This website presents my opinion about the expansion of 20mph zones and the adoption of a blanket 20mph approach in the UK. If you are interested in editing this, please add your editing in the comments and I will merge it. This work is under CC By 4.0.
I am against:
- Any speed limit under 30mph – I used to agree with 20mph in residential areas but we need a strong opinion right now.
- Randomly reduce speed limit on major roads.
- Any unreasonable claims about 20mph, such as it is difficult to drive at a low speed. While I appreciate your effort, these unreasonable claims make us look stupid.
I support:
- The adoption of Electric Vehicles to reduce emissions & noise.
- Speed cameras at reasonable places with a speed limit of 30mph or above to control speeding.
- Adopt other safety measures in high-risk areas, such as safety barriers, dedicated cycle lanes, and improved footpaths based on the actual condition.
In recent years, the UK, especially Wales and Oxfordshire, have been adopting a monotonous strategy towards speed limit reduction. The decision-makers simply approve most (if not all) proposals for slowing traffic down without thorough consideration. They exaggerate the risk of car incidents while omitting the negative impacts caused by blindly reducing the speed limit, possibly for political reasons (making 20mph a new 30mph is a good slogan isn’t it? It used to be it’s 30 for a reason). They typically adopt the new headline ‘20mph reduces the chance of death by xx%’. Here I argue that this strategy is not sufficiently smart and should be reconsidered. Please note that all the arguments I made here are based on the assumption that the scientific evidence that the decision-makers have been using is valid.
- The gains from adopting 20 mph have been exaggerated.
The likelihood of dying from a car accident is low. According to Google, the population of Oxfordshire was around 687,000 by 2019. Meanwhile, there were only 34 people died from car accidents in 2020. The likelihood is only around 0.00495%. This means that 4 in 1000 will have the chance to die from traffic accidents over 80 years (about UK’s life expectancy), while the remaining 996 people need to slow down for the rest of their lives.
The supporters of 20mph typically use percentage, claiming that reducing the speed limit will reduce the traffic accident by xx%. However, even if we successfully cut the probability by half, the gain, or the absolute difference, is not significant. According to risk management literature, the level of risk is associated with both likelihood and consequence (probability x consequences in many cases). Please note that in these accidents, the costs have already been (partially if you don’t agree) compensated by the insurance and the justice system. Living in a modern society, it is tough but true that the cost of lives can be evaluated to some degree.
The 20mph scheme simply shifts the pressure to the drivers and the marginal cost of implementing the scheme is underestimated. The most straightforward influence is that the drivers need to spend 50% more time going through these wide-spread 20mph zones. Some might claim that this will be a few seconds thing but this is not true. The reader might think these 20mph zones only take a small part of the journey but the fact is that in Oxfordshire, there are some large villages like Wallingford and Sonning Common. These low-speed zones are gradually getting connected under the current invasive strategy, forming larger low-speed zones that eat every driver’s time. Many of the residents in those villages are far from bus routes and they heavily rely on cars. Please note that according to ‘Travel to work during Census 2021’ published by the Oxfordshire Council, more than 35% of the population benefit from private vehicles, and every one of them needs to unnecessarily slow down for a very low accident rate.
Also, be aware that those who take public transportation are also road users.
In 20mph zones, many drivers are ‘forced’ to learn speeding. This is true because the current practice abuses the speed limit as traffic calming measures without a thorough assessment of the road condition (see discussion in the next section). In many road sections, the drivers are required to drive at a low speed while the road is straight, the visibility is perfect, the footpath is wide and safe, and there are zero or only a small number of pedestrians. In these situations, originally lawful drivers are forced to learn how to speed. This is against the Oxfordshire Council’s wish ‘to change driver’s mindsets to make speeding socially unacceptable’. Additionally, it is obvious that the drivers who were originally speeding will continue to do so, and only the drivers who obey the law will be harmed.
This discussion deliberately omitted the influence of financial influences regardless that implementing 20 zones will cost money and affect local businesses. This has been widely discussed and the decision-makers has simply chosen the cheapest approach TO THEM.
2. The decision has not been made with care
There are flaws in the decision-making process of approving new speed restrictions. First of all, the road conditions are not properly assessed. As previously mentioned, many of the 20 zones have wide and straight roads, safe pedestrian footpaths, and good visibility while pedestrians are rare and there have been no accidents. Many of these zones are on major roads that benefit so many drivers every day. The one in Nuneham Courteney is a typical example, that is located on A4074, a busy road between Reading and Oxford, straight, broad, with very limited residents, PLUS a speed camera. There are many other examples such as Gallowstree Common, the east end of Sonning Common, sections in Wallingford, and the new 40mph zone outside of Brightwell-cum-Sotwell where people can safely run at 60mph. A person who lives in South Oxfordshire now must go through many of these zones to access M40 and A34.
