20 mph limits

[Arborbridge]

Roads with humps are the old 20mph zones. The new 20mph zones don't have humps and look like this - https://goo.gl/maps/kMKDe4Pkaa7vM5Fy7 hence people getting frustrated if actually do 20mph, and are being overtaken by cyclists!

Our 20mph zones look like 30mph zones with the signs changed to 20mph. Because that's literally all they've done.

Scott.

I know you mean they haven't put in any extra effort, like traffic calming, but it's not really true to say "that's literally all they've done".
What they have done is taken a decision to reduce the speed limit, and they have adjusted the road signs accordingly. The biggest "what they've done" was to make the decision to act to protect road users.

Arb.

[AF62]

So, I'm still missing the point you are trying to make. Would you prefer the 20mph limits raised so that the drivers behind you are less frustrated ? Would you prefer the rest of us to drive faster ? What do you want ?

I would like the council to act sensibly (a big ask I know) and not simply apply 20mph speed limits wholesale across vast areas where they are not required and not observed by the vast majority. Where a reduced limit is sensible then it should be introduced, and most importantly, enforced.

[Lootman]

Well we don't want frustrated drivers do we ?

I rarely get overtaken by cyclists or anyone else when driving at 20 in a 20 limit.

Even if I were overtaken.....so what ? I have far more important things in my life.

You are missing the point.

I don't get frustrated by cyclists overtaking me when I do 20mph, which I do as I just set the speed limiter to 20mph, but it is all the other cars behind who are getting frustrated that I am doing 20mph on what was a 30mph road until the council changed the signs - and then to add salt into the wound, we are all being overtaken by cyclists.

So what is your solution?

#1 Pull over and let them pass you
#2 Break the law, exceed the speed limit
#3 Campaign for faster speeds through residential areas
#4 Obey the law and let them figure out their own issues.

I would say that (1) is the considerate thing to do. Regardless of the limit, if there is a long queue of vehicles behind you then you are being a nuisance. It only takes a minute to pull over and let them pass. Tractor drivers know to do this, in the main.

I do not think anyone should be forced to drive faster than they want to. There are old and nervous drivers out there who might be as much of a hazard going too fast as they are going too slow. But at least be considerate of others even if those others appear to wish to technically breach a limit.

[richlist]

How do you know a 20mph limit is not required ?
Do you have access to the data & details on which that decision has been made ?

[Arborbridge]

I would say that (1) is the considerate thing to do. Regardless of the limit, if there is a long queue of vehicles behind you then you are being a nuisance. It only takes a minute to pull over and let them pass. Tractor drivers know to do this, in the main.

I do not think anyone should be forced to drive faster than they want to. There are old and nervous drivers out there who might be as much of a hazard going too fast as they are going too slow. But at least be considerate of others even if those others appear to wish to technically breach a limit.

I have and do pull over. Admittedly it's a rather rare event simply because the opportunity to do so on the roads where I live now is rare - but I've no objection in principle.

Actually, that's a white lie. On the road I used to live on, I knew that many drivers up that 20mph hill would put their foot down and do 40 or 50 if they could, so if I managed to held them up so be it. Call it a public servie to protect pedestrians with kids, or just call me an old buffer for wanting to obey the law. When turning into right into our road, I would also position my car so that no one could pass on the inside. There was a good reason for that - the road isn't really big enough for a car to pass inside safely, and I nearly had the wing mirror torn off more than once - so I was making sure that wouldn't happen. If people had to wait, tough.

Arb.

[richlist]

So there are people on this forum who think that whilst driving within the 20mph speed limit one should actually pull over and stop to allow other drivers to pass. Absolute madness.

WHY ?

[DrFfybes]

How do you know a 20mph limit is not required ?
Do you have access to the data & details on which that decision has been made ?

I have had access to that data and info and the opinions of the residents to the questionnaire, and I can tell you it is often a political decision driven by one senior level emplyee with no consideration for accident stats, whether it will achieve the aims or if anyone (residents included) actually want it. One road in Plymouth was closed to cars despite it only getting ONE cyclist using it during the 7:30 - 9:30 am survey period, so the car now go down the next road along, which is narrow and cobbled ("oh they won't do that - it isn't tarmacced" said the proponent of the scheme.) Or the £150k scheme that resulted in a 40% increase in cycle use - from a baseline of 20 cyclists per day.

