30mph speed limit many / most drivers routinely drive at 30mph + x (again with confidence that they will probably not be caught). If, as seems to be the case, many drivers will routinely break the speed limit then 20mph + x is preferable to 30mph + x.
I am far from blameless on this matter myself, but I will not object to a sensible proposal on the grounds of a minor inconvenience to myself.
This is little more than another unjustified anti-car policy dressed up in a series of spurious or unproven arguments. It will do nothing to improve the lives of Bristol’s residents.
THIS IS ANOTHER POOR DECISION FROM PUBLIC SERVANTS WHO APPEAR TO MAKE DECISIONS THAT DO NOT REFLECT THE IMMEDIATE NEEDS OF THE PEOPLE WHO VOTED THEM INTO POSITION!!!!
I WOULD BE IN A BETTER FRAME OF MIND TO CONSIDER SCHEMES OF THIS NATURE IF I COULD SEE A COUNCIL FIGHTING TO ENSURE THIS CITY IS KEPT AT THE FOREFRONT OF INVESTMENT IN BUSINESS AND INDUSTRY. THEY DISAPPEARED WHEN KRAFTS SHUT DOWN SOMERDALE, THEY CANNOT PROVIDE ADEQUATE PUBLIC TRANSPORT, THEY DO NOT KNOW HOW TO PROVIDE US WITH A MULTI PURPOSE ARENA (TO KEEP US ON PAR WITH ALL OUR MAJOR RIVAL CITIES!) AND NOW THEY WON’T TO “DOUBLE YELLOW LINE” THE CITY CENTRE SO BUSINESS LEAVE IT AND LEAVE IT LOOKING LIKE BALDWIN STREET – RUN DOWN!!.
THE NEW MAYOR WILL HAVE NO DESIRED IMPACT AS HE/SHE WILL BE MOPPING UP THE FALLOUT OF PATHETIC AND LOW AGENDA SCHEMES LIKE THESE!!
ONCE I FINISH MY CAREER IN SALES I AM DEFINITELY GETTING INTO POLITICS……NOT BECAUSE I AM HIGHLY EDUCATED OR A HIGH-FLYER IN BUSINESS BUT BECAUSE I WILL PUT NAMES AND FACES TO THE POOR PROPOSALS AND DECISIONS MADE BY PEOPLE WE ARE MEANT TO TRUST AND LET THE PEOPLE DECIDE THEIR OWN FUTURES!!!
A typical proposal from the council that does not take into account the needs of the residents and businesses, but unfortunately like most traffic management related schemes is likely to be passed irrespective of the comments received; i.e. just like the GBBN scheme for Westbury Road and Whiteladies Road.
The 20mph speed limit could work in the residential side streets where the width of the road and closely parked cars prevents higher speeds. The reduced limit should not be applied to the many roads that form the essential infrastructure of the city in providing the through routes in and around the city.
The majority of car drivers in the city are respectful of the speed limits and are aware of the need to regulate speed with the conditions on the road and the area through which they are driving. The council’s management of the traffic in Bristol has increased driver frustration by the restriction in roads through the imposition of seldom used bus lanes (Westbury Road), traffic lights on roundabouts at non peak times (city wide), cycle lanes that end abruptly, pavement and road changes that force cyclists into vehicles’ paths, and the ending of left turns at traffic light controlled junctions (Muller Road).
It is about time that the city council traffic management department thought the proposals through with intelligence, common sense and listened to the public.
I regularly drive in the pilot areas and cannot see how they can possibly be successful. Nobody seems to obey the 20mph limit. If you attempt to drive at 20mph you get somebody up your backside almost immediately. I then feel safer driving a little bit faster, say 30mph. Everybody else seems to ignore the speed limit also so what is the point? Surely it would be a far better use of resources to spend 2.3m on a road safety campaign for Children. I was brought up being told that roads were not safe. I follow the green cross code and have never ever been close to being hit by a car in 30 years of crossing roads. Roads will still not be safe even at 20mph.
The evidence from the pilot areas shows that most roads have experienced speed reductions. These have been greatest on those roads which had the highest speeds previously. We already provide road safety education for children in many schools. The problem is that, largely because of road danger, children are not allowed to practice the skills they have learned. If slower speeds can encourage more independent mobility for children, then this education will be much more effective.
As suggested, this money could be spent of improving cycle lanes, linking cycle lanes, improving pedestrian areas/crossing and many other things (you could even do something about the dismal monopoly run by First). This money is from a sustainable transport budget – so spend it on making transport more sustainable not making it easier for the scamra to extract cash out of people.
Spending £2.3 million on changing the speed limit is a total waste of valuable funds dreamt up by car haters who really have no idea of the way the real world works. If I’m caught by an HTV turning left or crushed against a wall trying to cycle along a busy road, what difference will 10MPH make? None at all.
If you are caught by an HGV turning left, you would have had to put yourself in a very silly place on the road. Either you have stopped or are cycling by the kerb allowing the driver of an HGV to come next to you or you have gone up the left hand side of an HGV. This makes it very difficult for a driver to see you. Either stay behind or wait in the centre of the lane, visible to all drivers behind you.
Adult cycle training can give you confidence and skills to avoid trouble and make your ride more pleasant and enjoyable.
Or I could have used the advanced stop line to move to the front of the queue (or been there first) and had an HGV/Bus/Chelsea Tractor overtake and turn left on me when the lights change. It’s already happened a depressing number of times.
Sounds as if you are not starting off fast enough! Most trucks and buses are slow to start. If you wait in front of them ie in the primary position /stream of traffic, in my own experience, they wait for you cos they can’t get past you! No point being in the ASL if you don’t take up this position in whichever lane you want to be in at the other side of the junction.
