Speed limit to be lowered to 20mph in Wales

[Itsallaguess]

The battle against cars continues -

Speed limit to be lowered to 20mph in Wales -

Speed limits in built-up areas will be reduced from 30mph to 20mph in Wales from next year - a UK first that is controversial among some drivers.

Ministers have said a 20mph speed limit will lower road collisions and noise and encourage people to walk or cycle.

The slower limit has been divisive in areas where there have been trials with some motorists complaining of more congestion and journeys taking longer.

The Welsh Parliament passed the law in a vote on Tuesday afternoon.

It was backed by Labour and Plaid Cymru but opposed by the Welsh Conservatives, who said the blanket rollout is "ludicrous".

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-62020427

The BBC article above says that Scotland is due to follow suit in 2025...

Cheers,

Itsallaguess

[Dod101]

This is completely stupid. There are areas where it may be sensible but where it is not motorists tend to ignore it as far as I can see and there is no enforcement action. In Scotland we have it some built up areas.

Nationally we should be dropping the speed limit generally from the current 70 mph to say 60 not for safety particularly but to save fuel.

Dod

[DrFfybes]

Councils are allowed to override certain roads, eg through routes.

Whether they will or not is open to debate. Would you raise the speed limit on a road and then risk being blamed if someone got killed?

The joys of devolved power, resgulations under the guise of safety... reduced speed limits, increased alcohol prices, compulsory smoke and fire detection (which, let's be honest, isn't actually a bad thing)... at least in England they know it would be such a vote loser it is unlikely to come in unless prove to work elsewhere.

As for the delays, increased pollution, rescheduling all the buses, etc, whether the £33m would have been better spent elsewhere, all argued to death elsewhere and ignored, because, well, think of the children.


Paul

[DrFfybes]

Nationally we should be dropping the speed limit generally from the current 70 mph to say 60 not for safety particularly but to save fuel.

Dod

But some vehicles will still use a lot of fuel at 60. Why not simply ban every vehicle not capable of 50mpg at 70 mph?

Much better strategy, unless you like driving high fronted large engined vehicles

Paul

[Dod101]

Nationally we should be dropping the speed limit generally from the current 70 mph to say 60 not for safety particularly but to save fuel.

Dod

But some vehicles will still use a lot of fuel at 60. Why not simply ban every vehicle not capable of 50mpg at 70 mph?

Much better strategy, unless you like driving high fronted large engined vehicles

Paul

My Q5 probably would meet your definition of 'high fronted large engined vehicles' but why should it be banned? I bought it legally. The reason for my comment is that I find that if I set my cruise control to 71 mph or thereabouts, thus keeping within the speed limit (the highway which I use most has average speed cameras) I get about 32 mpg but if I drop the setting to 65 mph, the petrol consumption is 39mpg, a huge increase. Not so many cars overtake me at that speed nowadays but a lot of commercial vans do, obviously using others' fuel.

Dod

[staffordian]

On the subject of the 20mph limit, I wonder if it might be counterproductive in terms of pollution and fuel economy.

Most vehicles will need a lower gear to travel at 20, whereas most newer vehicles will bimble along quite happily at 30 in top gear.

Surely using a lower gear instead of top will result in higher fuel usage and therefore more emissions?

[dionaeamuscipula]

I live close to an area which has already changed to a 20 limit as part of a trial scheme. I'm pretty fully supportive, partly because I am a road user in a number of different forms - pedestrian, cyclist, car driver.

The limit is being reduced for both safety and environmental reasons. There is a strong plan for improving public transport. There was talk of congestion charging at one point: the 20 mph zone is one of a package of measures which were decided upon as an alternative to this option, which I support.

There are stupidities - my residential road is still 30 but the through road it joins at one end is 20. This will eventually change.

Doing 20 in a car on a through road feels really slow. But then I am frequently guilty of doing 35 on sections that are still 30 so I am trying to push my own behavioural change by eg using cruise control much more frequently to train myself into being used to driving slower. This is more practical for me than many because I frequently drive around early in the morning when there is very little traffic. I do not find that the lower restriction has particularly increased congestion or journey times (when I travel at peak or normal hours). Strategic through routes are at 30 (in many cases down from a previous 40). I usually drive an automatic.

As a cyclist I feel a bit safer. While it is very clear that compliance is far less than 100%, the average vehicle speed is reducing, and I imagine that this is the main intention. I am not aware of compliance enforcement being increased (or decreased). Another of the package of environmental measures is some really proper cycle lanes with physical separation of bikes from cars. Work is continuing on these but those already in place are generally really good.

So. Something had to be done, and the 20 mph zone is the best alternative. It is being put in place alongside other important measures. There are minor inconveniences and we all need to get used to driving more slowly. Many of the complaints I have seen are from those in rural areas, and I can understand that their issues are very different from mine here in the leafy suburbs of the capital.

DM

[DrFfybes]

Nationally we should be dropping the speed limit generally from the current 70 mph to say 60 not for safety particularly but to save fuel.

Dod

But some vehicles will still use a lot of fuel at 60. Why not simply ban every vehicle not capable of 50mpg at 70 mph?

Much better strategy, unless you like driving high fronted large engined vehicles

Paul

My Q5 probably would meet your definition of 'high fronted large engined vehicles' but why should it be banned? I bought it legally.

Dod

You like driving a Q5, I like driving at 70.

Given a choice of ways to save fuel, I'd much rather your personal freedoms were curtailed than mine. Looks like you have the same opinion.

Paul

[JohnB]

Of course blanket 20mph limits lead to more pollution. Engines are less efficient, and drivers will switch to longer but now faster routes to avoid the A-roads through villages all too common in Wales.