Same goes for parking restrictions - in Exeter most residents and most of the people implementing the 'resident paermit' scheme didn't want it, but there was an election coming and the Councillors promised to do something about student parking cars for months at a time. Of course a "2 hour max no return within 2 hours" would have stopped them, and negated the need for meters and permits, but what do we know?

Imagine our surprise when the students just started to leave their cars a few streets further away outside the permit zone.

Paul

[Arborbridge]

How do you know a 20mph limit is not required ?
Do you have access to the data & details on which that decision has been made ?

I have had access to that data and info and the opinions of the residents to the questionnaire, and I can tell you it is often a political decision driven by one senior level emplyee with no consideration for accident stats, whether it will achieve the aims or if anyone (residents included) actually want it. One road in Plymouth was closed to cars despite it only getting ONE cyclist using it during the 7:30 - 9:30 am survey period, so the car now go down the next road along, which is narrow and cobbled ("oh they won't do that - it isn't tarmacced" said the proponent of the scheme.) Or the £150k scheme that resulted in a 40% increase in cycle use - from a baseline of 20 cyclists per day.

Same goes for parking restrictions - in Exeter most residents and most of the people implementing the 'resident paermit' scheme didn't want it, but there was an election coming and the Councillors promised to do something about student parking cars for months at a time. Of course a "2 hour max no return within 2 hours" would have stopped them, and negated the need for meters and permits, but what do we know?

Imagine our surprise when the students just started to leave their cars a few streets further away outside the permit zone.

Paul

Good points - no doubt many, many mistakes are made. But I question whether data is the only way to go. Waiting for sufficient accident damage is one way, but on some roads I've walked along, I am sure technically they safe - but hell to walk along. Safety is one thing, but the value of having a pleasurable and quiet road to walk along is something which won't show up in figures. So, the dice is loaded in favour of the motorist, unless there is a political will.

Remember how pleasant is was to hear the birds during lockdown? All the 20mph adherents are asking for is a right to walk along without being intimidated and having one's thought or conversation drowned out. Then, maybe we will get more people walking to the shops.
Arb.

[Lootman]

So there are people on this forum who think that whilst driving within the 20mph speed limit one should actually pull over and stop to allow other drivers to pass. Absolute madness.

WHY ?

Ultimately it has nothing to so with the speed limit. It has to do with being a considerate road user.

So if you have a tail of twenty vehicles behind you, are you saying that you would stubbornly continue to obstruct their progress out of spite? Rather than pulling over at a safe opportune moment to let them pass? Do you also hog the "fast lane" on motorways rather than pull over to allow others to pass?

On rural lanes it is quite common for tractors and other slow moving vehicles to pull over from time to time to allow this. I suspect the UK does not yet have a law enforcing that because historically UK drivers have not been selfish, but that may change if too many drivers think they have a right to dawdle and obstruct.

That said, having an artificially slow speed limit compounds this problem.

[swill453]

So if you have a tail of twenty vehicles behind you, are you saying that you would stubbornly continue to obstruct their progress out of spite? Rather than pulling over at a safe opportune moment to let them pass? Do you also hog the "fast lane" on motorways rather than pull over to allow others to pass?

So, if you're doing the maximum legal speed for the road you're on, and happen to have a "tail" of twenty vehicles behind you, how do you know you're obstructing them? They could be quite happily driving at the limit too and not be hoping or expecting to be driving any faster.

This is entirely different to the situation of a slow-moving tractor, or of hogging an overtaking lane on the motorway when there's a clear lane to the left.

(Hint: the Highway Code, our guide to driving in this country, deals specifically with the last two cases but not the first.)

Scott.

[richlist]

On a single carriageway, if I'm travelling at the speed limit and there are cars behind me I am certainly not going to stop to let them pass. On a dual carriageway I would probably be in the left hand lane unless I was overtaking slower traffic.

I use the overtaking lane on motorways for exactly that.

