The Conservatives in Wales lose their last ditch attempt to stop the speed limit change from 30mph to 20mph. The change will be coming into force on the 17th September

  • TWeaK@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    1 year ago

    That’s completely wrong. Compliance is much better for 30 mph roads, it’s pretty much the other way around with 50% exceeding the speed limit but 82% driving less than 35. Meanwhile only 15% of drivers on measured roads follow 20 limits, with 50% of drivers going above 25. Source

    It should be noted that the “measured 20 roads” are primarily roads that don’t have traffic calming measures, which were designed and built for 30 but have had 20 signs slapped on them - but that’s exactly what this proposal is about. When roads are built with the official recommended traffic calming measures, when the roads actually feel like 20 roads, then there’s compliance. But that’s not what they’re doing here.

    It still means fewer pedestrians crippled.

    That’s an issue in specific areas, not in every single part of every single 30 limit.

    If you want 20 mph roads, then build 20 mph roads. Provide ongoing training for drivers. Don’t just slap a sign up and jerk yourself off over it.

    • dakar@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      From your own source:
      “For the 20mph sites (which are not thought to be representative of all 20mph roads), the average speeds were above the speed limit for all vehicle types, ranging from 22mph to 28mph but below the average speeds seen on the 30mph roads.”
      So the average speed does decrease, increasing safety. Just because the effect isn’t a perfect 10 mph reduction doesn’t mean that it does nothing.
      This means the proposal is effective, but it could be improved with traffic calming measures.

      • TWeaK@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        This means the proposal is effective, but it could be improved with traffic calming measures.

        The report goes into even more detail on this, the roads measured were primarily those without traffic calming measures. The overall subtext is that 20 mph roads should be built as 20 mph roads, including traffic calming as per the official recommendations. You shouldn’t just slap a 20 limit on a road built for 30 - which is what this post is about for Wales.

        What they’re doing will increase noncompliance, not only in the areas where the road should be 30 but also in areas where it should be 20. It’s a cheap blanket change that’s more about political brownie points than actually achieving positive benefits.

        • driving_crooner
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          Can we start with the 20 legal limit and then work out the infrastructure modifications needed?

          • TWeaK@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            Why not start with an assessment of which roads should be immediately reduced, which roads should be modified and then reduced and which roads should be left alone? Why not do that instead of a blanket change that pushes responsibility onto poorly funded local councils?

            • ForgotAboutDre@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              1 year ago

              One measure is very effective and cheap. Every city, town and village in Wales becomes safer very soon by just reducing the speed limit.

              Your proposal takes years to implement and incurs a massive cost and inconvenience to shut down many roads for weeks at a time. Just to make sure you reap the entire benefit of the changed speed limit. The extra benefit has a disproportionate cost to the proposed solution.

              • TWeaK@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                One measure is very effective and cheap.

                It’s certainly very cheap, but only very effective in certain places. It’s questionable whether it would be cheaper to target those places exclusively.

    • jerkface@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I mean it sounds like from the figures that you are providing that changing the speed limit from 30 to 20 DOES reduce the average speed of motorists. It doesn’t change it from 30 to 20 seems to be your main point, which, yeah, duh.

      • TWeaK@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        But if the goal is to reduce it to 25, they should set the speed limit to 25 and work with drivers. The goal should be to encourage and increase compliance overall, not encourange noncompliance with excessive measures in many prominent zones, which will lead to noncompliance elsewhere where it’s actually needed.

        The fact is, safety isn’t the goal here. The goal here is to make a cheap manuever for political brownie points. Whether or not it’s effective overall is an unlikely byproduct. Meanwhile, councils have to spend money to untangle the mess of roads that will now have the wrong speed limit assigned, as per road design specifications and recommendations.