Surely investment in cycle training for children and public education programmes would solve problems like these, rather than wasting our money this way?
So, who is the idealist behind this 20 mph nonsense? Does the 20mph also apply to cyclists?
For a council who is trying to be green, what about the addition fuel being used, the additional pollution generated? Who is going to pay for the additional transport costs of all goods we use, as less journeys can be made?
Also why 20mph. Why not 25mph, 10, or no vehicles at all?
No vehicles would result as near as damn it to no accidents, after all.
Is this the real aim of the notion, or is there some hidden agenda?
20 mph is just not practical you would have to have a police officer on every street and just like cameras people would just speed up once past the officer. also most cars are designed to operate at the 30mph speed limit. Plus you talk of safety but you will find that most traffic accidents are caused by people that are already breaking the spped limit or have no license/insurance etc etc.
i think this is just the council way of getting extra funding to use on something else. the trial areas already up and running are not monitored or obeyed just ignored. so just put a few signs up and then they have the change from 2.3 million pounds
We have closely monitored the pilot areas and will continue to do so. The Department for Transport casualty data do not support the idea that most accidents are caused by breaking the speed limit (or are driving without insurance, although that is a problem). Most collisions are the result of human error such failing to look properly. When this involves pedestrians, their chance of suffering a fatal or serious injury is much greater at 30 mph than at 20 mph.
Why do you conflate impact speeds with travelling speeds and, even worse, travelling speeds with speed limits?
Neither are they the the same thing, nor do they have a monotonic relationship, as evidenced by the fact that less than 1% of pedestrians hit by cars in built-up areas are killed. (source:RAGB, any year)
If they were all hit at 30mph, or even 20mph, that figure would be far higher.
I think it’s foolish in the extreme to encourage children to play in the street, knowing they have a non-zero chance of being killed by a car, even with 20mph limits.
As for your contention that 20mph limits will lead to a modal shift towards walking and cycling, where is your evidence for this?
“The Department for Transport casualty data do not support the idea that most accidents are caused by breaking the speed limit”
This is an interesting point – so reducing the speed limit will NOT change the number of accidents. So, by your own admission, even if you waste £2.3 million on road signs I’m still just as likely to get knocked off my bike?
What do the Department of Transport figures show about accident rates where there are dedicated cycle lanes?
Doesn’t this prove that making Bristol crawl at 20 will not reduce accident rates at all and is, as suggested, a total waste of resources that could be used to much better effect?
The proposal is excellent. We know it would save lives, adults and children alike, and for this reason alone it should go ahead, but of course reducing traffic speed will have a huge beneficial impact on quality of life in the city.
The opposition seems mainly to be rather unimaginative party politics, based presumably on the idea that ‘the motorist’ will reward parties which oppose speed reduction. You will no doubt hear from a lot of motoring fanatics, and they may dominate the conversation, but they are not representative of wider public opinion.
To maximise the beneficial impact it is important that the new limits be observed. Enforcement is one part of the solution to that problem, but another would be to address the behaviour of the City Council’s own drivers, those of your contractors and suppliers, and those of other major fleet operators in the city such as the NHS and big private sector employers. I suggest you consider using onboard telematics (you probably already use one of these systems but if not, look at Quartix or Cobra for example) to monitor your drivers’ behaviour and ensure they don’t break the law.
Lastly, monitoring and evaluation of the scheme will be very important – you should be able to refute the opposition and show that speeds do fall and accidents are reduced. A really good example, if you want one, is Helsinki, but I’m sure there are many others.
Part politics or just average road users? I live and work on opposite sides of the city which are not connected by feasible bus routes so I drive to work. Decreasing the speed limit to 20mph could add roughly 40 minutes to my commuting time every day which would restrict my valuable family time. Objection will probably come from people who really do not want to spend more time on the road especially as the “successful” pilot areas seem to show an increased level of accidents, possibly due to frustrated drivers making more erratic maneuvres to get where they want to get to faster.
Well said. I work for the council and had the unfortunate experience of being tail-gated and flashed by a council van who was obviously annoyed that I was holding them up by driving at the speed limit.
I felt that this aggressive behaviour reflected poorly on the council but when I attempted to raise the issue through internal systems it was simply ignored.
“We Know It Would Save Lives”. Do elaborate. How many lives has it saved in Bedminster thus far ??? I would hazard a guess at ; none. Because if it had, it would have been trumpeted by the Council at every opportunity.
Travelling through the 20mph zones daily either by bike or car I have not witnessed a single car driver slowing down to this speed. On a daily commute to work, cars and cyclists can be seen jumping red traffic lights at practically every junction (and there are a lot of lights!). Go to most schools and you cannot see the white zig-zags or double yellow lines because of all the parents parking as close to the school gates as humanly possible. Cars park on pavements, cyclists ride on pavements, you cannot see when pulling out of many junctions due to cars behing parked too close to or even on the corners! The list is endless. None of these things are any where near being adequately policed/monitiored so why introduce another rule/law that will not be enforced?
Very simple: won’t come to Bristol to shop any more, I’ll find somewhere where I can’t crawl faster than the speed limit.
Glad to hear that.
You shouldn’t be glad to hear that. Shops/bsinesses closing down leads to urban decay and then you won’t want to go there either. Your tune will change when you get to 50…
The use of the available £2.3m fund for this project to errect 20mph signs and bolt them to lamposts across the city is a waste of money in terms of costs & benefits.
