Eco towns to have 15mphspeed limit

[Devonian]

I don't have any particular objection to lower speed limits in towns but 15mph is a stupid limit. Even cyclists would be breaking that on a regular basis. 20mph is more realistic and allows people to pass slower cyclists without having to break the law.

It's not really about cars, it's about other modes of transport. It's about, well, read what Filski has said

[Gray-Wolf]

I'm sure ,as Oon say's, when we're driving pedestrians can become irksome and it is that mentality that needs to change in us all. The number of folk ,too preoccupied in their destination, have nearly clipped Luke's feet at pedestrian crossings (and you would think that anyone looking 'off road' once in a while would surely see a wheelchair and attendant at a crossing???).

We won't do it through choice (especially if 'following traffic') so maybe if we had a speed limit to obey (and not the car in front) then we might find time to think of the world outside the car.

[eddie]

It's not really about cars, it's about other modes of transport. It's about, well, read what Filski has said

Read my post. Where did I mention cars?

[Devonian]

Read my post. Where did I mention cars?

It doesn't, so 'and allows people to pass' in what?

[HighPressure]

Unfortunately this government continues down its nanny state agenda, speed is irrelevant its emissions that count which is why many councils have been removing road humps.

I think these type of policies do rather give the game away about the governments real motives which have very little to do with environmentalism or climate. It has discovered it can use GW as a vehicle for many of its ambitions, from building in the green belt to taxation.

This government has become very good at marginalising people and pitting non smoker against smoker / fox hunter against anti fox hunter / driver against pedestrians and so the story goes on. Its called divide and rule but really only heralds a nanny state.

[eddie]

It doesn't, so 'and allows people to pass' in what?

I don't know, perhaps a bus or whatever other form of 'alternative' transport that people who aren't able to ride a bike or walk will use.

Even ignoring the fact that cars exist completely who on earth would want to live in a town where, without allowing for stops, the bus would take one hour to go only 15 miles?

[Thundery wintry showers]

There are two main issues that spring to my mind here.

The first is the environmental side. Other European countries have successfully experimented with segragated facilities for cyclists and pedestrians etc, and in Denmark close to 40% of journeys are done by bicycle despite little in the way of deterrents against driving. Segragated facilities don't always help reduce accidents if poorly implemented, as idiots abuse them etc, but with thought-out planning and measures to address potential abuse, they can provide a happier, safer environment for pedestrians/cyclists without massively eroding motorists' freedoms.

However, policies like that are more complicated and require analysis and involve some uncertainty- it's far easier to bring in the stick and hoping that the marginalisation of motorists might be offset by the benefits to users of other forms of transport who don't regularly travel in cars, as driver or passenger, themselves.

Another note- lower speed limits will affect buses, therefore making an important form of public transport less attractive... d'oh!

On the safety side, the "nanny state"-ism that HighPressure refers to is, IMO, mainly a product of the "if a few idiots could abuse it, you have to implement blanket restrictions that punish the many because of the few" philosophy. In this case, most speed-related trouble is caused by a minority of boy racer types, and a minority of circumstances, so the response is to make everybody slow down in all circumstances. This would happen even if there wasn't an additional environmental agenda behind it (because "a minority have made it necessary", etc etc), but the environmental agenda helps to reinforce it.

[Filski]

Eddie - you are getting a little silly now. Nobody is suggesting that all roads will be turned over to this speed limit. What next? Motorways, rail?

I haven't seen the proposal's details yet but I'd expect that only new roads will have the new speed limit and even some of those will not. No inconvenience will be caused to existing developments or businesses for example, not unless a nationwide rollout of the speed limits is imposed. Even then there will be strict rules about how it would be applied. We are not going to throw out decades of sound road design proposals just to discourage people from using cars. Where the changes are useful is where you have a high density of different users. Take a look around any european city and a great deal many british ones too - the principles are there. Shared surface design in high streets where cars don't have a clear carriageway and, although technically the speed limit is higher, only a low speed can be maintained because people are crossing all the time, bikes are all over the place, etc. To drive faster would be negligent. This is what is seen in Denmark, the Netherlands, etc.

[Thundery wintry showers]

I'm not against the ideas of shared use layouts and lower speed limits in city centre precincts and home zones with high housing/pedestrian densities (though 20mph seems more reasonable than 15mph). The problem arises when it's applied to such an extent that there are very few and far between 30mph+ routes within a town or city. You can have the aforementioned measures applied only to specific areas so that residents have play areas at least near to where they live, while motorists still have a decent network of other, 30mph+ routes to use that don't involve ploughing through housing estates.

