20 mph limits on main roads are crazy. Here's why. Let's assume the section of road is one mile long to make the maths easy. At 20mph it will take three minutes to complete the mile. At the old speed of 30mph it would have been 2 minutes. So, as long as the traffic volumes stay the same, there will be 50% more vehicles in the same length of road at any given time. This means the traffic will be heavier, congestion will be worse, getting out of side roads will be more difficult, pedestrians will have more problems crossing the road, cars will be using more fuel because they are in a lower gear and pollution will be worse. All of which kind of demonstrates that all the mayor is really interested in is making money from motorists.
I can’t believe so many people have liked this ridiculous argument.
For example, it’s proven that reducing the speed limit under certain conditions, on busy motorways for example, makes the traffic move faster.
20 mph limits on main roads are crazy. Here's why. Let's assume the section of road is one mile long to make the maths easy. At 20mph it will take three minutes to complete the mile. At the old speed of 30mph it would have been 2 minutes. So, as long as the traffic volumes stay the same, there will be 50% more vehicles in the same length of road at any given time. This means the traffic will be heavier, congestion will be worse, getting out of side roads will be more difficult, pedestrians will have more problems crossing the road, cars will be using more fuel because they are in a lower gear and pollution will be worse. All of which kind of demonstrates that all the mayor is really interested in is making money from motorists.
I can’t believe so many people have like this ridiculous argument.
For example, it’s proven that reducing the speed limit under certain conditions, on busy motorways for example, makes the traffic move faster.
Okay it does go to 20 outside the White Horse, but I don't see the speed trap?
A few months ago, I was travelling along that road back to towards Woolwich, a van rocketed last in the bus lane doing about 40, only to get stopped the the traffic cop with the speed gun by the roundabout. 😂😂😂
If the van was last doing 40, how fast were the others going?
Okay it does go to 20 outside the White Horse, but I don't see the speed trap?
A few months ago, I was travelling along that road back to towards Woolwich, a van rocketed last in the bus lane doing about 40, only to get stopped the the traffic cop with the speed gun by the roundabout. 😂😂😂
If the van was last doing 40, how fast were the others going?
I use that stretch of road quite a bit. Just one thing to add for those who have said that 20 is ridiculous on a dual carriageway.
It isn’t a dual carriageway any more!! That’s a bus lane on the inside. Us ordinary car drivers don’t get to use that lane these days, unless you’re a dick who thinks speeding up there is OK because you need to get to your destination two minutes quicker.
That whole stretch of road down to Greenwich is now a complete mess with ridiculous cycle lanes, especially those where you now need to have a bus stop between them and the actual road. All down to your local councils more than Khan though.
20 mph limits on main roads are crazy. Here's why. Let's assume the section of road is one mile long to make the maths easy. At 20mph it will take three minutes to complete the mile. At the old speed of 30mph it would have been 2 minutes. So, as long as the traffic volumes stay the same, there will be 50% more vehicles in the same length of road at any given time. This means the traffic will be heavier, congestion will be worse, getting out of side roads will be more difficult, pedestrians will have more problems crossing the road, cars will be using more fuel because they are in a lower gear and pollution will be worse. All of which kind of demonstrates that all the mayor is really interested in is making money from motorists.
I can’t believe so many people have liked this ridiculous argument.
For example, it’s proven that reducing the speed limit under certain conditions, on busy motorways for example, makes the traffic move faster.
That's completely different! The lowering of speeds in variable zones on motorways helps to stop the bunching caused by trucks overtaking other trucks and slowing down the outer lanes: usually a slow-down with over-compensating heavy breaking which takes time to recover from. That's why it works on muti-lane motorways. Reducing speed limits temporarily during periods of heavy traffic smooths the flow. It's a situation that does not occur on a major but single lane route like Woolwich Road.
So, I'm afraid it is your argument that is ridiculous, not mine.
The new Silverhouse Tunnel will do wonders for pollution.
It's a great idea to put 20 mph limit on a dual carriageway- raises plenty of cash.
Don’t speed, no cash raised. Simple really.
Ludicrous fines for ridiculous speed limits on a dual carriageway- nothing to do with safety and all about revenue generation.