If this resource is to be used only for Transport projects only, then the council should look into establishing Cycle routes which link the key parts of the city, this way the cyclists have their own specific terrain for the key routes within the city.
This will also have the benefit in raising the profile of the city as a key cycling city in UK & even Europe.
By targeting the roads, and the motorists – we are not doing anything special to improve the reputation of this city as a key cycling city in the Continent.
Small steps can lead to bigger and better things, but the direction being planned is flawed and seems it is being taken because it is the easiest and also the least innovative way to spend the money available.
Please, have a re-think in what your trying to achieve and then consider if that’s the best of using the funds available to promote the city.
Responsible drivers dont hurtle around our side streets at 30 mph anyway and all the idiots out there wont take any notice of a change in speed limits.Also if a pedestrian steps out in front of a car,there is a good way to make money from the car driver. you cant fine a person for stepping off the kerb,but you can fine a car driver for colliding with him as a result. yet more persecution of the motorist,tyhat is the reason for this exercise raising revenue not safety.
Another rediculous idea, I will lose all respect for the Lib Dem council if they bring this in. Its not even realistic to expect drivers to slow down that much. Pedestrians have to have some responsiblity for their own safety. My biggest worry, will the council actually listen if/when the people vote against this idea?
None of the arguments raised here against a 20 limit suggest that driving at 30 or more along residential streets is a good idea. So perhaps we should calm down a bit, accept the situation, and try to make it work. Perhaps some journeys in the city might achieve higher average speeds as result? If the current average journey speed is around 15 mph it might go up by as much as 20% to a thrilling 18 mph once people have stopped accelerating to join the long wait at the end of their road?
However, none of us really know how the changes will work out. We do at least know that the current situation is pretty awful and we do know that many areas around the country that have gone down to 20 have been successful in making people feel better about their local roads. Most people, of course (when childen and the elderly are included) do not drive cars at all, and their experiences might need to be given precedence over the minority who actually want to drive at more than 30.
The argument that even 30 limits are not enforced ignores the obvious fact that most drivers do respond to speed limits and do, at least, drive somewhere near the advertised limit. Reducing the advertised limit to 20 will, without doubt, reduce the average speed in the affected areas and most people will calm their driving so that 22 mph stops feeling unusual and quickly becomes the norm. Most drivers get used to their “normal” speed, and only notice changes to it.
Bristol will not be better at 20. This will be detrimental to business; deliveries will be slower and customers will be discouraged. Motorists will be frustrated which will cause more accidents than will be prevented. In the nearly 20 years I have lived in Bristol it has been obvious that the council will not be content until every car is driven out of the city and Bristol, which has been a hub of trade and commerce since medieval times, dies.
Another luny scheme BCC is going to impose on us – Look at all the \”improvements\” the city council has made – like The Centre, Old Market, Fishponds Road, Whiteladies Road. Not exactly a good track record – look at the pages in the Evening Post or the phone ins on Radio Bristol.if you want some honest feedback.
So now we get *more* people knocked down crossing the road, cyclists (and motorcyclists) put at risk (or run off the road) where road widths change – cars and vans reversing out into traffic from parking at right angles.
What\’s the point of a blanket 20mph? In most parts it\’s impossible to go faster than 15mph.
Imagine the excitement of getting caught speeding on Fishponds Road during the day – almost impossible I\’d say.
Existing speed limits are broken on a few of the \”faster\” routes and a with a token enforcement. Look at where the Cumberland Basin joins the Long Ashton bypass. Most vehicles are going at 60-70 by the time they hit the end of the 40 limit.
Why not enforce the existing speed limits properly rather than just once a week?
As someone else said many accidents are alcohol-fuelled. Even if the speed limit is 3mph and a man with a red flag has to walk in fron of you these people will still flout the rules – because most of the time they don\’t get caught – and it\’s only when there is a fatality it becomes of interest and people say \’something must be done\’.
To say 20 is safer is just nanny state and pandering to the health and safety lobby. If you are run over by a car or a bus it doesn\’t much matter if it is doing 5mph or 25mph – it\’s still going to hurt you.
The city is so anti car and a large part of the congestion/fumes etc are caused by having to drive a mile to effectively gain 100 yards.
Businesses are moving out in their droves
Extortionate parking charges – no wonder half of Broadmead is empty – and again you get the council trying to discourage the expansion of Cribbs \”because it might harm other shopping areas\”
Wake up and smell the coffee!.
The reason Broadmead is fast becoming a host town is that it\’s a nightmare to get there – expensive to park and you end up driving miles in circles to get there
Yet what are the alternatives? The joke of a bus service we have to put up with in this city. Rip-off fares, (some) rude drivers who won\’t help the disabled or those with young children. Buses that don\’t go from where people want to – to where they want to go. Or take an hour to make a 10 minute journey
Buses that assume no one works before 8am or finishes after 6pm.
Would love to see council staff go about their daily business having to rely on First
Will this 20mph limit apply to public transport too? It takes long enough to get anywhere in this city by bus already, i can’t see how making these journeys longer will increase use of the appalling and expensive public transport we are saddled with in Bristol.
How about using some of this money for proper public transport? Or helping employers provide proper facilities for cyclists? Or enforcing the existing bus lanes that are unusable because of parked cars (Gloucester Road) or simply used for queue jumping (A38 at Aztec West)? In my opinion those things would have a far greater effect on getting cars off the road than a 20mph speed limit.
The only real benefit to come out of this for non-car users will be a slightly lower risk or serious injury in an accident, which is good, but i don’t see why that means *all* 30mph roads must be 20mph. Put the 20mph limits where they are relevant and enforce the road laws properly for all road users.
