pokemonsuper9
Established Member
Downhill
-
Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
20 mph Zones - Extend or Eliminate?
- Thread starter DerekC
- Start date
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
If a (say) 100kg cyclist and their bike hits someone then that's going to hurt a whole lot less than 1,000+kg Vauxhall Corsa and it's driver.
A cycle is only about 800mm wide, whilst even a smart car is about double that, meaning that it's easier for a cyclist to avoid a pedestrian.
Not only are you chances are improved, but a car travelling at 30 takes longer to stop than one at 20, so the likelihood of actually being hit reduces.
That is even more justification for 20mph limits. Given that so many wilfully exceed the 30mph limits, the probability of surviving a collision is even greater at many drivers' idea of 30mph than actually at 20mph.
I normally cruise along at 15 mph. I can get well into the 30s going down a steep hill. Not unusual to overtake a few cars, especially as they crawl past the speed camera at 20. In general though, it has made no difference to my day to day life on my bike. The idiots are still idiots and everyone else is still fine.
bramling
Veteran Member
Very common. A road bike can easily be exceeding 20 mph on the level and quite probably touching or exceeding 30 mph going downhill, especially if the wind direction is favourable. 40 mph is pushing it, but can be done on a decent downhill.
Even something like a Brompton can do over 20 mph in the right conditions, though is more likely to run out of gears.
It all depends on the rider, the weight and the gearing, and to some extent on the tyres.
People out riding expensive road bikes perhaps, but hardly any utility cyclists will come close to 20 except down a decent hill
bramling
Veteran Member
Not really true, I am very often up to 20 mph on the Brompton in London, and that’s hardly a speed bike, nor particularly uncommon.
Ok, what proportion of cyclists do you think could be capable of that sort of speed on a flat road? I don't think it's many, especially not of people just going to work or the shops
I once reached 56 mph on a long downhill. That was a touring bike, not a racer with skinny tyres. (It was a wide straight road with no potholes or side turnings.)
More relevantly the riders who go at that speed probably aren’t bothered by the difference between 20 and 30 - it’s aimed at current and potential utility cyclists. The irony being that all the campaigning actually puts them off with all the shouting about it being lethal out there and they need a helmet.
LNW-GW Joint
Veteran Member
Seems to be partly down to the replacement of former transport minister Lee Waters, who resigned at the same time as Mark Drakeford retired from being FM.
Lee's replacement is Ken Skates, who is minister for transport and North Wales, and who announced the relaxation of the 20mph limit (without being specific).
The hint was that urban limits will stay at 20mph but rural ones will go back to 30.
There has already been a round of revision in my neck of the woods, with a few roads reverting, sometimes partially, to 30mph.
Conformance to the new limits is high.
The most stupid side of the reduction from 30 to 20 was the impact in areas where there were already a mix of speeds, making many cliff-edge 40/20/40 situations.
Now it's up to the county councils to decide what to do in their areas, though it may take a year to be implemented.
I wouldn't guarantee satisfaction when the councils won't let you use "foreign" recycling centres even when they are nearer and better equipped.
(Ken Skates was transport minister during the Wales & Borders franchise rebidding, and does have a good handle on transport issues).
I don't know, but I could get close to 30 (i.e. fast enough that cars rarely could overtake me) on a near flat (sight downhill, about 2m drop over half a mile) when riding a mountain bike.
However, that's only mostly as I was only going a short distance and there were limited junctions or places people could cross the road, so the risk of encountering someone other the cars converting from behind me was very low.
Conversely, when I was cycling a slightly longer distance I would cycle at a more typical speed (maybe around the 12-18mph range - as the average was 15 minutes to go 3 miles).
As such whilst I was capable of around 30mph, the majority of the time I wouldn't be going that fast and if I was it would be in a downhill section. In part, that's because where I cycle there's limited sections which aren't on a noticeable gradient.
bramling
Veteran Member
No idea, however I can do it pretty readily, so we aren’t talking about something that requires superhuman levels of fitness. And just from experience around London observing cyclists around where I work, I’d say 20 mph isn’t unusual by any means.
When I cycle home from work, it’s quite common to get an *average* speed of 17-18mph, which includes stops. Once out of town I will typically get five consecutive miles where speed never drops below 20 mph, and is typically likely to reach about 32 in a couple of places. And this is without any major assisting gradients.
I think many people underestimate how fast cycles can travel. Which possibly explains some of the ill-judged overtaking that goes on.
(I’ve attached a speed graph from my most recent utility cycle. As can be seen, there’s a fair proportion above 20 mph).
Attachments
Last edited:
Not to mention bikes that offer a little "assistance".
johncrossley
Established Member
(Legal) electric bikes are actually the hardest to get over 20 mph as the motor cuts out at 25 km/h by law, meaning you are left to propel a heavy bike under your own steam. Obviously the many illegal ones out there don't have such a limitation.
cactustwirly
Established Member
10 years going by the lifespan of a London bus
Exactly this. Several people in work express disbelief that I ride along busy roads. And yet here I am, having been doing so for 25 years, the first 12 without a helmet. In my experience the biggest risk is at junctions where speeds are low anyway. Not many cyclists are being rear ended at speed on a straight road.
From my observations, there are more illegal electric bikes on the road than legal ones. Most of them have no trouble going at 30 or more.
bramling
Veteran Member
Exactly this. As a cyclist one is far more at risk from Patsi pulling out of Aldi without looking, and where the speed limit is essentially irrelevant.
Money spent on measures like traffic calming might well be better spent providing cyclists with high-visibility clothing or bright headlamps.