Tractors invariable pull over to allow traffic to pass because they are travelling very much slower than the speed limit.

[Lootman]

So if you have a tail of twenty vehicles behind you, are you saying that you would stubbornly continue to obstruct their progress out of spite? Rather than pulling over at a safe opportune moment to let them pass? Do you also hog the "fast lane" on motorways rather than pull over to allow others to pass?

So, if you're doing the maximum legal speed for the road you're on, and happen to have a "tail" of twenty vehicles behind you, how do you know you're obstructing them? They could be quite happily driving at the limit too and not be hoping or expecting to be driving any faster.

It is obvious. If over a period of time that line of vehicles behind you is becoming longer and longer, it is a pretty good indicator that you are driving too slow for the prevailing conditions regardless of the limit. Another hint is that given half an opportunity, several cars take risks to overtake you. Another hint is horns or flashing lights but in my view that is also bad behaviour.

We are all familiar with the elderly "Sunday driver" who goes too slow, annoying everyone else. Don't be that person.

[swill453]

It is obvious. If over a period of time that line of vehicles behind you is becoming longer and longer, it is a pretty good indicator that you are driving too slow for the prevailing conditions regardless of the limit. Another hint is that given half an opportunity, several cars take risks to overtake you. Another hint is horns or flashing lights but in my view that is also bad behaviour.

We are all familiar with the elderly "Sunday driver" who goes too slow, annoying everyone else. Don't be that person.

Your disregard of the law is breathtaking.

Scott.

[Lootman]

It is obvious. If over a period of time that line of vehicles behind you is becoming longer and longer, it is a pretty good indicator that you are driving too slow for the prevailing conditions regardless of the limit. Another hint is that given half an opportunity, several cars take risks to overtake you. Another hint is horns or flashing lights but in my view that is also bad behaviour.

We are all familiar with the elderly "Sunday driver" who goes too slow, annoying everyone else. Don't be that person.

Your disregard of the law is breathtaking.

You would not be breaking the law by pulling over to let faster traffic pass you. You would be being considerate to others, however.

[swill453]

You would not be breaking the law by pulling over to let faster traffic pass you. You would be being considerate to others, however.

You're trolling, or you're not a driver.

Scott.

[Lootman]

You would not be breaking the law by pulling over to let faster traffic pass you. You would be being considerate to others, however.

You're trolling, or you're not a driver.

Funnily enough I was thinking the same thing about you - surely no reasonable driver would seek to impose a speed limit on others by driving selfishly. And yet that is what you are claiming.

[swill453]

Funnily enough I was thinking the same thing about you - surely no reasonable driver would seek to impose a speed limit on others by driving selfishly. And yet that is what you are claiming.

I don't impose the speed limit, the authorities do.

Scott.

[Lootman]

Funnily enough I was thinking the same thing about you - surely no reasonable driver would seek to impose a speed limit on others by driving selfishly. And yet that is what you are claiming.

I don't impose the speed limit, the authorities do.

As I said it is ultimately not about the speed limit. It is about how much you are considerate to other drivers. Maybe that doesn't matter to you any more than those who hog the middle lane or fast lane on a motorway. It is essentially the same selfish, oblivious attitude. And it is not good driving.

But we are clearly not going to convince each other so lets just leave this as yet another thing we profoundly disagree about.

[swill453]

As I said it is ultimately not about the speed limit. It is about how much you are considerate to other drivers. Maybe that doesn't matter to you any more than those who hog the middle lane or fast lane on a motorway. It is essentially the same selfish, oblivious attitude. And it is not good driving.

It's not the same, as has already been explained to you.

But we are clearly not going to convince each other so lets just leave this as yet another thing we profoundly disagree about.

Whatever.

Scott.

[Lootman]

As I said it is ultimately not about the speed limit. It is about how much you are considerate to other drivers. Maybe that doesn't matter to you any more than those who hog the middle lane or fast lane on a motorway. It is essentially the same selfish, oblivious attitude. And it is not good driving.

It's not the same, as has already been explained to you.

It is not the exact same action but it does display the self selfish indifference to other road users, as had been explained to you.