It will be of no benefit .magority of drivers drive 10 mph over the road speed limits anyway and car technology is so much better than cars 20 years ago that changing speed limits Are a waist of public money and pointless.in fact I’m all for raising speed limits on motorways to 80
This notion that children should be playing in the streets, is idyllic romanticised bunkum. Yes traffic is one concern, but what about the parental fear of abduction post Bradey & Hindley…? Social re-engineering is not the job of the road network. Its job is to get Bristolians from A to B, and to keep the economic lifeblood of the city flowing.
The cost of this – which is estimated and still comes from the tax-payer via central government – is too much. Yes £2.3m is quoted, but doubtless this will creep upward (eg just like the M-shed budget did).
This does nothing to address the problem of bad road-users (be they motorists, bus-drivers, cyclists, rickshaw-tuggers or space-hopperists). Concentration levels plummet and accidents increase – as witnessed by the DfT’s own stats which reveal a startling contradiction.
For years we have been told by the Government that ‘it’s a 30 for a reason’, so why change this? Also, the twenty’s plenty brigade already quote German cities with 8 or 9mph limits, so whose to say that it will remain at 20mph? Why not bring back the man with a little red flag?
Also, the braking distances quoted by 20mph lobbyists are misleading. Yes, they do come from The Highway Code, but they don’t tell you WHEN they were compiled. According to 20mph campaigners, this will reduce braking distances from 75 feet (30-0mph) to 39 feet (20-0mph), but these figures have NOT been updated since they first appeared in the Third Edition compiled in 1946. Modern cars – and these figures are at least 10 years out of date – are capable of 30-0mph in just 31 feet.
As far as the notion that motorists take priority on the roads – given the multi-layered levels of taxation imposed – I should hope so, we pay for them! To spin around a familiar cri de coeur: no representation without taxation.
The various regimes at BCC over the preceding 20 years have been slowly but surely strangling Bristol, and this latest dose of anti-car legislation is no different.
Drivers will end up watching their speedometer instead of the road – so accidents will increase.
Good to see that someone admits that, by inference, drivers do not their speedometer at the current limit.
Most drivers are used to driving at 30mph on city roads, they know what the speed feels and sounds like in their vehicle. If you change it to 20mph people must become familiar with a new speed they are not used to driving at so they will be looking at their speed more. I’m not sure this will increase accidents but the constant adjustment of speed is bad for the efficiency of the vehicle and bad for the flow of traffic. Look at the ripple effect of brake lights on motorway, someone up front dabs their brakes and 20 cars behind them the motorway grinds to a halt.
The idea that drivers are the only bad road users is nonsense. As someone who drives, uses public transport, walks and cycles i see all groups of road users doing stupid things on a regular basis. I just don’t see how making cars slow down will fix this.
This is because cars are DESIGNED to run at just under 30mph with your foot resting on the pedal, you don’t NEED to look at the speedo so much because this is engineered into the manufacturer’s design, KNOWING that 30mph is the usual driving speed…. at 20mph, you’re either in the wrong gear (revs too high in 2nd or labouring in 3rd) or OBSESSIVELY staring at the speedo, rather than using mirrors and assesing hazards in front/to the side of you.
Cars will travel in 3rd gear using more petrol and being noisier. cars will take 50% longer for their journey, meaning more cars on the road. Spend the money on joined up cycle paths. The council wasted the opportunity for a decent tram system to reduce cars on the road. This is a silly alternative to force people to cycle rather than providing REAL intergrated public transport choice.
An utterly mad idea that will drive business and people out of Bristol. Whilst 20mph may be appropriate for a few narrow residential roads, it is absolutely not appropriate to impose it city wide. We all know it won’t and can’t be enforced so will lead to yet more contempt for speed limits. And why do the city council demand your name & address on this “consultation”. Are they going to send out propaganda to try and brainwash us into accepting their lunatic ideology?
Fred – the proposal does not apply to roads which currently have a 40 or 50 mph speed limit or dual carriageways. The online survey does indeed request address. Some of the questions relate to speed limits in your neighbourhoods. We need this information so we know which neighbourhood your responses relate to. Also, as a citywide issue, we’re trying to get as many people involved in the consultation as possible. Address information helps us to see if the consultation is attracting a response from across the city. The information is confidential and will only be used for the purpose stated.
Thanks for your views.
Local Consultation??? I expect the decisions have already been made, by people not living in the appropriate areas!
In which case, I really hope you read and understand the comments I made in the survey… I’m happy for you to contact me at the address given if you find what I say worthy of discussion.
I’m strongly in favour (I walk, cycle and drive) but the limit must be enforced properly.
As a lot of motor groups have said…. “Speed doesn’t kill…… INAPPROPRIATE speed kills”….. That is:- Tailor your driving (speed, road position and relative position to other road users) to the conditions of the road you are travelling down… narrow roads… slower and steady and visible, wider roads with good visibility can be faster … its DRIVER AWARENESS that is the main issue here not speed… Although people who exceed the speed limit in a STUPID way.. eg 55 in a 30 residential street should have the book thrown at them for sure…
I use a car, motorcycle, pushbike AND walk, depending on what I’m doing….
and at 20mph I could EASILY break the speed limit on my PUSHBIKE…
No thought here about noise or the perception of danger for other people around you as you drive! Just your own judgement of what is safe. I wonder how many people have been killed, injured, stressed by noise, not allowed to go and visit their friends alone (children), not able to get out of a side ride for ages, not able to cross the road (again children) because the driver does not consider any of these factors when deciding how fast to drive.
