Monthly journal Parking Review has been the definitive source of news and intelligence on the UK and international public and private parking sectors since 1989.

A default 20mph speed limit is on the way

Rod King, Founder & campaign director, 20’s Plenty for Us, Lymm, Cheshire WA13
24 January 2014
 

I was delighted to see Malcolm Heymer’s Viewpoint in the 10 Jan issue of LTT bringing attention to the debate for 20mph becoming the default limit for residential and urban streets.

I note too Richard Evans’ letter in the same issue comparing the way that 20’s Plenty for Us argues persuasively with facts and references while the Alliance of British Drivers gives us anecdotes and personal opinion. Mr Heymer’s main point seems to be that “claims of overwhelming evidence in favour of 20mph speed limits and momentum in favour of a reduction in the urban speed limit is unstoppable” must be challenged. Well that’s not quite what Anna Semlyen claimed in her letter (LTT 19 Dec 13) but let’s put that on one side and look at his challenge.

His first allegation is that the recent Local Government Information Unit (LGiU) briefing, Area-wide 20mph neighbourhoods: a win, win, win for local authorities, is one-sided in its reporting and contains frequent references to 20’s Plenty for Us and other organisations “unsympathetic to drivers”. 

Well, let’s go through the organisations referenced in the LGiU briefing in the order cited. The first six were: the DfT; the Department for Communities and Local Government; the National Institute for Health & Clinical Excellence; the Association of Chief Police Officers; the NatCen Social Research; and Lancashire County Council. And yes the seventh was 20’s Plenty for Us. The further referenced organisations are Living Streets, the London Roads Task Force, Brighton & Hove Council, BBC, Calderale Council... and the Alliance of British Drivers.  

Does this really look like a collection of “organisations unsympathetic to motor vehicle users”?

Mr Heymer then says that reductions in speed limit produce a low impact on driven speeds of typically 1mph. Maybe this was the case for the Mackie (1998) experiments with only signage changes when people were used to 30mph being the limit, but recent reports show much larger average reductions (6mph) on faster streets as acknowledged in the DfT 01/2013 guidance Setting local speed limits. 

He challenges the findings of Bristol City Council regarding average increases in walking and cycling, once again with his own unreferenced “opinion” on results from elsewhere.

He also claims that the British Social Attitudes Survey could be influenced by the nature of the question asked or respondents may not understand what is meant by a “residential street”. The 2012 BSAS actually found that 72% of respondents supported “having speed limits of 20 miles per hour in residential streets”,  and only 11% were against. Maybe the real problem for Mr Heymer is the 72% who disagree with him.

As evidence of councils and political groups opposing 20mph limits he cites the Liberal Democrat group on the City of York Council. This is the only local authority I know of in the UK where local Lib-Dems oppose the speed limits because they instead want to put in targeted engineering measures on main roads. Whilst it is perfectly correct to quote Norfolk and Kirklees as having decided not to implement 20mph across all residential roads, I would suggest that this may be more than outweighed by decisions in favour of 20mph limits for most roads made in places such as Lancashire, Manchester, Liverpool, Birmingham, Newcastle, Oxford, Cambridge, York, Bath, Bristol, Brighton, Nottingham, and many London boroughs. 

Couple that with the DfT circular specifically stating that the 20mph speed limit should apply “in streets that are primarily residential and in other town or city streets where pedestrian and cyclist movements are high, such as around schools, shops, markets, playgrounds and other areas, where motor vehicle movement is not the primary function.” So there appears to already be a presumption at DfT level that we are in transition to a default limit of 20mph for most urban roads.

Mr Heymer’s calculations suggesting that half of urban roads would stay at 30mph under a default 20mph limit policy is very wide of the mark. Local authorities implementing area-wide 20mph limits are looking at less than 10% of urban roads being set at 30mph with the rest comprising of 80% at 20mph and 10% at 40 and 50mph. So rather than local authorities putting repeater signs on the 80% it would make far more sense for them to just sign the 10% at 30mph with repeaters, like the 40mph and 50mph.

That’s why it is time for 20mph to be adopted at a national level. Of course any such transition does bring logistical problems. The challenge is how to manage the transition so that drivers have a clear understanding of the prescribed speed limit for any road. Such problems can be overcome and that is why “Time for 20” is the key theme of our forthcoming conference.

Mr Heymer’s preference for using the 85th percentile speed “rule” in speed limit setting is a relic from the 20th Century (DfT 01/93) when the 15% fastest drivers (usually law breakers) were used as the basis for setting limits. The DfT guidance in 2006 and 2013 discredited this view and instead stated that the 85th percentile should no longer be used and mean speeds should be used instead.

Perhaps the strangest paragraph of Mr Heymer’s Viewpoint is the last one when he talks about the political spectrum of 20mph limit proponents. He should wake up and smell the coffee: 20mph limits have cross-party support in most places and have been implemented by administrations of all political colours and combinations. It’s not about the “colour” of democracy but about the “quality” of democracy. Setting a maximum legal vehicle speed of 20mph on our residential and appropriate urban streets is about creating a better, healthier, safer and more equitable public realm. The benefits are huge and timely as our future prosperity and quality of life will be very much dictated by our public health and independent, economic mobility. 20’s coming. That’s why the majority of the public support it. That’s why so many organisations support it. That’s why most authorities would implement it if costs could be lowered and that’s why we are working towards it becoming the national default.

Discuss this at the Time for 20mph event on the 18th Februrary.

Healthy Streets Traffic Engineer Technical Lead x2
Bristol City Council
100 Temple Street Redcliffe Bristol BS1 6AN
BG13 £45,718 - £48,710
Healthy Streets Principal Traffic Engineer
Bristol City Council
100 Temple Street Redcliffe Bristol BS1 6AN
£38,296 to £ £43,421 (Career Grade BG12)
Healthy Streets Traffic Engineer Technical Lead x2
Bristol City Council
100 Temple Street Redcliffe Bristol BS1 6AN
BG13 £45,718 - £48,710
View all Vacancies
 
Search
 
 
 

TransportXtra is part of Landor LINKS

© 2024 TransportXtra | Landor LINKS Ltd | All Rights Reserved

Subscriptions, Magazines & Online Access Enquires
[Frequently Asked Questions]
Email: subs.ltt@landor.co.uk | Tel: +44 (0) 20 7091 7959

Shop & Accounts Enquires
Email: accounts@landor.co.uk | Tel: +44 (0) 20 7091 7855

Advertising Sales & Recruitment Enquires
Email: daniel@landor.co.uk | Tel: +44 (0) 20 7091 7861

Events & Conference Enquires
Email: conferences@landor.co.uk | Tel: +44 (0) 20 7091 7865

Press Releases & Editorial Enquires
Email: info@transportxtra.com | Tel: +44 (0) 20 7091 7875

Privacy Policy | Terms and Conditions | Advertise

Web design london by Brainiac Media 2020