20s Plenty for Us is calling for a 20mph national urban speed limit in order to make it possible for more children to play outdoors.
20s Plenty says 20mph limits “encourage parents to allow kids out so children can move, be fit, sporty, explore, have fun and see friends”.
The campaign group says “parents fear traffic, yet seem less aware that sitting inside has serious long-term developmental risks”, and that it “is the responsibility of adults to facilitate children’s active travel and play”.
20s Plenty also says permission to play out “doubled in South Edinburgh’s 20mph limit from 31% to 66%”, and cycling to school “tripled”.
Rod King MBE, founder of 20’s Plenty for Us, said: “Us adults must remember that streets ‘belong’ to children just as much as adults. 20mph streets to help children get about on their own is a universal aspiration. It’s a key reason why we ask for the national urban speed limit to be 20mph.”
Rod,
Point taken on the subject, although the “Managed Motorways” is just another example of road engineers spending millions of £’s not easing traffic flow but resorting to speed cameras and other interventions that reduce traffic flow and incidentally make lots of money. The motorist does pay enough taxes to deserve better treatment. In 1934 the brakes of vehicles were not anywhere near as effective as today’s vehicles and yet you still want to reduce traffic flow and create congestion, increase fuel consumption, damage vehicles and increase noise and air pollution without any evidence that the idea works, in fact recent evidence to the contrary.
Steve Armstrong, Halifax UK.
0
To maximise the throughput of anything, higher speeds are required. With regard to road traffic in urban areas there are obviously severe limits to this, and low traffic speeds and congestion are more directly caused by high volumes of vehicles, restrictions at junctions, and restrictive road layouts. What benefit any 20mph speed limit has over a 30mph is most questionable, given that vehicles moving slower have found to produce more CO, than when moving faster, though how much difference between 20 & 30 is likely never to be scientifically established outside of a laboratory, as much traffic is often moving at 20 in a 30 limit, or even much less.
If the 20’s plenty campaign seems to be getting some considerable negative comment of late, it may be indicative of its pointlessness in the light of lack of evidence of it being beneficial in any respect as in many instances traffic is reduced to 20 and less already. Elsewhere, 30mph is not always the speed that the majority of traffic travel at by default, and where it is, it will be down to the discretion of the driver in any given circumstance that is deemed safe enough to do so – for the majority. Those who drive without due care will continue to do so – regardless of limits.
Derek Reynolds, Salop.
0
Steve
The context of this article is around urban speed limits and in particular the national (or should I say part national) limit for restricted roads. As I said, this has been 30mph since 1934.
The point about managed highways being given lower speed limits is in order to reduce pollution and to maximise the throughput of cars. They have tailbacks not because of the lower limits, but because the number of vehicles makes a lower limit desirable.
Most 20mph limits implemented in the last 5 years have been without any physical calming apart from some entry points which usually employ tables rather than bumps.
And yes I do drive although only about 6,000 per annum.
Rod King, 20’s Plenty for Us
0
The standard deviation of a variable such as vehicle speed entering a corner is the square root of its variance or how far the numbers are spread out. If a data distribution is approximately normal then about 68 percent of the data values are within one standard deviation of the mean, about 95 percent are within two standard deviations, and about 99.7 percent lie within three standard deviations. This is known as the 68-95-99.7 rule, or the empirical rule.
It would be really interesting to know how many standard deviations from the mean speed people think represents the boundary between prepared and unprepared for what might be around the corner?
Duncan MacKillop. No surprise – No accident.
0
Rod,
I am not sure how much you drive and where but in regards to reducing speed limits, have you noticed the proliferation of 50mph limits where it used to be national, the “managed” motorway projects which reduce limits between set hours everyday and still don’t stop the tailbacks. Also the illegal bumps with a design speed much lower than the limit damaging cars which then become dangerous due to the damage.
Steve
0
Perhaps you’ve mis-read my comment Duncan or deliberately twisted it, but I was pointing out to you that for the same circumstances, drivers do not drive at similar speeds – they do vary over quite a wide range although the largest percentage does group around the average.
Watch a hundred drivers going around a blind bend and notice the variation in speeds. Some will drive cautiously, prepared – others too fast and therefore unprepared for what may be around the corner. ‘No surprise – no accident’ as you put it. You have to accept that this is the fundamental problem with road user behaviour. There is too much of a gap between the safe and the unsafe.
Hugh Jones, Cheshire
0
Thanks for the lesson in variation Hugh. Rather than being a slight flaw as you say the fact that speeds people select are similar in similar circumstances shows the validity of the reasoning. That many drivers seperated in time can come to a broadly similar conclusion as to the optimum travel speed even though their vehicles may have vastly different top speeds shows the Goldilocks hypothesis is a good explanation of what’s actually happening.
Everybody that uses the road transport system wants to achieve a succesful journey outcome. In order to do that they have to avoid crashing into anybody else and avoid anybody else crashing into them. Nobody drives around with the safety of others uppermost in their mind, even though it does subconsciously feature, but instead they drive around with succesful journey outcomes in mind which if achieved does assure everybody else’s safety.
Duncan MacKillop. No surprise – No accident.
0
Slight flaw in your reasoning Duncan.