The police like Khan don't give a shit about road safety but they're happy to stand there with their mobile speed cameras to raise money. They'd install a permanent camera if safety was the issue.
Obey the speed rules. No problem then.
Like many, you are over-simplifying the actual situation. So, while inappropriate speed is shown to be a contributory factor in around a third of road accidents, (but rarely the main factor) there are some other things to consider.
First that inappropriate speed can easily be a speed less than the speed limit if road conditions dictate. Like if it's snowing there is heavy rain or fog and/or it is at nighttime and the local council can't be arsed to have operational street lights*. Accidents do not just occur when it's nice and sunny funnily enough.
Second, by far and way the largest influence on traffic accidents is "driving without due care and attention". In fact some statistics suggest that inappropriate speed is the main contributory factor in only around 6% of accidents. The speed "rules" as you quaintly put it, are not there because high speed is dangerous per se but because it is an easy way to mitigate against other factors. Like some drivers being totally useless and not having a clue about what is going on around them.
Third, over 65% of pedestrian accidents are wholly the fault of the pedestrian, either by not paying attention, scrolling down their mobile or drunk for example. It is wholly inappropriate that innocent drivers should be persecuted for the actions of other moronic individuals.
I hope that helps.
*A few days ago at night, there was a cyclist, I saw him so nothing happened. Something made me stop at a rural junction a little longer than I would normally have done. Otherwise I would have taken him out and I'm sure if I had hit him I would have been deemed wholly at fault. Now, while I would have accepted some of the blame, frankly on a pitch-black night, someone on a black cycle with no lights and head to foot in entirely black clothes should certainly accept some of the responsibility for their attempts to get a Darwin Award.
The new Silverhouse Tunnel will do wonders for pollution.
It's a great idea to put 20 mph limit on a dual carriageway- raises plenty of cash.
Don’t speed, no cash raised. Simple really.
Ludicrous fines for ridiculous speed limits on a dual carriageway- nothing to do with safety and all about revenue generation.
The police like Khan don't give a shit about road safety but they're happy to stand there with their mobile speed cameras to raise money. They'd install a permanent camera if safety was the issue.
Obey the speed rules. No problem then.
Second, by far and way the largest influence on traffic accidents is "driving without due care and attention". In fact some statistics suggest that inappropriate speed is the main contributory factor in only around 6% of accidents. The speed "rules" as you quaintly put it, are not there because high speed is dangerous per se but because it is an easy way to mitigate against other factors. Like some drivers being totally useless and not having a clue about what is going on around them.
I think you've summed up nicely why the speed limit should be 20mph @cafcfan.
Twenty miles an hour is laughable. You can do that on a bicycle. You would have to be practically asleep to hit anything at that speed. It's not easy to drive at twenty when you have been conditioned to thirty in urban areas and it invariably involves changing down a gear or two. The Police know this and target speeding in these areas because it's more lucrative. I got done opposite the entrance to the Stone Lake retail park in Charlton (Currys/PC World) by a copper who ran out from the turning with a gun. I was doing 26mph and at risk to no-one. This nonsense shouldn't prioritise over burglary and car crime which is no longer investigated.
Speeding is a car crime.
Well, yes but there is a cop-out. You need to know what speed your car is actually doing. Most vehicles have deliberately inaccurate speedos. Some makes are worse than others. A good way to check yours is to activate the GPS navigations system on your passengers (for obvious reasons) phone and compare that with your speedo. But the chances are that if your speedo says you are doing 30, in reality it will only be 27 or 28. Read this for an explanation of why this is. https://www.thecarexpert.co.uk/how-accurate-is-a-car-speedometer/
In any event, most police forces have a built-in tolerance of 10% plus 2mph. So you should be entirely safe from prosecution at 35mph in a 30mph zone and at 79mph on a motorway. Strangely, as at 2019, the Met/Tfl was one of only two forces that use 10% plus 3mph. So, maybe you'd be okay travelling at 25 mph in a 20 zone? Plus another 1mph for your inaccurate speedo if you really wanted to chance your arm.
The new Silverhouse Tunnel will do wonders for pollution.
It's a great idea to put 20 mph limit on a dual carriageway- raises plenty of cash.