This kind of balance causes no-one to lose out significantly, and from what I've seen in Holland, Belgium and Germany this balance, rather than blanket shared layouts and/or 15mph limits across towns generally, is the norm over there. Unless the BBC reporter is biased, the new proposals sound more towards the latter scenario.

Filski's arguments above are reasonable but do rather detract from the argument "we should have lower speed limits because they put people off driving and hence promote use of the alternatives", if that's not what the new towns proposal is really for.

The proposals don't automatically mean all roads will use the new limit, but if the scheme is seen to "work" it could be applied generally across towns. We do have proposals out there for 55mph motorway limits, a national limit of 40mph, a reduction of all 30mph zones to 20mph etc, so it does risk being part of a greater 'whole' of progressively lowering speed limits.

[eddie]

Eddie - you are getting a little silly now. Nobody is suggesting that all roads will be turned over to this speed limit. What next? Motorways, rail?

I haven't seen the proposal's details yet but I'd expect that only new roads will have the new speed limit and even some of those will not. No inconvenience will be caused to existing developments or businesses for example, not unless a nationwide rollout of the speed limits is imposed. Even then there will be strict rules about how it would be applied. We are not going to throw out decades of sound road design proposals just to discourage people from using cars. Where the changes are useful is where you have a high density of different users. Take a look around any european city and a great deal many british ones too - the principles are there. Shared surface design in high streets where cars don't have a clear carriageway and, although technically the speed limit is higher, only a low speed can be maintained because people are crossing all the time, bikes are all over the place, etc. To drive faster would be negligent. This is what is seen in Denmark, the Netherlands, etc.

If there is no proposal to apply this wholesale to a town then I have less of a problem although I do think 20mph is a more realistic limit.

As a cyclist I'm not really keen at all on shared road design and would actually prefer to be separate from both motorised vehicles (especially buses) and pedestrians. Having to negociate both pedestrians and vehicles in a busy street sounds like a nightmare to me.

If you look at parts of Amsterdam, cycle paths are physically seperated by a section of curb or pavement from both the road and the pavement. Traffic lights stop either the road or cycle traffic where the two cross and walking in the cycle lane is also not permitted. This is much safer for both pedestrians and cyclists.

This is not always possible to retro-fit in our old towns (I can see how shared surface design could be) but there should be no excuse in a new town. With no bikes or people in the road the speed limit doesn't need to be 15mph.

[HighPressure]

TWS: Yes marginalising is a complex issue, of course cyclists would back further speed restrictions in fact they would back almost any measures against motorists, it is human nature to back anything that you see as beneficial to you. If you wanted too you could marginalise cyclists by saying they use the roads so they should pay road tax, well of course the cyclists would be up in arms but would lose the argument based just on weight of numbers against. We are all being picked off one by one, I wish I had backed the hunting lobby although I am not a fan I can now see where it was heading. You might think this is a little off topic but whether you are a non smoker or a cyclist or even an environmentalist we should all be aware what marginalising means for all of us as it will be you tomorrow?

On the subject of speeds, there is not a lot wrong with our present limits its poor or dangerous driving which is the issue. An idiot will break any speed limit you care to impose it is they who need to be removed from the road for the good of all, cyclists, pedestrians and other drivers.

Edited March 26, 2008 by HighPressure

[Gray-Wolf]

My experience of the dutch/German 'traffic calming' in towns is also associated with roads that have been altered to make it impossible to travel fast along them (multiple chicanes etc) along with the 20kmph limit. They have, in Germany, toyed with (and implemented in 2 towns) taking ALL road signs down which so freaks drivers that they travel with greater caution (not knowing/being told who has right of way makes folk take it easy). Now that would be fun eh?

[SnowBear]

I once worked on USAF Bentwaters, there they used the same system they use in the US whereby all junctions are mandatory stops whether a vehicle is coming on any of the other roads or not. Takes all the guess work out of what other drivers are doing. If a vehicle is approaching the junction you know it has to stop, if it is stopped it has the right to go. Occasionally you will have two vehicles both stopping at the same time, but it never seemed to cause a problem, courtesy meant that one or other waves the other through (cant see that happening in the UK sadly though). The junctions worked well, and when lots of traffic the junctions almost seemed to work in a rotation effect with one vehicle going, then the next round the junction, then the next and so on. All roads were 20mph in residential areas, and wow do you dare break it.