For the same road, for the same conditions, all things being equal, drivers’speeds will still differ. On an urban 30 road for example, the range can be from 15 to 60, with the majority – thankfully – around the average, say 25, with a gradual tailing off above and below the average. Your theories always seem to fall down because you’re not taking into account the large variations in the individual motorised road users’ abilties and behaviour. i.e. real world behaviour. You have quite an endearing faith in motorists apparently always conscientiously driving round with the safety of others uppermost in their minds. Sadly not so.
Hugh Jones, Cheshire
0
Derek
I wasn’t aware of the limit on “urban” roads being reduced below 30mph other than recently where 20mph limits have been implemented.
Rod King, 20’s Plenty for Us
0
Sadly the important bit of my last post about speed limits and cognitive load probably exceeded the word limit so here it is in all its glory.
What happens is we drive at a speed that keeps us in our processing sweet spot and as humans are very similar we end up doing similar speeds to each other when we are operating in similar situations. What a speed limit is actually telling someone is that hey, people just like you that have passed this way before found that around 30mph kept them in their sweet spot so it stands a good chance it will keep you in yours as well. The big mistake made by operations like 20’s Plenty is to believe that slowing people down so they are outside of their sweet spot will free up a great many cognitive resources that they can use to be ‘safer’. Sadly what actually happens is that if the speed of travel is not sufficient to get people into their sweet spot then rather than letting them go to waste they will use those now spare resources for some purpose other than driving the car. They start casting round for things to increase their immediate cognitive load such as making a phone call or sending a text or doing their make-up. It doesn’t matter what the task is so long as it does the Goldilocks job!
Duncan MacKillop. No surprise – No accident.
0
To comment on Rod King’s “one speed limit reduction in 80yrs”. This does not take into consideration the very many roads which have more recently had their limits reduced from 60mph to 50, and 40mph. There have indeed been a great many speed limit reductions within the last 30yrs.
Derek Reynolds, Salop.
0
A comment on Nick’s questions;
Humans are allowed to drive, after they have been tested by a qualified examiner and found adequate.
That statement almost sounds like an insult to an intelligent person, but clearly when many do not observe correctly, and act accordingly, and which may result in collisions, then either the test is inadequate or the attitudes of drivers whilst under test are deliberately careful to ensure a pass, after which some new drivers drop their levels of care and may develop and accelerate bad habits. There is an argument for the test to be more strict, but a stronger one for a behavioural change, but for everyone? And by what means? I think not, as the majority of vehicle miles travelled within the UK are accident and collision free. Although there are those who would campaign for all vehicles to be preceded by a person walking with a red flag.
It was Leslie Hore-Belisha who gave us a 30mph speed limit in urban areas whilst acting as Transport Minister in 1935, not through any scientific analysis, but because it felt right. That was the speed most people drove at through such areas. The 30 limit was a temporary measure introduced on a trial basis, and was made permanent in 1956. Curiously, after the speed limit introduction in 1935, the annual number of road fatalities rose from 6,502 in 1935 to 8,609 in 1940 – and clearly not all due to any black out regulations.
That there has been but one speed limit reduction from 30 to 20 in the last 80yrs is nonsense. A great many roads which had previously had unrestricted speed limits, became subject to 70mph (motorways included) in 1965 due to accidents in fog. During the ‘oil crisis’ of 1973 all such roads were further reduced to 50mph, although raised again to 70mph on motorways in 1974. But in 1977 was increased on single carriageway roads from 50mph to 60mph which remains to this day unless otherwise signed.
Derek Reynolds, Salop.
0
To answer Tim’s question it is indeed right that the kill bubble will vary in size dependent of the speed of travel, but it actually doesn’t vary significantly at the lower end of the speed spectrum. A lot of the variation that does effect the size of the bubble is caused by the different range of perceptual abilities particular to each driver.
What we have to add in of course is the sheer randomness of unpredictable events such as somebody stepping into the road. There must be millions of people a year that step into the road without looking, but only hundreds of them ever get hit. We have to realise that if a pedestrian is not looking that event happens irrespective of whether there is a car present at the time. It’s the random nature of the ‘not looking’ event combined with the fact that the event must happen within the bubble that is the reason (not cause) for the accidents that do occur.
As to the question on why we don’t abandon speed limits will require an understanding of cognitive load. The brain can only manage to make predictions on a finite number of external events or potential events before it has to start rationing resources. Before that limit is reached however there exists a ‘sweet spot’ where the number of external events matches the brain’s optimum processing ability. Most people like to operate in that sweet spot as just like Goldilocks there are neither too many nor too few, but just the right amount of events to manage. It is the discomfort felt by a person when they are not operating in their sweet spot that is the reason we have speed limits.
Duncan MacKillop. No surprise – No accident.
0
Steve
Urban roads were given a 30mph speed limit in 1935 and many are now getting a 20mph speed limit in 2015. Does one speed limit reduction in 80 years really constitute “ever decreasing speeds”?
Rod King, 20’s Plenty for Us
0
I am not sure anyone is proposing that lower speed limits are a catch all solution to road casualties?
Personally, I am sure it is a multi-disciplinary approach which has the best chance of reducing/preventing casualties.
Nick, Lancashire
0
I think people who support ever decreasing speeds as a catch all solution to road safety miss a very important factor that is a false sense of safety contributing to accidents, as highlighted in another article on the front page (lack of observing contributing to accidents). With a slower speed the journey time increases and attention paid to the task in hand can also decrease due to the perceived (not actual) safety and ease of the task perversely increasing the danger. The unintended consequences of bad law making.