Don’t speed, no cash raised. Simple really.
Ludicrous fines for ridiculous speed limits on a dual carriageway- nothing to do with safety and all about revenue generation.
The police like Khan don't give a shit about road safety but they're happy to stand there with their mobile speed cameras to raise money. They'd install a permanent camera if safety was the issue.
Obey the speed rules. No problem then.
Second, by far and way the largest influence on traffic accidents is "driving without due care and attention". In fact some statistics suggest that inappropriate speed is the main contributory factor in only around 6% of accidents. The speed "rules" as you quaintly put it, are not there because high speed is dangerous per se but because it is an easy way to mitigate against other factors. Like some drivers being totally useless and not having a clue about what is going on around them.
I think you've summed up nicely why the speed limit should be 20mph @cafcfan.
Lol. I'm not sure. It doesn't work for me. If I'm breaking a speed limit, (yes, I know) I am much more aware of what is going on. Looking everywhere for other road users, checking for fixed and mobile speed cameras and laughably - when was the last time you saw a traffic car? - the rear view mirror for black rats. At 20mph, I'm bored out of my mind and my focus wanders.
Just with reference to the 20mph signs in this pic. There are two schools there with kids often darting across the road to the bust stops and generally messing about on the roadside. I think 20mph is reasonable.
I was born and brought up about 100 yards down the road from that photo. I don't ever recall an accident or anyone getting run over and that was before all the roundabouts and crossings were installed. Maybe it was because we were taught how to cross the road properly.
Do agree there should be a limit though, but reckon 20 is too low. After all, roads are obviously dangerous places so surely kids shouldn't be darting across the them in the first place. Are there not railings along the side of the road and is there not members of staff to supervise the kids?
Just with reference to the 20mph signs in this pic. There are two schools there with kids often darting across the road to the bust stops and generally messing about on the roadside. I think 20mph is reasonable.
I was born and brought up about 100 yards down the road from that photo. I don't ever recall an accident or anyone getting run over and that was before all the roundabouts and crossings were installed. Maybe it was because we were taught how to cross the road properly.
Do agree there should be a limit though, but reckon 20 is too low. After all, roads are obviously dangerous places so surely kids shouldn't be darting across the them in the first place. Are there not railings along the side of the road and is there not members of staff to supervise the kids?
Yes, staff do supervise and there are lollipop ladies but i think the problem here is being between two roundabouts cars slow down for the roundabout then accelerate to the next.
20 mph limits on main roads are crazy. Here's why. Let's assume the section of road is one mile long to make the maths easy. At 20mph it will take three minutes to complete the mile. At the old speed of 30mph it would have been 2 minutes. So, as long as the traffic volumes stay the same, there will be 50% more vehicles in the same length of road at any given time. This means the traffic will be heavier, congestion will be worse, getting out of side roads will be more difficult, pedestrians will have more problems crossing the road, cars will be using more fuel because they are in a lower gear and pollution will be worse. All of which kind of demonstrates that all the mayor is really interested in is making money from motorists.
I can’t believe so many people have liked this ridiculous argument.
For example, it’s proven that reducing the speed limit under certain conditions, on busy motorways for example, makes the traffic move faster.
That's completely different! The lowering of speeds in variable zones on motorways helps to stop the bunching caused by trucks overtaking other trucks and slowing down the outer lanes: usually a slow-down with over-compensating heavy breaking which takes time to recover from. That's why it works on muti-lane motorways. Reducing speed limits temporarily during periods of heavy traffic smooths the flow. It's a situation that does not occur on a major but single lane route like Woolwich Road.
So, I'm afraid it is your argument that is ridiculous, not mine.
The point is, you assume no restriction on ingress to and egress from that stretch of road and that’s why it’s a ridiculous argument.
The new Silverhouse Tunnel will do wonders for pollution.
It's a great idea to put 20 mph limit on a dual carriageway- raises plenty of cash.
Don’t speed, no cash raised. Simple really.
Ludicrous fines for ridiculous speed limits on a dual carriageway- nothing to do with safety and all about revenue generation.
The police like Khan don't give a shit about road safety but they're happy to stand there with their mobile speed cameras to raise money. They'd install a permanent camera if safety was the issue.