[eddie]

If you wanted too you could marginalise cyclists by saying they use the roads so they should pay road tax.

Most of the cyclists I know emit less than 120g CO2/km so would be exempt from road tax even if they were taxed under the current system for cars.

[HighPressure]

Most of the cyclists I know emit less than 120g CO2/km so would be exempt from road tax even if they were taxed under the current system for cars.

That's OK Eddie when all cars emit less then 120g CO2/km none of us will have any road tax to pay :lol: Or maybe they might just change the current system?

[Shiny_Bottom_1]

That's OK Eddie when all cars emit less then 120g CO2/km none of us will have any road tax to pay :lol: Or maybe they might just change the current system?

To think anything but the later would indeed be like thinking that Big Bird was in fact Elvis.

[eddie]

That's OK Eddie when all cars emit less then 120g CO2/km none of us will have any road tax to pay :lol: Or maybe they might just change the current system?

Of course not, they will lower the limit as time goes on. When cars start to emit the same amount of CO2 as bikes then I can see an argument for taxing them equally.

[skifreak]

All I can say is that many people seem to have the wrong and overly negative opion of this policy. It is a positive thing. It'll be physically impossible to drive faster than 15mph safely for the most part because the speed limit will be designed in with obstacles that favour pedestrians so your arguments are mostly moot anyway (see homezones).

Have you ever tried to ride a bike through a place plagued by bonkers hippy planners traffic calming onionse?? Perhaps some of these planners need to get off their fat arses and on their bikes. Narrowing roadways and throwing in obstacles or road features that mean you get air if you cycle faster than 5mph do not encourage bike use nor make it safer!

[Filski]

Well I've never owned a car. I own 2 bikes. In the past I've been a top level cyclist with a PB for the 40km time trial well under the hour so you could say I know a thing or 3 about going fast on bikes.

However if you are not supposed to be driving fast in an area where people are likely to share the street environment (eg kids playing street cricket) then you probably shouldn't be tearing through on a bike either...

Ride safely, ride sensibly. Last I saw 5yr olds with trainers wheels are cyclists too and not likely to get air save being pushed off a cliff.

[The PIT]

Well I've never owned a car. I own 2 bikes. In the past I've been a top level cyclist with a PB for the 40km time trial well under the hour so you could say I know a thing or 3 about going fast on bikes.

However if you are not supposed to be driving fast in an area where people are likely to share the street environment (eg kids playing street cricket) then you probably shouldn't be tearing through on a bike either...

Ride safely, ride sensibly. Last I saw 5yr olds with trainers wheels are cyclists too and not likely to get air save being pushed off a cliff.

Kids shouldn't be playing Cricket on roads or football for that matter. That's what parks and play areas, gardens are for. I presume they're planning to put gardens and parks into these ECO places. I always get amused by these speed limits. The best idea is to make sure that these places get served by proper transport such as rail and buses so people don't need to use the cars bar the weekly shop which won't fit into a train or Bus.

I once worked on USAF Bentwaters, there they used the same system they use in the US whereby all junctions are mandatory stops whether a vehicle is coming on any of the other roads or not. Takes all the guess work out of what other drivers are doing. If a vehicle is approaching the junction you know it has to stop, if it is stopped it has the right to go. Occasionally you will have two vehicles both stopping at the same time, but it never seemed to cause a problem, courtesy meant that one or other waves the other through (cant see that happening in the UK sadly though). The junctions worked well, and when lots of traffic the junctions almost seemed to work in a rotation effect with one vehicle going, then the next round the junction, then the next and so on. All roads were 20mph in residential areas, and wow do you dare break it.

Dunno you would have to rework today's mentality of British drivers. A mentality of where every second lost is a major tragedy and annoyance. People don't like stopping even to be polite or just to be plain senseable. Certainly road users in general need to change there attitude.

On the subject of speeds, there is not a lot wrong with our present limits its poor or dangerous driving which is the issue. An idiot will break any speed limit you care to impose it is they who need to be removed from the road for the good of all, cyclists, pedestrians and other drivers.

Not every accident is caused by speed. Road safety involves everyone not just the motorist. I see loads of silly pedestrians, Cyclists as well as motorists. At the moment the motorist is the big evil and any accident is automatically there fault.