Steve Armstrong, Halifax UK.
0
I am sorry that I gave such a simplistic answer to a situation which I accept is complex. However, what I was trying to argue was that if the variable of speed is the only one which changes then is it not to be expected that there will be fewer collisions at the lower speed?
Can someone please tell me, in a situation on a clear day with unobstructed visibility when a driver pulls out of a junction into an approaching vehicle, has the driver not “bothered” to look properly or are humans not capable of looking accurately all of the time? If the latter is the case, why do we let any human drive? If it is the former does that mean there is a lot of work to be done on attitude and behavioural change? Perhaps “driverless cars” will arrive before that is achieved.
Nick, Lancashire
0
In comparing such “bubbles” in which we consider the ability to react and brake sufficiently to prevent a collision, it must also be considered that a pedestrian, cyclist or whatever, will also react to the speed of oncoming traffic, and that there is a very real possibility that a slower moving approaching vehicle will present less risk of injury in the event of a collision, thereby negating (to some degree) the extra perceived safety factor of a slower speed.
Of course, this does rely on the third party actually LOOKING for approaching traffic. Failure to do so indicates a lack of responsibility on their behalf. Would a child consider crossing in front of a slower moving vehicle if given the choice? Only a survey of children’s ability to judge approach speeds would answer that, and that would also include a survey of what traffic education they may have had.
The pitfalls of assessing what is a safe speed are many and varied, just as many and varied as the everyday experiences of traffic under the variety of conditions experienced by drivers and other road users nation wide – the vast majority safe and accident free.
Derek Reynolds, Salop.
0
If I have understood correctly Duncan’s “kill bubble” explanation then the driver doing 20 is just as unable to avoid hitting anything in their bubble as the driver doing 30 is in theirs.
That’s fine as far as it goes, but I think a key point is the 30 bubble is bigger than the 20 bubble. Imagine then two drivers, one at 20, one at 30, in otherwise identical circumstances, given cause to brake at the same point. The one that has chosen to drive at 20 cannot avoid hitting anything intruding into their own bubble, but can, if they react quickly enough, avoid hitting anything outside their bubble but within the 30mph bubble, which the other driver can’t.
This surely is the point: in chosing to go slower they have increased their opportunity to react to the unexpected. Add to this the possibility that the larger the kill bubble the more potential there may be for intrusion by other moving objects and it seems to me there is clear truth in the principle that slower offers greater potential for safety. On the face of it this is borne out by traffic calmed 20mph zones where casualty reduction has ocurred following effective speed reduction.
This is not to say there are not clearly other factors that can and do have influence. Let us see positive action on those alongside appropriate management of speed.
I am still at a loss to understand why the many outspoken contributors to this dialogue who claim speed is nothing to do with collisions are not campaigning vehemently for the abolition of speed limits. If they are right and speed limits are at best a pointless distraction then the case should be water-tight.
Tim Philpot, Wolverhampton
0
Duncan,
Travel behaviour is intrinsically linked with society and social norms and as such “social engineering” cannot be ignored in road safety, whether it is merely a consideration or the mechanism for change.
Matt Staton, Cambridgeshire
0
Honor;
Why must anybody be inconvenienced by an ongoing casualty reduction programme? Getting this job right means that people will end up being less inconvenienced not more.
Our job here is to stop the various elements in the system from bumping into each other that’s all. We need to concentrate on that and leave the social engineering to someone else.
Duncan MacKillop. No surprise – No accident.
0
I think the core of this is actually something that Professor Richard Allsopp often has raised, along the following lines.
Once the majority of causes and circumstances that lead to crashes or casualties have been addressed, in which most road users are inconvenienced to a lesser degree (e.g. by wearing a seatbelt), compared to the effect of the incidents, you are left with the challenge of how to address the remaining causations and factors. This means that you are now addressing issues that occur less frequently but the remedy for which impacts on a greater number of road users whilst achieving a (no doubt significant) benefit but to fewer people.
The key question in casualty reduction terms is: how much inconvenience are the majority prepared to accept in order to protect the minority from what are, after all, preventable incidents and injuries?
Add to this the quite widely held desire for a re-balancing between the dominance (be it perceived or actual) of powered vehicles over other road users and it becomes more complicated as we are now seeking to achieve broader aims than purely reducing the number of casualties – see Jeremy’s post earlier in this thread. At this point our current conventional means of evaluation are beginning to struggle to accommodate these very different aims and outcomes and our current thinking and policy making is out of line with what is now being sought.
I for one await the current DfT sponsored research into these issues with interest.
Honor Byford, Chair, Road Safety GB
0
Good illustration Duncan, the result of ever decreasing speed limits on all types of road and the lack of real decreases in incidents and injury (statistically significant ones) means that the only way to go is reduce it yet further with more punitive enforcement. Where in reality the real issues are being missed at best, or ignored at worst.
Steve Armstrong, Halifax UK.
0
Nick asks some very interesting questions, but as always we are asked to make a judgement on the effect of one variable without being given sufficient information on the state of all the other variables in the system.