Obey the speed rules. No problem then.
Like many, you are over-simplifying the actual situation. So, while inappropriate speed is shown to be a contributory factor in around a third of road accidents, (but rarely the main factor) there are some other things to consider.
First that inappropriate speed can easily be a speed less than the speed limit if road conditions dictate. Like if it's snowing there is heavy rain or fog and/or it is at nighttime and the local council can't be arsed to have operational street lights*. Accidents do not just occur when it's nice and sunny funnily enough.
Second, by far and way the largest influence on traffic accidents is "driving without due care and attention". In fact some statistics suggest that inappropriate speed is the main contributory factor in only around 6% of accidents. The speed "rules" as you quaintly put it, are not there because high speed is dangerous per se but because it is an easy way to mitigate against other factors. Like some drivers being totally useless and not having a clue about what is going on around them.
Third, over 65% of pedestrian accidents are wholly the fault of the pedestrian, either by not paying attention, scrolling down their mobile or drunk for example. It is wholly inappropriate that innocent drivers should be persecuted for the actions of other moronic individuals.
I hope that helps.
*A few days ago at night, there was a cyclist, I saw him so nothing happened. Something made me stop at a rural junction a little longer than I would normally have done. Otherwise I would have taken him out and I'm sure if I had hit him I would have been deemed wholly at fault. Now, while I would have accepted some of the blame, frankly on a pitch-black night, someone on a black cycle with no lights and head to foot in entirely black clothes should certainly accept some of the responsibility for their attempts to get a Darwin Award.
Innocent drivers aren’t prosecuted, except perhaps by accident. If you break the speed limit, you aren’t innocent.
The new Silverhouse Tunnel will do wonders for pollution.
It's a great idea to put 20 mph limit on a dual carriageway- raises plenty of cash.
Don’t speed, no cash raised. Simple really.
Ludicrous fines for ridiculous speed limits on a dual carriageway- nothing to do with safety and all about revenue generation.
The police like Khan don't give a shit about road safety but they're happy to stand there with their mobile speed cameras to raise money. They'd install a permanent camera if safety was the issue.
Obey the speed rules. No problem then.
Like many, you are over-simplifying the actual situation. So, while inappropriate speed is shown to be a contributory factor in around a third of road accidents, (but rarely the main factor) there are some other things to consider.
First that inappropriate speed can easily be a speed less than the speed limit if road conditions dictate. Like if it's snowing there is heavy rain or fog and/or it is at nighttime and the local council can't be arsed to have operational street lights*. Accidents do not just occur when it's nice and sunny funnily enough.
Second, by far and way the largest influence on traffic accidents is "driving without due care and attention". In fact some statistics suggest that inappropriate speed is the main contributory factor in only around 6% of accidents. The speed "rules" as you quaintly put it, are not there because high speed is dangerous per se but because it is an easy way to mitigate against other factors. Like some drivers being totally useless and not having a clue about what is going on around them.
Third, over 65% of pedestrian accidents are wholly the fault of the pedestrian, either by not paying attention, scrolling down their mobile or drunk for example. It is wholly inappropriate that innocent drivers should be persecuted for the actions of other moronic individuals.
I hope that helps.
*A few days ago at night, there was a cyclist, I saw him so nothing happened. Something made me stop at a rural junction a little longer than I would normally have done. Otherwise I would have taken him out and I'm sure if I had hit him I would have been deemed wholly at fault. Now, while I would have accepted some of the blame, frankly on a pitch-black night, someone on a black cycle with no lights and head to foot in entirely black clothes should certainly accept some of the responsibility for their attempts to get a Darwin Award.
The new Highway Code is clear that there is a pyramid of responsibility expected. So if you see a pedestrian by the curb you need to make sure what you do is safe. My modes of transport are overwhelmingly cycling, walking and public transport. Whilst most drives are reasonably good there is a significant minority who only care for themselves and treat anyone else as an obstacle to bully out of the way. As much as anything else I suspect this is a major reason for attempts at traffic calming by decreasing speed limits and providing safer areas for pedestrians and cyclists. Ive always thought traffic laws can only be effective if they are properly policed and enforced. Persistent miscreants should expect to be caught and punished. Currently enforcement is patchy at best leading to drivers feeling invincible. There’s also this bizarre thing that drivers never see their faults but can only see unfairness against them. So they then whinge and moan if they’re caught expecting their infringement to be discarded as it’s not that bad. A driving licence isn’t a right, it’s a privilege.