What is the point of this conversation? The inmplementation has already been agreed and our politicians have got another feather in their cap.
The Council has voted to bring in 20 mph speed limit throughout Bristol. However, the decision on which roads should be 20 mph (except dual carriageways, 40 mph and 50 mph roads) is still being considered. This is an opportunity for people to ask questions and share their views.
Another brilliant idea from anti-car fanatics who ride cycles to work and have no idea about driving in the city. What part of accident rates rising in pilot areas do you not understand? How about enforcing the 30 mph zone properly instead of bringing in a 20 mph that you won’t enforce. The drivers who obey it will be hassled by speeding drivers even more than those of us who try to stick to 30mph are hassled now. Anyone tried to drive at or below the speed limit on the 30mph section of Newfoundland Rd before it turns into the M32? One speed trap there for a day would bring in a fortune. Try enforcing rules before you make more. Cycles being ridden on the pavement, wrong way at lights and one way streets, recklessly and speeding, without lights….etc……etc…..
“What part of accident rates rising in pilot areas do you not understand?”
I think you do not understand the way they presented the statistics you appear to allude to. Of course accident rates rose. If you increase the amount of 20 mph zones, the number of accidents will increase. It’s just maths. The same as before the NHS existed, no one died in NHS hospitals, however as soon as it was formed, people started dying in their hospitals. i.e. deaths increased. To put it a way others have done, “things tend to have a greater effect on the world once they exist”.
No. Accident rates rose because people were staring obsessively at their speedos to avoid going above 20mph instead of concentrating on the roads ahead and the hazards around… Also pedestrians and cyclists become reckless because they believe cars won’t hurt them at 20mph… Again.. promote driver/rider awareness instead of clamping down in an unneccesary way.
“Anti-car fanatics”??? Most people don’t just use one mode of transport do they. People I know cycle into the centre for work because its easier, quicker and cheaper than driving. They might then use their car for a longer journey or to leave the city. Don’t forget this is also for the benefit of people who don’t drive (children, young people, frail elderly).
Well said. Anti-car? Yes I am, when there’s no need! 75% of all trips we make are under 4 miles. We all need to get out of the habit of reaching for our car keys every time we need to go somewhere. I cycle to work and for short trips, or walk, when i drive my car I should and do expect it to take longer. The average speed at peak commuting times is under 10mph anyway. We must prioritise people’s walking and cycling facilities and make cars wait and take third place. I am happy to wait, I don’t have the expectation that I should have priority over every other mode of transport. Petrol is over £6 a gallon, I choose very carefully how I use my car, we all have that choice, yes public transport needs improving, yes cycle infrastructure needs improving. Less traffic benefits everyone’s environment and our children will thank us for it.
Why should a car (often carrying more than one person) automatically be penalised in YOUR favour. Think about the BIG picture -age, work, needs etc. .
I really don’t see this working. Driving round Bristol at 30mph I am regularly overtaken by cars and vans doing well in excess of 40! If you have a 20mph limit I think it will lull people into thinking they are safer than they actually are. Traffic calming measures would be more effective as it forces vehicles to slow. I believe main roads should stay at 30mph.
All in favour of the 20 limit, makes really no difference as most roads they plan to introduce it to are already lined with parked cars on both sides an most people don’t do over 20-25 on them anyway. The people that do travel quickly down these sorts of roads, are the people who wouldn’t obey the speed limit anyway such as the cyclists that zoom down Ashley down hill, pass you on the left as your indicating and trying to turn left.
But if Bristol does have the funds to spend on road safety, how about a campaign to educate the hundreds of cyclists that run red lights, pass on the left when there is no cycle lane and generally just have no training with traffic or understanding of traffic. What ever happened to the cycling proficiency test?
All good intention of making the roads safer, but the one set of road users that cant be stopped from speeding (think the limits don’t apply to them, and usually don’t have a speedometer) have no liability on the road anyway, so unless you pass a by-law or something you are just wasting money on flashing signs and road signs.
Once again, some and I repeat some, cyclists run red lights and cycle on pavements. But still all of us are branded with this. How would you like it if all motorists were included in a rant about red light running (15000 car drivers caught running red lights last year in Bristol) or driving on pavements in order to park, or speeding. How about training them? Oh they have mostly passed a test but choose to ignore the rules. But they are far far more dangerous to other people as they are driving fast moving heavy objects.
There is a new idea about cycle training called Bikeability and I too wish more cyclists would take this up and then they wouldn’t pass you on the left but be behind you or in front of you as part of the traffic.
Good point. The key to reducing the friction between all road users is understanding and respect. Some concerned cyclists (who also drive and walk by the way) have set up the Campaign for Considerate Cycling (Google it) to try and improve the image of cycling and improve relations between all road users. We’re asking people who cycle to try and think about how their actions can add ammunition to the whole ‘us and them’ situation. We want more people cycling and it’s hard to promote something when it has a bad image.
I ride my cycle properly, on the road and obey all the signals and lights etc… that didn’t stop me from being hit by a driver running a red light in april 2011.. Still plagued by shoulder problems and have been put right off cycling since…
Agreed, there should be a ‘test’ for cyclists before they can ride on the open roads…. a ‘licence’ if you will…. a database of names/dob/adresses that the police can access of people that are entitled to ride pushbikes on the roads… preferably use the sustrans funding for the courses instead of more road furniture…
Incidentally how many people are aware there is a possibility of a £500 fine for cycling on the pavement? Check your highway code people, its not JUST for cars and motorcycles… pedestrians and cyclists are covered also.
