The Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety (PACTS) has been awarded £60k of funding to investigate the safety benefits of lower urban speed limits.
The project, which is being carried out in partnership with University of Loughborough and a number of international road safety experts, will examine 20mph/30kph schemes in the UK and mainland Europe.
It is being supported by £60k of funding from the Road Safety Trust – under its current theme ‘innovative traffic calming and provision for vulnerable road users’.
The ‘Lower urban speed limits in Europe – what does the evidence show?’ (LUSTRE) project will look at different outcomes – such as speeds, casualties and active travel – from area-wide schemes, which have not involved significant traffic calming or police enforcement.
The findings will be debated via a webinar and the final report will summarise the evidence, conclusions and recommendations. The intention is to publish in December 2020.
David Davies, executive director at PACTS, said: “Lower speed limits (20mph/30kph) in towns and villages are now internationally-endorsed as a key element in reducing road casualties and creating safe conditions for people to walk and cycle.
“This project will explore the evidence of outcomes (speeds, casualties, air quality, walking etc) from area-wide schemes, which have not involved significant traffic calming or police enforcement.”
The Road Safety Trust is a registered charity which supports projects and research aimed at making the UK roads safer for all road users.
Sally Lines, chief executive of the Road Safety Trust said: “We are pleased to be able to provide PACTS with funding to help achieve our vision of zero deaths and serious injuries on UK roads.
“We want to make the roads safer for all users, particularly vulnerable road users which includes pedestrians, cyclists and motorcyclists.”
We welcome this. There has never been research which looked at authority-wide 20mph implementations in the UK which were large enough in size or number for comparisons to be made in the method of implementation. For us the key factors in compliance are :-
Level of cross-party political support.
Commitment to enforcement.
Engagement and education.
Involvement of PH population wide behaviour change.
As David Davies says “20mph/30kmh are now internationally-endorsed as a key element in reducing road casualties and creating safe conditions for people to walk and cycle.” We need to start focusing on how they can be done better and become the norm in both implementation and public-consensus. This report could help us do that.
Rod King, Lymm
--70
20mph zones and speed limits in UK have been politically driven i.e. seen as a quick and cheap fix to a range of urban problems with mixed results in places like Brighton, Portsmouth and Birmingham. If the study excludes the cultural and enforcement differences between nations then its outcomes risk deepening insularity in the UK’s approach to casualty reduction.
Dave Hubbard, Uckfield
+9
Thanks David
Speaking of methodological robustness of various reports, perhaps you could “go back to basics” by including in your assessment/report a quick recap of TRL report 58 in 1994 and updated in TRL report 421 in 2000. Campaigners for wide area signed only 20s are known to use the quote “Research shows that for every 1mph reduction in speed there is a 6% reduction in accidents” , ….. This quote originates from these reports but is only part of the quote, missing an important aspect of context.
In report 421 the executive summary page 2 under Conclusions says :
In urban areas the potential for accident reduction (per 1 mile/h reduction in average speed) is greatest on those roads with low average speeds (Figure A) . These are typically busy main roads in towns with high levels of pedestrian activity, wide variations in speeds, and high accident frequencies .
I look forward to reading the results and conclusions of your investigations. It will be interesting to know whether the TRL report conclusions still hold up 20 years on.
Pat, Wales
+7
I do apologise for that quip/misinterpretation over the source of funding.
However, the rest of my comment I believe still stands.
> We also anticipate that there will be much to learn from the experience of mainland Europe – contrast and compare. We Brits can be a bit insular sometimes!
30km/h streets in most of Europe, for example Germany and the Netherlands – tend to have the physical appearance of streets that have high risk. Narrow roads, made even narrower by on-street vehicle parking, often with cobbled roads. But this is a repeat of (most of) my original comment so I’ll stop here.
David Weston, Newcastle-upon-Tyne
0
Hmm, I need to clarify a few misconceptions!
To David Weston, this is funded by the Road Safety Trust, not the Government or taxpayer.
More generally the report will investigate the impacts of 20mph/30kph limits(ie what changes have resulted) – not the purpose of them, the theoretical benefits or drivers’ views. We will clarify the methods and methodological robustness of various reports – to help explain why some appear to result in slightly different conclusions. If we can discern success factors from the analysis, we will do so.
We also anticipate that there will be much to learn from the experience of mainland Europe – contrast and compare. We Brits can be a bit insular sometimes!
Research into many aspects of road safety is often required for decades – drink-driving research started in the 1950s (some would say earlier) and is still needed and continuing today. We are determined that this speed limit study will add something new.
David Davies
--3
> If say, typically 50% of motorists do not comply with 20 limits, ask them ‘why not?’
As a resident who lives within a 20mph limit (not zone) who fits into Hugh’s target demographic I will happily save the tax payer £60,000 and answer this question now:
Because in a considerable amount of locations, they’re frankly not needed. They’re quite often more wants to settle local political disputes as opposed to injury reducing measures. If for some reason they are needed, follow the already existing guidelines of 20mph zones and make the road suitable for *only* 20mph.
Sticking 20mph roundels on a road that’s suitable for 30mph or even 40mph is not going to aid compliance, or more importantly, driver acceptance.
But of course, that will cost lots of money – something that I suspect the country will be in much need of in this troubling time.
And frankly this is something that’s come up time and time again, so following on from Hugh’s point, just why is another report needed? Mashing the “request report” button until a different, considerably cheaper answer magically appears?
I’ll take that £60k as a cheque.
David Weston, Newcastle-upon-Tyne
+12
How many reports into 20 limits do we actually need? The question should not be ‘what are the safety benefits’ (that should be already apparent) – the question should be ‘why are they not being complied with as much as they should, therefore negating any safety benefits?’. If say, typically 50% of motorists do not comply with 20 limits, ask them ‘why not?’
Hugh Jones, Cheshire
--41
I think the proposed study of “signed only” 20s could add much to the current debate, just so long as it keeps to specifics and does not blend data from different types of roads and environments together, nor average everything down or result in sweeping generalisations which would miss the nuanced effects of what may make “signed only” 20s work in one place and not in another.
Pat, Wales
+16