[dionaeamuscipula]

Of course blanket 20mph limits lead to more pollution. Engines are less efficient, and drivers will switch to longer but now faster routes to avoid the A-roads through villages all too common in Wales.

https://haveyoursay.tfl.gov.uk/lowering ... estion9170

"Imperial College London's research into the impact of 20mph speed limits suggests they have no net negative impact on exhaust emissions. Results indicated clear benefits to driving style and associated particulate emissions. The research found that vehicles moved more smoothly, with fewer accelerations and decelerations, than in 30mph zones, reducing particulate emissions from tyre and brake wear."

[vrdiver]

Nationally we should be dropping the speed limit generally from the current 70 mph to say 60 not for safety particularly but to save fuel.

Dod

But some vehicles will still use a lot of fuel at 60. Why not simply ban every vehicle not capable of 50mpg at 70 mph?

Much better strategy, unless you like driving high fronted large engined vehicles

Paul

Both those solutions sound like a nanny state approach - why not just charge a lot for fuel and let people decide for themselves whether to drive sensibly to get a decent mpg?

Perhaps a government advertising campaign to highlight the association between driving styles and fuel consumption, might be in order (education in preference to legislation)?

If there was a scrappage scheme to help get inefficient cars off the road I'd be more inclined to support that.

VRD

[CliffEdge]

It begins

[AF62]

Don't see the safety benefits myself.

When I am in a 20mph zone where I don't know if there is any enforcement I will stick to the limit so I just turn on the 20mph speed limiter, and as it is an EV it doesn't really care what speed you are doing.

When moving off from a set of lights I just floor it and the incredibly rapid acceleration from my EV almost immediately gets you up to 20mph leaving the ICE behind standing, but then as it hits the limiter the ICE behind catch up and get frustrated because 20mph usually means having move around between 2nd and 3rd gear, so usually do some silly and dangerous overtaking manoeuvre.

[DrFfybes]

https://haveyoursay.tfl.gov.uk/lowering ... estion9170

"Imperial College London's research into the impact of 20mph speed limits suggests they have no net negative impact on exhaust emissions. Results indicated clear benefits to driving style and associated particulate emissions. The research found that vehicles moved more smoothly, with fewer accelerations and decelerations, than in 30mph zones, reducing particulate emissions from tyre and brake wear."

It is also over 9 years since publication, since when vehicle standards have changed. For a start, there were very few hybrids or BEVs at the time. It chose routes in London and modelled driving them with 20 and 30 mph limits (it calls them "drive cycles")

The report is "An evaluation of the estimated impacts on vehicle emissions of a 20mph speed restriction in central London"

TfL obviously didn't select this statement from page 7..
"Emissions of NOX and CO2 are seen to be higher over 20mph drive cycles for petrol cars and
generally lower for diesel cars. PM10 emissions improve for smaller vehicles over 20mph drive
cycles (less than 2.0 litre engine size), but are shown to increase for larger vehicles."

The research has mixed findings, it compares Euro 4 spec vehicles (we are now on Euro 6). Since the report diesel emissions are much reduced, the introduction of the (U)LEZ has banned most of the vehicles being tested, so the impact of lowering the speed limit will have changed.

It is outdated research, being selectively quoted to support a viewpoint.

Paul

edit for spelling

[DrFfybes]

If there was a scrappage scheme to help get inefficient cars off the road I'd be more inclined to support that.

VRD

I'm all for that.....

We drove our 30-odd year old Toyota to Anglesey and back last weekend. Including a bit of trundling to and forth at each end, it returned just over 45mpg. 26.11 litres for 267 miles. I filled up when we returned as the Sil was saying how good her new XC60 is compared to the old one, giving her nearly 35mpg now

Paul

[Dod101]

Nationally we should be dropping the speed limit generally from the current 70 mph to say 60 not for safety particularly but to save fuel.

Dod

But some vehicles will still use a lot of fuel at 60. Why not simply ban every vehicle not capable of 50mpg at 70 mph?

Much better strategy, unless you like driving high fronted large engined vehicles

Paul

Both those solutions sound like a nanny state approach - why not just charge a lot for fuel and let people decide for themselves whether to drive sensibly to get a decent mpg?

Perhaps a government advertising campaign to highlight the association between driving styles and fuel consumption, might be in order (education in preference to legislation)?

If there was a scrappage scheme to help get inefficient cars off the road I'd be more inclined to support that.

VRD

Yes I think an advertising campaign would be a good idea. As to charging a lot for fuel, is 190p or so per litre not rather a 'lot'? Certainly I would not want a new Chancellor to be reducing the fuel duty again.

Dod

[dionaeamuscipula]

It is outdated research, being selectively quoted to support a viewpoint.

Paul

First thing I found on a quick quest to check if the OP's claim was justified.

Is there up-to-date research which justifies the claim that a 20 mph limit does lead to greater pollution?

DM

[didds]

But some vehicles will still use a lot of fuel at 60. Why not simply ban every vehicle not capable of 50mpg at 70 mph?

Paul

[/quote]

Would fully laden juggernaut lorries manage that? I've really no idea.

[DrFfybes]

It is outdated research, being selectively quoted to support a viewpoint.

Paul

First thing I found on a quick quest to check if the OP's claim was justified.

Is there up-to-date research which justifies the claim that a 20 mph limit does lead to greater pollution?

DM

The Imperial study is the only one I've come across, shame they don''t seem to have re-run the model with Euro 6 vehicles. Then again given the controversy and accuracy of their Covid and TB modelling then it's probably no more reliable than Monty Python's model of Camelot.

[CliffEdge]

I don't see any justification for building cars that can exceed 55mph top speed. The current situation is insane.