He asks if crossing a road with moving traffic is safer with a variable in one state than it is with it in another. Of course it is absolutely impossible to answer this question as the decision whether a system is safe or not depends on the state of all the variables not just one of them. Many people can agree that a system is safer depending on just one variable, but that of course does not make it true. This is one of the key psychological tricks behind campaigns such as 20’s Plenty that exploits the brain’s tendency to make judgements based on far too little information. This is thoroughly explained by the Nobel Laureate Daniel Kahneman in his book ‘Thinking Fast and Slow’.
We can explore this a bit by adding some variables to Nick’s question about the pedestrian standing still 200 metres in front of him. Let’s say it is a dark, rainy, moonless night and the street lights have been switched off to save energy. Let’s dress our our pedestrian in a black outfit and have him turn his back to the oncoming traffic. We could add that Nick is riding a Honda Cub with a fairly useless headlight and he’s tired at the end of a long and stressful shift. Just by adding in this small handful of variables we can see that answering Nick’s question is not so easy as it first appears. The real world of course comprises a great many variables all of which have to be taken into account and analysed before you can be assured that the system is in any way ‘safe’ to operate in. Cherry-picking just one variable and using that to make judgements on system safety is a recipe for disaster, but it’s easy to ‘sell’ and that’s the whole point of it I suppose.
Duncan MacKillop. No surprise – No accident.
0
If I am driving down a road and there is a pedestrian standing still 200m in front of me, do I have more time to avoid hitting them if I am travelling at 70mph or 20mph? Surely it is at 20mph? If you have disagreed with my previous post re safe speed I would be very interested to know the reasons why?
Nick, Lancashire
0
If a person is trying to cross a road is it safer if the vehicles are approaching at 70mph or 20mph? If a car is trying to enter a road from a side road is it safer if vehicles on the main road are travelling at 70mph or 20mph? I say the 20mph speeds are safer. Anyone agree?
Nick, Lancashire
0
What Duncan is eluding to is the concept of Space Is Safe. Basically in terms of easy understanding he is saying that if two or more vehicles were travelling in the same direction and spaced a number of seconds apart relative to their speed as stated then if the leading vehicle puts its brakes on and this stopping is seen progressively by all the vehicles behind, like a domino effect and if they all have the same braking capability all will be well and all will stop behind each other without collision. That is the norm of things at lights and junctions etc.
However if something, a pedestrian or other vehicle or object comes between those vehicles, not travelling the same way, they are within the safe time (or distance) zone given and as such a vehicle would not be able to stop in time in order to avoid a collision with it. Should it come to a halt, showing brake lights or not. He mentions a 2 or 3 second rule and one must know that any vehicle travelling at 10 mph will be travelling a distance of 15ft per second. So at 30 mph it would be travelling at 45ft per second. 2 seconds = 90ft. The full stopping distance at 30 mph is 75 ft (as per H.C.) and so on the understanding above if they stop simultaneously no collision would happen. However if the following car is only the thinking distance behind, which many are, which is only 30ft behind and the front car comes to a sudden stop as in collision with a stationary object. No slowing or showing of brake lights then the second vehicle has not the required safe distance to stop safely and therefore a collision will occur.
Bob Craven Lancs….Space is Safe Campaigner
0
Do vehicles not have brakes where you are Duncan? If someone enters what you would call the safety bubble around my car – and no doubt the same can be said of countless other drivers out there – we stop! That’s the whole point of lower speeds when necessary. More time to see more and react as well. Just for once, it’s not rocket science!
Hugh Jones, Cheshire
0
Some interesting and varied views on this thread, with that in mind, I’ll have a go at a simple statement that alludes to why we should have road safety practitioners – please do feel free to tear it apart or agree with part of it or all of it. We are all here to exchange ideas and learn from each other, even if on some occasions we are learning about each other’s different profoundly held views.
‘The aim of the road safety practitioner is to facilitate the safe integration of all road users into the network to allow them to travel to their desired destination without adverse incident.’
Some points:
1. Road user means exactly what is says – I’m not going to teach grannies to suck eggs by listing all the different types of road user!
2. My statement could apply one hundred years ago, now or – a big quantum leap here – one hundred years time.
3. Exactly how the road safety practitioner (RSP) achieves the desired outcome of the statement will depend on the point in time that they do what they do as RSPs (ten points to anyone thinks of what they will be called in 100 yrs time). Of relevance here is the available technology and society’s perception of a number of things related to the way it changes – one hundred years ago most of society thought it was a good idea to execute murders, now we lock them up.
4. The amount of cash available and the political will. Sadly, this seems to have always been the case and probably always will for the forseable future.
Mark – Wiltshire
0
We really do need to nail the misconception that “slower speeds give more time for all to react”. It’s one of those ‘facts’ that many people agree on yet it is simply not true. It is at the very heart of the 20’s Plenty sales pitch however so it does need to be debunked before it causes any more damage.
Every moving object including those under human operator control has a ‘kill zone’ around it the size of which is dictated by the combination of a number of variables. This kill zone extends from the instantaneous position of the moving object to a point down the road where it will stop moving. Rather than the size of this being described in terms of distance it is more appropriate to think in terms of this kill zone as a bubble of time surrounding the moving object. This time bubble expands in size as speeds increase and typically grows one second in size for every additional ten mph, but irrespective of the speed it can never be less than three seconds big.
