Who does a 20mph speed limit really harm?

Joined
2 Feb 2006
Messages
54,241
Reaction score
4,476
Location
Staffordshire
Country
United Kingdom
I have read with a modicum of interest about a 20mph speed limit.

I am Captain slow, so sticking to speed limits ain't no problem. Ho hum. :rolleyes:

However, driving at a sustained speed of 20mph is quite difficult for varying reasons. I could do it but i would have to concentrate.

But why the fuss, who can it possibly harm by sticking to it....?
 
Sponsored Links
how about the environment?

it will increase journey time by a third ( assuming your journey is usually at 30mph ), so your engine will be running longer producing more exhaust gasses..

does this equate to the same amount of gasses expelled for a journey at higher speeds ( and therefor revs possibly? ), but of a shorter duration?
that's the question?

driving at 20 will require you to drive in 3rd gear as 4th is too low for 20 on some cars and some gradients.. so you should be doing approximately the same revs I would have thought?
 
Well, for a start, you'll have to concentrate more on your speedo, thus taking your eyes momentarily off the road now and then.
Your fuel consumption will be crap More wear and tear on your, engine, gearbox, nerves.
I'm not saying it's a bad idea, but,,,,, Pedestrians belong on the pavement, not on the road. They are loathe to walk the extra yards to either a safer place to cross the road, or to the pelican/zebra crossing.
Instead of taking you 20 mins to get to work , it will now take half an hour.
Nah I think whoever has suggested this is either a cyclist or a pedestrian. They certainly are not a car owner/driver. ;) ;) ;)
 
Sponsored Links
I don't dispute that a 20mph zone where there are a large concentration on kids about is a good idea ( like at schools and near parks etc ), but having a blanket 20mph over an entire city / town is just stupid..
just because you only average about 7mph ( not confirmed ) while traveling round london by car doesn't mean the rest of the towns and cities are that bad..
 
the human brain works too quick for a 20moh speed limit.. i personally would lose concentration driving at that speed and my mind would be elsewhere...
 
There's good hard scientific evidence that the extent of inury or likelihood of death from being hit slightly above 30mph is much greater than from being hit slightly below 30mph. That's why we have the current 30mph limit.

There's no such step change at around 20mph, so no justification at all for a blanket 20mph limit.
 
no but I bet there's a steep change in the damage between "slightly over 30" to "slightly over 20" ( which lets face it will be the real speed driven despite the signs.. )

plus the stopping distance is a lot shorter so you'll be doing a lot less when you hit them when breaking form a set distance at 20 than you would when breaking from the same distance and breaking from 30..
 
So, its is just a case of journey time may be a bit longer and engine wear?

Not really a big deal though, just set out a bit earlier and buy a better car.

It would balance things up though if there were instances where motorists could go for a blast to relieve them of the tedium of slow driving like with Germany's autobahn.

Despite the fact i tend to stick to the speed limits in urban areas i do like to boot the car where i can.
 
this is all a precursor to getting us to drive electric cars.. they go slow so they're reducing the speeds now so we get used to them.. :)
 
remove the emotive and look at the practicle.... for example in town A

assuming 20000 motorists on the road at any moment, and 5000 schoolkids:

there would be 1782 million minutes spent driving on the roads in a day
and 100000 minutes for the kids' walk to and from school.

so in order to stop one child versus car accident, all of those driving minutes would be impacted... whereas if there was a huge emphasis on the green cross code, or investment on railings.... wouldn't that have better results?
 
Sponsored Links
Back
Top