Twenty miles an hour is laughable. You can do that on a bicycle. You would have to be practically asleep to hit anything at that speed. It's not easy to drive at twenty when you have been conditioned to thirty in urban areas and it invariably involves changing down a gear or two. The Police know this and target speeding in these areas because it's more lucrative. I got done opposite the entrance to the Stone Lake retail park in Charlton (Currys/PC World) by a copper who ran out from the turning with a gun. I was doing 26mph and at risk to no-one. This nonsense shouldn't prioritise over burglary and car crime which is no longer investigated.
If you find that 'it's not easy to drive at twenty', please stay away from busy roads and junctions until you're a better driver.
The new Silverhouse Tunnel will do wonders for pollution.
It's a great idea to put 20 mph limit on a dual carriageway- raises plenty of cash.
Don’t speed, no cash raised. Simple really.
Ludicrous fines for ridiculous speed limits on a dual carriageway- nothing to do with safety and all about revenue generation.
The police like Khan don't give a shit about road safety but they're happy to stand there with their mobile speed cameras to raise money. They'd install a permanent camera if safety was the issue.
Obey the speed rules. No problem then.
Like many, you are over-simplifying the actual situation. So, while inappropriate speed is shown to be a contributory factor in around a third of road accidents, (but rarely the main factor) there are some other things to consider.
First that inappropriate speed can easily be a speed less than the speed limit if road conditions dictate. Like if it's snowing there is heavy rain or fog and/or it is at nighttime and the local council can't be arsed to have operational street lights*. Accidents do not just occur when it's nice and sunny funnily enough.
Second, by far and way the largest influence on traffic accidents is "driving without due care and attention". In fact some statistics suggest that inappropriate speed is the main contributory factor in only around 6% of accidents. The speed "rules" as you quaintly put it, are not there because high speed is dangerous per se but because it is an easy way to mitigate against other factors. Like some drivers being totally useless and not having a clue about what is going on around them.
Third, over 65% of pedestrian accidents are wholly the fault of the pedestrian, either by not paying attention, scrolling down their mobile or drunk for example. It is wholly inappropriate that innocent drivers should be persecuted for the actions of other moronic individuals.
I hope that helps.
*A few days ago at night, there was a cyclist, I saw him so nothing happened. Something made me stop at a rural junction a little longer than I would normally have done. Otherwise I would have taken him out and I'm sure if I had hit him I would have been deemed wholly at fault. Now, while I would have accepted some of the blame, frankly on a pitch-black night, someone on a black cycle with no lights and head to foot in entirely black clothes should certainly accept some of the responsibility for their attempts to get a Darwin Award.
Innocent drivers aren’t prosecuted, except perhaps by accident. If you break the speed limit, you aren’t innocent.
But I deliberately didn't say "prosecuted" I said "persecuted". You'll note the subtle difference.
On that road it is ridiculous. I spend to much time looking at my speedo now on that bit. I know there is a school along there but the buses seem to speed along with no problem. The problem is Town Hall idiots who can't think properly. There is a road in Loughton that is national speed limit 60 and it opens into a 40mph dual carriageway. This is confusing to sensible people.
As it happens there are now 2 schools on that stretch of road.
If only police forces nationwide had enough frontline resource to enforce traffic laws. Speed traps are pure cash cows and do nothing to drag up the appalling standards of motoring in this great island.
A letter through the post and a speed awareness course is nothing compared to a short tempered copper giving out a full and Frank bollocking on the dangers of middle lane hogging, tailgating not to mention speeding. Or fucking texting, I thought by now that would be at least as socially unacceptable as drink driving but the pissheads reign uncontested as the (rightly) social pariahs of motoring.
I cant remember the last time I got close to breaking the speed limit in London anyway, roads are always fucked
If it was really about safety rather than making money then why not ban offenders for x months with increased bans for repeat offenders and hold the vehicles in a compound for that duration.