Any object impinging this time bubble is going to get impacted unless it too is moving away from the point of impact at a sufficient rate as to make the time bubble tend to infinity. A good example of this is the two second rule for following another vehicle as it’s moving away from us as fast as we’re moving towards it. If a person enters the time bubble without sufficient velocity to exit from it then whatever time is available before impact will ALWAYS be insufficient for an impact to be avoided. From this it can also be understood that if a person never enters the moving objects time bubble then they can NEVER be hit. It is entering the moving object’s time bubble that is the critical factor and yet this is entirely independent of the speed of the moving object. The huge lie that you have more time to react if you are going slower is revealed when you understand that once somebody is inside the bubble the driver/operator has absolutely NO time in which to avoid a collison. The driver/operator only has time to react and reach a successful outcome if the person remains outside the time bubble kill zone.
Duncan MacKillop. No surprise – No accident.
0
My experience with 20mph limits is that they are inappropriate in a large proportion of the places where they are installed. Also the preoccupation with an arbitrary number is both dangerous and unhelpful. As I have spoken to newly qualified drivers driving IMO dangerously but because they are under this arbitrary number think what they are doing is safe. Council Highways departments are also not helpful insisting on unobstructed sight lines (designing race tracks) and then resorting to 20mph and traffic calming instead of building in lower speeds to the road itself.
Steve Armstrong, Halifax UK.
0
Legally speaking the streets were never taken away but “people” remember the days when car ownership and mileage was considerably lower. “We” won a football world cup with the likes of the Charlton brothers who learned to play on the streets. Cricket wickets chalked on walls commonly seen in old photographs. Children learning to cycle near to their houses, playing “Kerby”, marbles etc etc etc.
The “people” have seen the streets becoming busier in regards to vehicles moving and parked up so it “feels” like the streets have been taken away when what has happened is their usage has changed. It is perhaps easy to become detached from the non-professional’s view of things when dealing on a day-to-day basis with a subject and being used being constrained by legal requirements.
My children still play on our street – a relatively modern cul-de-sac covered by a 20mph speed limit on a “new” estate, and move over if a car comes and most drivers behave accordingly. If it was a through route amongst a grid-iron patterned terraced street area I suspect they wouldn’t play out. It doesn’t take much research to understand which type of locality suffers the most casualties.
20mph, I think, could be described as a safer speed than 30mph as slower speeds give more time for all to react, but the responsibility to behave in such a way to avoid a collision should, in my opinion, be shared equally by all road users. Pedestrians still need to look before crossing a road in a 20mph speed limit just as drivers need to be on the lookout for potential pedestrians/cyclists crossing their path unexpectedly.
Most of the contributors on this subject have views I consider to be valid to some extent. The problems start when it appears that a particular view is being put forward as the only solution and everyone else’s views are completely wrong.
Nick, Lancashire
0
To quote Rod King:
“a) we should accept that the roads are dangerous places for anyone except those in cars, and hence should minimise vulnerable road user exposure.
b) the roads are dangerous because we have lost the will to safely share our streets for all road users and we need a community led change in attitude and behaviour.”
The former to be considered a “fatalistic attitude”.
I have never felt alienated when needing to cross a road, and I do not have a fatalistic attitude. I recognise there are vehicles using the carriageway section of a highway, and cross with due care – sharing not only the highway, but my responsibility in using it. Perhaps due care, and responsibility are the missing elements in the 20’s plenty mission?
This mission is more indicative of a vendetta against the motorised user, than a desire to share anything. It smacks of segregation and discrimination creating a ‘them and us’ scenario. Less a spearhead in a debate, more a thorn in the foot of commonsense?
Further: a moving vehicle at 1mph has the capability of fatally crushing a person – would this meet with maximum lethality? Not to be ignored. I read some years ago that more children were killed or injured on private driveways in reversing manoeuvres than on urban streets. (I wish I had saved the reference). Moving vehicles must be treated and used with respect. The obsession with a speed limit as a safety mark is what is fatalistic. The foremost road safety elements are due care, and responsibility – ask any community if they would like to see more of that, instead of pedaling a number on a pole. Even a stationary horse can bite, kick and maim. Most cars don’t do that. But don’t play too close.
Derek Reynolds, Salop.
0
Those involved with one of the three Es of road safety and collision prevention i.e engineering, try to engineer out conflict between road users, and yet we are looking at a proposal, the motivation for which seems to be to encourage the opposite – at least with the conventional residential road design anyway.
Creating an informal road layout with shared surfaces, planters and benches etc. may be a better way of achieving lower speeds and creating a recreational feel to the road.
I don’t understand comments such as ‘giving the streets back to the people’ – they were never taken away were they? We’ve always had the right to use them and always subject to laws, regulations and the Highway Code. Lack of adherence to these is the problem.
Hugh Jones, Cheshire
0
I don’t recall vilifying any road users in my recent posts Chris. All I have pointed out is the simple fact that big, heavy, moving things are lethal irrespective of speed of travel that’s all.
The issue I have is that 20’s Plenty claims that lethality reduces with speed of travel and therefore roadways will be safer if everybody travels slower. By spreading this falsehood and encouraging people to claim back the roads 20’s Plenty run the considerable risk of killing many more people than they hope to save.
Duncan MacKillop. No surprise – No accident.
0
There is a huge amount of irony Duncan in your responses.
You claim the car isn’t king yet go on to vilify anyone that isn’t the occupant of a vehicle that dare enter that carriageway that is not the occupant of a vehicle.