The decisions made on approving new speed restrictions should be taken with care. This is because once an inappropriate decision is made, nobody will dare take the responsibility to restore it taking the potential risk of being blamed. Given the facts that I have seen, I personally doubt whether the decision-makers know what these roads look like and whether adequate assessments have been made.
There are sampling biases prior to new speed limits being made. Many people are not aware of the surveys before the decision is concluded. They might suddenly find that the speed limit signs have been replaced one day. Meanwhile, those who expect lower speed limits are likely to pay more attention to proposing new plans, participate in surveys, and express their support for new speed limits.
3. The opinion of local residents took too much weight
More importantly, too much weight has been put on the opinions of the local residents – I guess the Council might put some notifications on the streets right (Although I have never seen one)? The issue is that the roads are owned NOT ONLY by local residents BUT ALSO by EVERY road user. Using Brightwell-cum-Sotwell and Nuneham Courteney again as examples, numerous commuters take these A roads every day, and they should have a say in the decisions being made. However, now the fact is that the great silent majority are being ignored and only those who shout loud are respected. *The information required for taking online surveys includes the exact street and postcode where the participant lives. This further discourages them from taking part in surveys*. It is the road users who take the cost brought about by the speed limit changes.
I somehow agree that community roads should be owned by local residents. However, major A and B roads which benefit numerous each day should not be dominated by them – in many cases, there are many more road users than local residents.
We repeatedly hear that local residents claim that there is a serious speeding issue in the area. Whilst this can be true, we need evidence of that. Some people can view 20mph as 40 mph with their intuition and if the speeding issue is really serious, we need to consider whether the speed limit is too low or the road design is not appropriate such that a relief road/noise barrier should be introduced.
4. There are alternative safety measures, and you chose the cheapest one.
Setting the speed limit should balance safety and efficiency. This is always true otherwise we should reduce the speed limit everywhere down to 5mph. The current practice has been over-emphasising the latter while omitting the former. The decision-makers have chosen the cheapest approach to safety, by replacing the speed limit signs. This is not responsible and the burdens are simply shifted to the drivers.
Meanwhile, many other safety measures can achieve a better balance, for example, improved street lighting and footpaths, new pedestrian crossings, and safety barriers. In Criminology, hotspot policing and problem-oriented policing have been proven effective. These approaches are risk-based, by allocating limited resources to the most serious problems and most risky areas. Similarly, new 20mph zones can only achieve the best cost-effectiveness by being built in a limited number of risky areas with a thorough assessment of road conditions and accident history. Unfortunately, a blind and blanket approach has been taken claiming that this would benefit everyone.
I support the adoption of safety measures based on road conditions. For instance, on road sections heavily used by cyclists, we build a dedicated cycle lane that is separated from the main carriageway; on major roads in urban areas, Euston road in London for example, we build bridges and tunnels for pedestrians and cyclists; On approach to sharp bends, we set repeated warning signs and a short section of speed limit along with speed cameras; On a major road through a village, we set pedestrian crossings, better street lightings, and speed cameras; At a closed high-risk give-way junction we modify the road and provide the driver with a better vision; Along busy roads, we set safety barriers along the footpath.
In general, I advise adopting the following principles: 1. Speed limit and road bumps that affect traffic flow should be the last thing to consider; 2. There should always be major roads with a reasonable speed limit that goes through villages and urban areas. Local speed limit should avoid impacting major road users; 3. Safety measures should be adopted according to the actual road condition.
5. Environmental concerns
There is no doubt that cars create pollution. However, setting a speed limit is not the right way to address them. A simple logic is that down a car will make the engine run longer, which somehow cancels out the benefits brought about by lowering a gear. To effectively reduce pollution, technology is the key: the adoption of electric vehicles will reduce emissions and noise. Local measures such as bypassing roads around residential areas, plants alongside the road, and noise barriers will also help – A randomly set speed limit is the most ineffective way.
6. False claims about 20mph which make us stupid
A typical one is that it is hard to drive at a low speed. Most cars are actually okay to drive at 20 mph with the 3rd gear. Setting the cruise control to 22 mph will be good enough for most speed cameras. These claims are just excuses.
7. What the drivers should do
I have been disappointed by the drivers in this country because they don’t stand up and they are not organised. There is nothing that I can do and I think will leave in a few years. The only thing that I can think of is to join speedwatch groups, and report everyone that goes over 20mph by 1mph so that everyone receives fines.