Next in the pipeline....cyclists being required to have visible registration identification on their bikes so an app can be developed to report red light jumping. That'll raise some much needed revenue whilst also holding another section of road law breakers to account for their selfish and dangerous actions.
Next in the pipeline....cyclists being required to have visible registration identification on their bikes so an app can be developed to report red light jumping. That'll raise some much needed revenue whilst also holding another section of road law breakers to account for their selfish and dangerous actions.
Next in the pipeline....cyclists being required to have visible registration identification on their bikes so an app can be developed to report red light jumping. That'll raise some much needed revenue whilst also holding another section of road law breakers to account for their selfish and dangerous actions.
Would probably raise enough to allow us to do away with road tax completely 😉
Comments
For example, it’s proven that reducing the speed limit under certain conditions, on busy motorways for example, makes the traffic move faster.
It isn’t a dual carriageway any more!! That’s a bus lane on the inside. Us ordinary car drivers don’t get to use that lane these days, unless you’re a dick who thinks speeding up there is OK because you need to get to your destination two minutes quicker.
So, I'm afraid it is your argument that is ridiculous, not mine.
First that inappropriate speed can easily be a speed less than the speed limit if road conditions dictate. Like if it's snowing there is heavy rain or fog and/or it is at nighttime and the local council can't be arsed to have operational street lights*. Accidents do not just occur when it's nice and sunny funnily enough.
Second, by far and way the largest influence on traffic accidents is "driving without due care and attention". In fact some statistics suggest that inappropriate speed is the main contributory factor in only around 6% of accidents. The speed "rules" as you quaintly put it, are not there because high speed is dangerous per se but because it is an easy way to mitigate against other factors. Like some drivers being totally useless and not having a clue about what is going on around them.
Third, over 65% of pedestrian accidents are wholly the fault of the pedestrian, either by not paying attention, scrolling down their mobile or drunk for example. It is wholly inappropriate that innocent drivers should be persecuted for the actions of other moronic individuals.
I hope that helps.
*A few days ago at night, there was a cyclist, I saw him so nothing happened. Something made me stop at a rural junction a little longer than I would normally have done. Otherwise I would have taken him out and I'm sure if I had hit him I would have been deemed wholly at fault. Now, while I would have accepted some of the blame, frankly on a pitch-black night, someone on a black cycle with no lights and head to foot in entirely black clothes should certainly accept some of the responsibility for their attempts to get a Darwin Award.
In any event, most police forces have a built-in tolerance of 10% plus 2mph. So you should be entirely safe from prosecution at 35mph in a 30mph zone and at 79mph on a motorway. Strangely, as at 2019, the Met/Tfl was one of only two forces that use 10% plus 3mph. So, maybe you'd be okay travelling at 25 mph in a 20 zone? Plus another 1mph for your inaccurate speedo if you really wanted to chance your arm.
Do agree there should be a limit though, but reckon 20 is too low. After all, roads are obviously dangerous places so surely kids shouldn't be darting across the them in the first place. Are there not railings along the side of the road and is there not members of staff to supervise the kids?
Yes, staff do supervise and there are lollipop ladies but i think the problem here is being between two roundabouts cars slow down for the roundabout then accelerate to the next.
Ive always thought traffic laws can only be effective if they are properly policed and enforced. Persistent miscreants should expect to be caught and punished.
Currently enforcement is patchy at best leading to drivers feeling invincible.
There’s also this bizarre thing that drivers never see their faults but can only see unfairness against them. So they then whinge and moan if they’re caught expecting their infringement to be discarded as it’s not that bad.
A driving licence isn’t a right, it’s a privilege.
A letter through the post and a speed awareness course is nothing compared to a short tempered copper giving out a full and Frank bollocking on the dangers of middle lane hogging, tailgating not to mention speeding. Or fucking texting, I thought by now that would be at least as socially unacceptable as drink driving but the pissheads reign uncontested as the (rightly) social pariahs of motoring.
I cant remember the last time I got close to breaking the speed limit in London anyway, roads are always fucked
He's doing a great job...still people knew what they were voting for.