Trains are mostly segregated to facilitate speed, we do reflect this on our motorways and some other high speed roads. Where trains do mix with vehicles and/or pedestrians they do so at a walking pace.
The purpose of giving those appropriate streets back to the people is so that drivers are not surprised to see said pedestrian in the road.
Chris Harrison Gloucestershire
0
The only purpose of the roads is as a communications network that effectively links together the font doors of every house office and place of business. This network allows the movement of people and vehicles from one point in the network to any other point at a time of their choosing. It may pay to compare this with the railways which are another similar network, but which only links stations and works at the timetabler’s choosing. From a safety point of view however the roads and the railways are remarkably similar in that both feature heavy moving objects that are lethal the instant they come into contact with soft-bodied people.
Those responsible for railway safety move heaven and earth to keep people and moving objects separated as far as is practicably possible, yet it seems that certain groups within the road safety industry want to move heaven and earth to keep them together.
I’m sure that various people would love to ignore the fact that as soon as an object such as a car or a train starts to move it reaches maximum lethality because that would expose the lie of slower = safer, but ignoring it doesn’t make it go away. The real issue here is whether or not a communications network for heavy moving objects (trains or cars) should be used as a playground. If it is then there is no place for moving objects and if it isn’t then there is no place for play.
From a pure safety point of view either the rail safety industry is wrong in wanting to keep moving objects and people apart or the 20’s Plenty lot are wrong in wanting to keep them together. I know which I would choose.
Duncan MacKillop. No surprise – No accident.
0
Hugh
I am not sure which roads or schemes you are referring to. However, you are pointing to issues with the implementation of 20mph limits with only signs rather than with signs and engagement. In addition, isolated schemes don’t have the same “ownership” when drivers live in 30mph limits.
We seem to be accepting that slower speeds are beneficial yet baulking at discussing how to optimise compliance. It is a case of using different compliance methods for different roads. “Faster roads” can benefit from a number of compliance enhancing treatments such as light engineering, light enforcement, engagement, additional signage, etc.
We need to be looking at how best practice methods can be used wherever required. What is clear to me is that those implementing Total 20 recently are far more nuanced in their understanding of the issues and how to maximise compliance from day one onwards.
I certainly accept that behaviour change on the back of consensus is never easy, but one only has to look elsewhere in the world to see how places can be transformed from “how they were” to being a “better place for all”. It ain’t perfect, but 20’s Plenty is a major step forward in civilising our streets for people.
Rod King, 20’s Plenty for Us
0
I think ‘a community led change in attitude and behaviour’ is where signed-only 20 limits falls down unfortunately. I’ve had the opportunity to observe some recent new 20s and I’m afraid there is nowhere near the level of voluntary compliance for it to be succesful. Part of the problem is the LAs in question applying them to roads haphazardly and non-uniformly and in one case, absurdly, due to a particular road’s physical characteristics and usage. Motorists using these roads are passing through and cannot be inluenced by community led attitude and behaviour. This may be slightly more succesful in self-contained housing developments where there may be a sense of belonging and community, but not all the traffic therein is local. How are non-local drivers to be influenced by the community? It’s a shame, but we may have to reconsider physical traffic calming or one day in the future, ISA.
Hugh Jones, Cheshire
0
I think that there is a useful debate developing here. I guess I will ignore the remarks such as “As soon as something like a car starts to move it reaches maximum lethality” and the like.
What interests me is the debate as to whether
a) we should accept that the roads are dangerous places for anyone except those in cars, and hence should minimise vulnerable road user exposure.
b) the roads are dangerous because we have lost the will to safely share our streets for all road users and we need a community led change in attitude and behaviour.
I don’t suggest that those in the former camp are any less “safety conscious” than others, but would suggest that this fatalistic attitude can only result in more alienation of the urban realm for non motorised users.
What communities around the country are showing is that there is a thirst for a more considered and sharing use of our streets so that it is the responsible actions of drivers that enable the freedom to use the streets for us all rather than the irresponsible, don’t care (through ignorance or intention) that blights so many of our places.
The 20’s Plenty campaign is proud to be spearheading that debate to make all our places “better places to be” through bringing lower speed limits.
Rod King, 20’s Plenty for Us
0
I shall get my knuckles rapped for a third comment, however;
The car is not a King, it is merely a means of transportation. As such, it requires a carriageway and that’s what streets and roads are, whether cul-de-sacs, minor roads, B, or even A roads, the public have access to all such streets and roads by whatever means chosen. What exactly is intended when it is stated: “to give them back”? They have not been taken away. More often carriageways have been removed and downgraded to paved areas for pedestrians only. Imagine an entire housing estate with no carriageways. With the vast majority of home dwellers owning vehicles, how would they gain access to their homes?
What is wrong with children playing in the street? Nothing at all, provided they are not playing in the carriageway, which is a dangerous place to play – even when the horse and cart were the predominant vehicles. Choose the pavement, or a park. Hop-scotch and cycling for under 10yr olds has never been recommended in the carriageway – doing so introduces young people to dangers. Road safety is about reducing danger, not increasing it.
Derek Reynolds, Salop.
0
What on earth is wrong with children playing in the street? It is time we gave those appropriate streets back to the people and destroyed the belief that car is king. It should also be the mantra of new builds designing and building residential estates for the people and not for the cars they drive.