Most people, especially most potential cyclists who don’t already cycle, will not want to cycle at 20mph or more. 10-15mph is fast enough. They need safe infrastructure on main roads, traffic reduction on side streets, and reduced speeds in all contexts where they’re interacting with vehicles. Not plastic hats and 90s rave gear, which is a failed policy in this country and has been for the last 30 years.
OK! I clearly need to work on my fitness then, I ride my bike a fair bit but my average speeds tend to 15-18mph.
I would still say that 20mph is a lot faster than anyone taking their kids to school or doing the odd journey to the shops though, and those are the journeys that could easily be converted to cycling if the infrastructure were there
My boss drove less than a couple of miles to work as he said it was too far to walk.
I suggested a bike and he responded that he didn’t want to have to have a shower when he got to the office. Because of all the campaigning for showers in workplaces for cyclists he assumed you always needed one if you cycled in.
Draconian anti car policies such as blanket 20 limits just reinforce the them and us, and harm the cause.
That sort of language exacerbates the friction. The speed limit policy is to improve pedestrian/cyclist safety, - it doesn't prevent powered road vehicles from using the road, it merely encourages some respect for other road users. It may involve a sacrifice of few minutes of motorists' precious time, but against the safety of others that is only a real issue for a very small but vociferous proportion of them.
bramling
Veteran Member
I’m sure your thoughts on this are with the best of intentions, however in practice are unhelpful if cyclist safety is really your motivation.
What happens with a 20 mph speed limit, or calming measures, is as follows. So Ocado man sees cyclist, and decides “must overtake” (because cyclists are slow, right?). Then what happens is he suddenly remembers that he’s in a 20 mph area, or suddenly sees a speed bump, but now there’s a car coming towards him. Guess what happens next? Yes he then cuts in on the cyclist, which is of course extremely dangerous.
One can discuss the rights or wrongs of this as far as one desires, however it doesn’t change the reality that this is what happens, and this is what will always happen.
If we *really* want to improve cyclist safety then better enforcement of standards of driving, including meaningful competence assurance (I suspect we will agree on that), and also sorting out the appalling state of the road surface on many of our roads, would be a start. Also how about ceasing housebuilding in rural areas too, as round my way this has resulted in a very conspicuous increase in traffic levels and accompanying poor standards of driving. 20 mph is a gimmick that’s ineffective at best, and probably counter-productive.
Last edited:
How much does it improve safety? Has a cost benefit analysis been done to show that it’s worth the extra journey times (it may only be a few minutes, but that’s a few minutes on locals every journey multiplied by lots of people)?
If you are building a road you put a value on time saved for the business case - it’s crazy not to do that when you are adding journey time.
I don't know just how much safety improvement (in terms of near misses, actual collisions and KSI events), so I wouldn't make assertions just to amplify comments on social media here. However, slightly more time spent on journeys through roads that have more restrictions than some drivers would prefer does not simply translate to a direct cost when the full human impact is included.
I'm not convinced that additional time is that significant, particularly on some roads in Wales where the actual average speed when a 30 mph limit was nowhere near that figure, and the actual speed was much nearer the new 20mph limit since it was changed. Then there's the actual speed when a 30mph limit road isn't heavily loaded where speeds are consistently heading towards the 40mph level, effectively invalidating any case for 30mph being as safe as body collision tests indicate. Essentially, forget the actual number on the signs, look at the speed that a significant number of drivers actually do, and adjust the legal limit to bring that down to the appropriate safety aspirations.
There is no "anti-car" policy, merely a well-founded intent on making roads safer for all, i.e. not just motorists in their protective boxes.
bramling
Veteran Member
I don’t get this argument that essentially boils down to “30 mph is no good because some drivers do nearer to 40 mph so the solution is 20 mph”.
If we’re saying that 30 mph is reasonable but we want to encourage the 40 mph people to drop down a bit, then a very undesirable side-effect of this is that those who were previously abiding by the law and doing 30 mph are now being penalised, or essentially encouraged to break the law (especially if they now find themselves being aggressively tailgated, which experience shows is quite probable). In fact, some of that group may decide they no longer buy-in to all this and will join the ranks of those who do as they please. Meanwhile the previous 40 mph lot will continue to drive around with their usual poor judgement.
My town has just introduced a load of 20 mph speed limits. Now to be fair they are all in fairly sensible locations so I have no real objection per-se. In most of these locations during the daytime you’d be very lucky to be able to do as much as 20 anyway. But what it does mean is we now have a forest of signs all around the town, and in many cases these have required extra posts which are now causing a thorough nuisance by obstructing pavements. So to be honest it feels like a waste of taxpayers money for no tangible benefit, and a load of extra nuisance.
He shouldn't be sweating after a two mile ride unless it's all uphill. Summer heatwaves can be hard work but I leave slightly earlier and take it easy. The car would not be much better as it would be roasting for half the journey before the air con or open windows had much effect.
bramling
Veteran Member
Not sure, some people end up in a significant sweat just climbing up the stairs to my second-floor office. But perhaps if they invested more time in meaningful exercise (as opposed to the faux-exercise which became fashionable during Covid times!) then they wouldn’t!
I expect we will have some numbers in a few years but, from my personal perspective, it appears to have made little difference. The people that blatantly drove more than 30 still do so. Those that pass too close when overtaking still do so. I've reached the point that I don't really care so long as they don't collide with me. It's never going to change so I either need to accept it or stop cycling.
Fair point but then they would also sweat walking two miles, or in an overheated car, or in hot weather generally. Most people of working age should be able to cycle two miles without problem.
So if you stop doing what you need to be reasonably safe from law breaking motorists on the public highway, you are being bullied. That's just about summing the situation up. No wonder that so many potential cyclists just don't bother.