Cyclists wont break the new speed limit. Interestingly the proposal expressly states that the 20mph limit will only apply to “motorised vehicles”, so cyclists can happily over/undertake the cars stuck travelling at 20mph. Got to love the intelligence levels involved here. A bicycle travelling at 30mph takes longer to stop safely (assuming the rider doesnt just fly over the handlebars) and being hit by a bike is much more dangerous not only for a pedestrian but also for the cyclist themselves.
You’ll be happy to hear about the Campaign for Considerate Cycling that was set up by some people that cycle in Bristol. These people also drive and walk, as a lot of cyclists do.
The campaign is trying to increase understanding between all road users as no one is perfect.
Bikeability is the current Cycling Proficiency test and the local sustainable transport fund is enabling it to be rolled out across Bristol, to educate the next generation of cyclists.
However, just as everyone who has taken a driving test does not stick to the rules, this is the same with people who cycle, not forgetting pedestrians that do dangerous things as well.
The situation is a lot more complex than just taking a cycling test – it’s about education and understanding – for everyone that uses the road.
Cycling numbers are increasing and the Campaign for Considerate Cycling shows that people that cycle are trying to improve the situation both to increase harmony on the road and also to get more people cycling because it’s hard to promote something that had a negative image.
I hope you have time to visit the Campaign’s website.
Regardless of transport mode, any road user who runs a red light is a danger to themselves and others – and unfortunately you do see this occurring more often in Bristol than 20 years ago.
Encouraging equality amongst road users is laudable too, but the big difference – at the moment – is identification. If a motorist/motorcyclist/bus/HGV breaks the law, then their registration number can be reported to the police, but this isn’t the case with the minority of inconsiderate cyclists. I feel this is one reason why there is this ‘us and them’ mentality. Perhaps if a cycling group were to issue a high-vis vest with reference number, upon successful completion of a proficiency course, this would further reduce the atmosphere of discord.
It would certainly have helped a friend of mine – who was laid out in Gloucester by a cyclist riding on the pavement who subsequently legged it – gain some financial redress. He’s self-employed and ended up losing work because of his back injuries.
Ever been hit by a cyclist whizzing down Ashley Down Road at 25mph with a tyre contact patch the size of your thumbprint and unable to break? No I haven’t yet either but I have had to dodge one as a pedestrian more than once. I have also been almost hit several times by cyclists riding up one-way streets the wrong way or taking a short-cut across the pavements.
I support a 20 mph speed limit in my street (in St Andrews) and all similar residential roads across the whole city, but I do not support it on main A roads and through-routes because I think it will either clog up the city or throw too many people onto the wrong side of the law; or both. If there are Millions available to put up 20mph signs and flashing warning boards it would be much better to spend the money on helping the elderly, disadvantaged, homeless, etc. Or paying for a few extra nurses. Why, we could even save more lives then than a 20 mph limit could!
The funding used to implement the 20 mph speed limit has come from a share of the Local Sustainable Transport Fund allocated by the Government and can only be spent on transport projects.
THEN WHY NOT SPEND IT WISELY & GIVE CYCLIST’S PROPER, SAFE SEGREGATED LANES THAT MOTORCYCLISTS CANNOT USE, AS ON THE CONTINENT!
Bristol is an old city with insufficient room for new segregated cycle lanes – unless you want to take away pavements and roads. The Local Sustainable Transport Fund is heavily subsidising Adult Cycle training through LifeCyleUK, which helps people know how to cycle safely and confidently on the roads. If more people know how to cycle properly then they can use the roads as the cycle network – as nearly all my peers do. We have to look at the reality – places like Holland, where they have segregated lanes have been investing £16 per person per year on cycling infrastructure since the early 70s. UK current investment is £2. Ideally we would have better cycling infrastructure but to do this overnight will not happen especially without strong Government intervention. Realistically we have to improve this though education.
Buses! Sort out buses for that money! Have a look at other european cities. Tickets available in kiosks in advance, 3 or 4 doors and validating tickets once you’re on the bus (not by the driver) would reduce the exchange time by 80%! Sitting at a bus stop for 5 minutes waiting for 10 ppl to get off and 10 to get on is really annoying. This should take seconds not minutes! Ban First from exchanging drivers mid-route (something I experienced at Lawrence Hill). Why can’t the bus driver get on, go on the bus to the end and change there?! It sometimes extends journey times by 100%! And leave the speed limits as they are. Just improve enforcement.
This IS an intervention to help:
(i) the elderly (who might need more time to cross the road that a 20mph travelling vehicle will give them)
(ii) disadvantaged (those in the most deprived areas have the highest casualty rates from being hit by speeding motor vehicles)
(iii) the homeless (who are likely to be walking or cycling as a way of getting around the city).
Physical inactivity costs the local NHS £6.2 million a year, employing a few extra nurses will not change this. Changes to the transport system will.
I support this but it would be pointless without active enforcement by BCC/Police. I regularly ride down Ashley Down Road (the 20 mph part) on my bike at 20-25 mph and every single motor vehicle overtakes me. There is just nothing to stop them and the zone may just as well not exist. What does “it is intended to be self-enforcing with periodic endorsement from the Police” mean in real life? A mealy mouthed construction of words written by motorists, no doubt.
Also, for those whose are sceptical about whether this can reduce deaths, you may or may not be right (statistically), however I think it is about more than that. It is about starting to bring about a sense of proportion to our roads. About non-motorists not being intimidated by vehicles hurtling about narrow roads at 30+. About pedestrians having time to being able to cross roads without taking their life into their own hands. And so much more …
For much of the last 50 years we have allowed the interests of motorists to unfairly determine the structure of our cities, the way we get around on foot, the way public transport can provide services, what spaces children can feel safe in, etc.