Chris Gloucestershire
0
Now here’s a thought – why not stop thinking about what we do and start thinking about what we are for (I’m talking professional road safety advocates here).
What is the purpose of this safer network that so many of us have spent decades striving to achieve? Notwithstanding the disappointing national figures released in June we are now looking at an overall road experience that is considerably safer than when most of us started – and there will be pockets of experience in many of our areas that suggest that the network is available for use in ways which many would have considered unthinkable a couple of decades ago.
Our primary function is casualty reduction. That’s what we do. But is that an adequately comprehensive description of what we are for? How many of us are asking what is the utilitarian value of a safer network? We got it and, with fairer winds than we have at present, it will improve further still. But is the benefit solely for the few who now go injury free, or is it for the many who can put a safer network (as distinct from one filled with collisions, danger, fear, traffic delays etc) to practical use?
I think the contribution of a safer network to the wider social good cannot be ignored. It enables more efficient commerce; it liberates the latent walker and cyclist; it facilitates the routine physical activity which clears hospital beds and reduces waiting lists; it enables social interaction, access to services, later life independence etc. I think creating a road environment in which these things can take place is increasingly what we are for. Reducing casualties – to demonstrate the availability of the network to the vulnerable & benign as much as being a goal in its own right – is more about how we do it.
I think that the concept of a road that can, under some circumstances, also be used as a play space; as a space for social interaction, a space that enables a ‘net healthier’ society is entirely laudable. I’d like see it happen and I’m willing to work towards making it so. To restrict any such vision to fit the narrow parameters of what I do seems to me to lack ambition for what people in this profession are truly capable of achieving. The 20 debate is our playground – and we should be using it to explore possibilities for ourselves and what it is we offer to our customers.
But if I’m willing to see a distinction between what I’m for and what I do, the 20 advocates need to do the same. For all the above reasons I want to see a more benign carriageway and I firmly believe that speed control and where appropriate speed reduction is central to that – but the jury remains firmly out as to whether the desire is matched by the proposed methodology and I’m eager to see what DfT’s research will have to say about that in a few months.
Jeremy, Devon
0
Three members of my family including myself have been knocked down whilst either playing in the street or cycling on the pavement. This is going back 40 years when the roads were far less busy than they are now. We all had teaching about the Green Cross Code etc. I witnessed a 3 year old who I was playing with, killed by an ice cream van in a cul-de-sac. I now live on a 30 MPH road with a 20 MPH at either end. I watch kids play on the road daily, understanding I’ve arrested three drink drivers on this road whilst off duty, and I see the speed of traffic using this road coming off the 20 MPH roads and neither of the speed limit signs make any difference to these people. I’ve advised parents about getting the kids off the street, told them of the dangers and my previous incidents, but to no avail. What else can you do – I’ve tried and I will keep trying.
Dan Holdsworth, Merseyside, www.safesteps.org
0
Blessed are the innocent for they shall skip gaily upon the roads without fear or any sense of responsibility for their own safety. Thus it is in the land of plenty.
Of course in the real world, it takes supressing a quarter of a million people, depriving them of a third of a rational speed, to save a life.
I wonder how many of the proponents of this scheme would submit to an arbitrary pay cut of a third to promote road safety ‘in the public interest’.
With that amount of money I could set up quite a handsome scheme to suggest that pedestrians do the one thing most likely to save their life:
Look before entering the roadway.
Andrew Mather, Kent
0
By continuing to peddle the fantasy that somehow slower = safer Rod is condemming far too many children to an early grave.
As soon as something like a car starts to move it reaches maximum lethality and only ceases to become lethal once it stops moving. It doesn’t really matter how fast it’s moving, that’s just a red herring as it’s the act of moving that really counts.
Big, heavy, moving objects are entirely unsafe and Rod’s ‘stakeholders’ need to be totally aware of that fact so that they don’t go anywhere near them. Stay on the pavement and they’ll be relatively safe, but wander onto the road and they will be completely unsafe, it doesn’t get much simpler than that.
It’s much better for people to assume that the road and it’s moving objects is 100% lethal and that they can only make it safer through their own actions rather than thinking that it’s relatively safe because the objects in it aren’t moving very fast.
Duncan MacKillop. No surprise – No accident.
0
Let’s keep it simple Rod (and safer). C/ways are for wheeled vehicles, footways for pedestrians -i.e. right of access and passage. We need to reduce the speed of the (motorised) wheeled vehicles – agreed – but not to facilitate or encourage activities for which residential roads were not meant for and some consider a nuisance and a hazard and contrary to road safety common sense.
Hugh Jones, Cheshire
0
I have read the press release by 20’s plenty, and it refers to another press release by 20’s plenty, which in turn refers to the South Edinburgh Council’s introduction of 20mph for residential streets and the City Centre – which the Council itself desires to retain continued use of 30 and 40 mph limits, for quote: – “a coherent network”.
With regard to ‘Street Play’, in all the pages I have read on the ‘Play England’ website, there is no mention of speed limits or the requirement for them to be 20mph or otherwise. The predominance is to get young children out of their houses or flats, and engage in various forms of outdoor pursuits and play, many involving activities in greenfield surroundings as well as playground areas, and away from the Playstation and X box. Any closed ‘Play Street’ activities seem to surround closure of a public street for a duration of approximately three hours for the use thereof (specific mention is of Islington and Hackney, though intended to be nation wide).
Whilst the number of children involved in walking and cycling to school has increased, some of this is due to previous or existing parental reluctance due to fears of peer bullying or even abduction – the ‘walking bus’ has helped here, though it demands volunteer staffing and is not infallible. Another factor is the public announcements that cycling is good for health, along with cycling lessons and good practice encouraged by different school associated organisations (cycling proficiency days).
It is without doubt that many parents and residents will consider slower traffic speeds a serious consideration for safer roads, “20’s plenty” is an attractive sound bite. However, there is little if any evidence of this (other than opinion) regarding the safety of a 20mph limit over a 30 in general and it becomes an emotional issue, which can become indefeatable – and indefensible. Moreover, much of the traffic on residential streets already travels at less than 30mph, and that which does not (a minority) will not change – regardless of any maximum speed limit. The greatest benefit any parent can give their child is in educating them to the presence of traffic, and the consequences of taking risks amongst same. It kept me safe in the busy North London urban area of my childhood.
Derek Reynolds, Salop.
0
Hugh
It’s Wimbledon week. Across the country kids will be getting their tennis rackets out and using them in cul-de-sacs.
Across the country communities are debating authority-wide 20mph limits and this becomes a catalyst for discussion on “whose roads are they anyway”. As evidence in your street suggests, the kids clearly think that they are stakeholders and see them as far more than just “ways for carriages”.
The big question is whether us adults see our responsibility to them to enable the community assets that we call streets to be used for the whole community or just those with cars.
Rod King, 20’s Plenty for Us
0
Well to be fair Rod, the press release does refer to ‘access to streets (for playing) with restricted traffic like cul-de-sacs’. A cul-de-sacs is no less a highway and therefore have the same restrictions on use, including ‘no playing’! I live in a cul-de-sac with a default ’30’ and where several children regularly ‘play’ in the c/way, to the annoyance of motorists and some residents no doubt. The prevailing speed limit of 30 obviously has not deterred them nor their parents it woud seem. I can’t see how, if it was ever reduced to 20, they could possibly feel any more safer or liberated.
I support 20s, but not for this reason.
Hugh Jones, Cheshire
0
Hugh
You should have read the full press release. If you had done so you would have seen that RSGB were incorrectly quoting our press release. The picture shown was accompanied by the note that it was during a Play Street session when the road had been closed to traffic.
Our whole press release was about children having access to play spaces via roads which provide a far better environment by having a 20mph limit.
But whilst on the subject, exactly what would you ban? Hopscotch on pavement, riding bikes up and down a residential road, riding scooters, skipping down to the next lamp post and waiting for a parent to catch up. Kids don’t see a distinction between mobility and play. That’s what growing up is about.
Unfortunately what puts them at risk is the kid’s who still want to “play” when they have supposedly grown-up and are now driving vehicles.
Rod King, 20’s Plenty for Us
0
Such an image not only misleads children into thinking that the road itself might be a safe place to play in if a 20mph limit is in force, it shows the folly and misdirection of the whole 20’s plenty farce. Children will play out of doors regardless of a speed limit in force at any given time. The essential message to them is that the road is a dangerous place that needs respect in the manner in which it is crossed and re-crossed. The road is not a playground. They need to understand and learn the necessity of using defined crossing places and the procedures for using them safely. Safety for children out of doors requires they do not play on the roads – even the cat in the picture seems to recognise that. Maybe it has more intelligence than the adult depicted.
Derek Reynolds, Salop.
0
I think we can all agree that it doesn’t matter whether you jump off a 20 metre high cliff rather than a 30 metre high one, the results will be pretty much the same. The thing that gets you therefore is jumping off the cliff in the first place.
Following Rod’s logic he would have us believe that children playing at the top of a 20 metre high cliff are much safer than the onces forced into playing at the top of a 30 metre cliff. This is clearly absurd because the only safe option is either not to play at the top of a cliff or for there not to be a cliff to play on in the first place!
Duncan MacKillop. No surprise – No accident.
0
The press release said 20mph limits help children to reach places appropriate for outdoor play. Ie parks friends gardens, culture de sacs.
Anna Semlyen
0
The only safe street to play out on is a street without traffic, not a 20mph highway. I don’t think that the 20’s Plenty campaigners have thought this out thoroughly enough. Encouraging young children to play out on a street with the possibility of traffic on is tantamount to murder or manslaughter.
I know we did it as kids many decades ago but really we can’t expect parents to allow such a thing nowadays, unless the street is designated a play street and vehicles are prohibited. Otherwise, by encouraging parents to allow their offspring to play is just asking for trouble.
bob Craven Lancs…Space is Safe Campaigner.
0
Re-the ‘photo: Four children (and an adult astonishingly) sitting in the c/way absorbed with colouring in a speed limit roundel. The irony! What could possibly go wrong?
Hugh Jones, Cheshire
0
I’m all for lower speeds in residential streets, but not to allow children to play in them! It’s a highway not a playground. One of the reasons children are being hit by vehicles now is because they are playing in the street. Gardens and playgrounds are for playing in.
Hugh Jones, Cheshire
0
With further local authority budget cuts due maybe the streets will be the only place children can play when the parks are closed.
Peter Westminster
0