It’s time, in a very minor way way, to begin redressing the imbalance. And hopefully we can then start really tackling the problem.
I agree completely with what you’re saying about how 20mph will change the road environment for all road users – that’s a key factor in the project.
On your point about enforcement and what ‘self enforcing with periodic enforcement from the police’ means, it’s just a way of saying that 20mph will be enforced in the same way as 30mph – it’s up to every road user to stick to the legal speed limit, whatever it is, and the police will do periodic speed checks to enforce the law and support it.
Accidents increased overall in the pilot areas.
Only 5% of accidents are caused by speeding.
What is the obsession with speeding? It’s not even in the top 10 causes of accidents!!!!
The majority of casualties happen over 20mph. However, a lower speed limit will make the streets safer for all roads users, not just drivers.
Other benefits to reduced speed as well as a road danger reduction include an increase in walking and cycling and increased outdoor play all of which has a positive impact on health and community. Calmer speeds and more people-centred communities help to create more pleasant environments for all.
“However, a lower speed limit will make the streets safer for all roads users, not just drivers” —– And yet accidents went up on average in the two pilot areas.
To increase outdoor play, spend the money on safe recreational play areas… the streets aren’t like the 1970s anymore like when I was young… increased road loads mean don’t play in the street.. parents should take a more active participation in their kids leisure, instead of vegetating in front of the telly and yelling out the window when they want them in… reduce beauracracy and cost for youth groups and play-scheme volunteers/workers… so that interaction and community is promoted rather than constantly being paranoid about kiddy snatchers… train youth workers to spot and deal with those people instead. Bristol’s green spaces are vastly underused.
Since the council seems hell bent on bringing this in, despite the majority not wanting it, will you even listen if the vote comes back against the proposals? If not, never ever forgive the Lib Dem council for their ignorance.
We already know exactly how good the Lib Dems are at sticking to their manifesto promises at Westmister level. I see no reason to expect any better locally. This is a done deal because it fits in with their philosophy and politics, any so-called consultation is a sham. My road had already been made 20mph without me ever being even asked.
come and live in the real world,i will not let my children play in the street even if you pedestrianised it. you need to spend money on making the streets safe to be on and stop fleecing motorist
There is also a benefit in terms of reduced noise pollution. City Road (and street which already has a 20mph speed limit) often sounds like a drag street in the evening with many drivers routinely driving far in excess of the speed limit. The noise is a blight on the area. Proper enforcement and traffic calming measures (bumps / cameras / police) are needed to make the lower speed limit work.
Surely there will be increased noise pollution from higher revving engines where cars are forced to use a lower gear than normal? Not to mention the extra pollution this will cause….
Think this has been looked at in the pilot areas and there was no significant increase in noise or air pollution. In addition the impact of people choosing to walk and cycle for short journeys should reduce these as well.
20 mph will not stop hoons…
All in favour let’s hope it is actively enforced
I’m fully in favour of this as it creates a much better environment for walking and cycling and has minimal impact on motorists. As long as it’s not extended to some of the main arterial routes and I’m reassured it’s not going to apply to 40, 50mph or dual carriageways – no mission creep please. Getting more people walking and cycling has so many health benefits and it’s bound to cut accidents and their severity. Go for it!
Get real! what about the people that have to drive across the city to do a job of work, it will slow all deliveries down, who’s going to pay for the extra time & wages bill? the employers? NO, the general public again! that means you & I ! people will avoid the town & the shops & our economy will also suffer! Wake up Bristol (before it’s to late!) as the traffic congestion’s bad enough as it is with out adding to it!
If the traffic congestion is bad enough we need to do something about it. Slower speeds will not necessarily slow deliveries down, calmer driving sometimes means no change in overall speed, just a cessation of acceleration and braking behaviour. If more people cycle or walk there will be fewer cars on the road and thus less congestion.
Can you really see Mr. or Mrs.Average walking or riding to work in the vile weather that persists in this country? I don’t really think so when they can arrive at work without looking like drowned rats! If we had decent weather like Spain etc., (dream on! ) perhaps it would happen, but its not going to until we get predictable dry weather!
Waterproofs seem to work very well. I cycle ever day and hardly ever have to use them. “There is no such thing as bad weather, merely inappropriate clothing”.
Money would be better spent segregating the various traffic types. Its not the speed of other road users that puts me off cycling more than i do, its the lack of space.
I agree that some narrow and congested by parked car residential streets would benefit from slower traffic in general… but a lot of roads don’t need to be less than the 30 they currently are. The problem in the main are the drivers themselves who choose NOT to mitigate their speed and driving style according to the conditions/visibility and or narrowness of the streets. The onus should be on the DRIVER themselves to pick an APPROPRIATE speed and road position for the conditions around them… Speed doesn’t kill, inappropriate speed kills. Wide road with good visibility and now parked cars is obviously ok to up the speed on, whereas a narrow congested street is a reason to slow down and be extra aware of pedestrians steeping out etc.
no parked cars.. not now.. sheesh :-S
Again no notion of the effect of your vehicle speed on others. Just your own ideas about safety. What about noise? What about perception of danger and the ‘imprisonment’ of kids inside because of this. What about drivers attempting to get out of side roads with short sight lines? What about other people generally and the stress noise can cause?
Kids running up and down the road screaming and shouting like they invariably do…not to mention the little buggers who CONSTANTLY kick their football at the side of my house and off my windows, scaring my cats etc…. Never had a problem with the odd loud exhaust….
and if you pay attention…. I said you have to ‘mitigate your driving according to the conditions around you’ … which includes speed, road position and nuisance noises, for example the car stereos you hear rattling the plant pots off the windowsill with their bass bins.
For your information I’m a pretty considerate driver… I’ll always let people out at busy junctions, I am always looking out for hazards including pedestrians and kids playing….as a motorcyclist you have to be REALLY paranoid about this…
For all my talk of ‘self regulation’..I’ve NEVER been picked up for excess speed or indeed any other road traffic offence… which means self regulation MUST have an amount of merit to it, no?
It is better to cycle and walk around Southville since they introduced the 20mph speed limit. It’s calmer and feels safer. I drive as well and I haven’t noticed any difference to my journey. I’m in favour of this but hope we won’t see a proliferation of 20mph signs across the city as I’m concerned about the cost. Will we need once at the entrance and exit of every road in Bristol with a 20mph speed limit.
There should be no need for a proliferation of 20mph signs, if 20mph replaces 30mph as the default speed limit for the city as a whole. A 20mph sign at each entrance into the city would inform drivers what the speed limit is in Bristol; where there are exceptions to this – dual carriageways, 40 mph and 50 mph roads – these roads already have signs to indicate the higher limits. What would be a mistake, I think, would be to keep some roads at 30mph, so that there is a multiplicity of different limits, with all the acceleration and braking that is involved in moving from one limit into another, and the possibility of forgetting what the limit actually is on the bit of road you are currently driving along (as I do sometimes when travelling on the awful A38 between Bristol and Bridgwater). Keep it simple. And, please, no radar-controlled flashing “20″ signs – which are a complete waste of money, as no-one seems to take any notice of them.
Agree! I like walking and cycling in the first areas that got 20mph. You have time to get across the road safely when someone is driving at 20, that is important if you have children or you are an older person who needs extra time to cross.
Nonsense. The time available to cross does not change if you drop the speed as the cars get closer together. You need to cross at crossings as in the ‘states
I am sorry I am not convinced that reducing the speed limit wil have the benefits stated. The last 3 road accidents which resulted in deaths in North Bristol were due to a combination of both speed and Alcohol.
No matter what the speed limit the accident would have occurred because the drivers were incapable of driving their car.
Couldn’t put it better. I cycle to work everyday and everyday drivers whizz past me at unbeleivable speeds. 20mph speed limits will have no impact on the stupidity of the driver. (I also drive). Maybe we should take a look at the bigger picture and that’s use the resources we have to stop road accidents and deaths.
I see so many cyclists (myself included) powering along at way over 20mph… the average road (drop handlebar) bike is capable of up to 40mph with a fit rider… even on my hybrid (26″ wheels) I can reach 34mph on the flat in top gear…. again… driver awareness and promoting better self-assesment of the conditions, moderating driver speed according to the situation would be more beneficial.
The majority of people on bikes do 10-12mph…
Yup.
I was just pointing out that it is pretty easy to break the existing 30mph limit on a pushbike IF you wanted to…
If you are a pro cyclist – we’re talking about people going to the shops, school or work. Take it easy
What evidence do you have to support that wild statement?.
I can hardly believe most of this tennis between the pro-drivers and the pro-cyclists. It’s just about slowing individual vehicles to a sensible speed in order to reduce accidents and the seriousness of the injuries that result from accidents. And make the place feel safer ‘n nicer. The evidence for this being sensible is uncontestable. Comments about silly drivers and silly cyclists, the need for speed or the rights of drivers are just missing the point.
Just gotta pull on the ol’ lycra shorts now. Or shall I pull on the driving gloves? Don’t you just hate those cyclists who jump lights? I do actually. Blimey it’s hard to resist, isn’t it?
I am a pedestrian, cyclist, and car driver. 30mph is a sensible speed much of the time, and has been so for decades. The Highway Code says you should drive according to the road and traffic conditions, so of course it is not always right to go at 30mph in a 30mph zone. But often it is. A 20mph limit applying on all roads at all times will mean that a fair amount of the time drivers will be driving unnecessarily slowly. I have tried driving at 20mph when the roads are quiet and it is senseless, stuck in 2nd gear and crawling along, on the off chance that a cyclist or pedestrian will do something stupid (for which they should accept responsibility, not pass it on to vehicle drivers). Cyclists and pedestrians have to learn to be sensible, as do vehicle drivers.
If you want a cast iron guarantee that no cyclists or pedestrians are ever badly injured then slow all traffic, including cyclists, to a walking pace, or ban all cars (and those cyclists who are dangerous to pedestrians) altogether. As with everything we need a balance, and 20mph on main roads and through routes whatever the conditions is too slow and is not a good balance for vehicles to get around cities (some cyclists go faster than 20mph). 30mph is a good balance.
Cllr Tim Kent admits elsewhere on this forum that the accident rate is reducing generally anyway. The evidence that 20mph reduces accident rates is not there, not is it there for reducing emissions. Yes 20mph would reduce injury if and when someone is hit, and I support it in smaller side streets. But not on bigger roads and those used as through routes in the city. All road and pavement users should take care. It’s a two way thing and everyone should take responsibility, not demonise one section of users, nor offload their own personal responsibility onto others.
The documents from the UWE consultation show that the real reason for the 20mph limit is to try and reduce car use. It says that repeatedly in so many words. It is about lifestyle change directed at car drivers, but without being able to effect simultaneous change in so-called public transport (privately owned companies more interested in profit), large supermarkets and out of town shopping centres which encourage private car use.