[donald]

This is a useful little page, that's just dropped into my inbox, to remind us of 'things';

New driving laws and rules for 2022

Our round-up of the motoring laws that could affect you

www.confused.com

EV relevant things here.

Amongst various things ...

"
New 20 mph speed cameras rolled out across the UK
A new 20 mph speed limit is being rolled out in busy pedestrian streets or residential areas throughout the UK.

Speed cameras will monitor these zones to make sure drivers are sticking to the speed limit. These cameras caught 1,100 motorists breaking the speed limit within the first 24 hours of their launch.

In Wales, these areas have been rolled out in Abergavenny, Severnside and Central North Cardiff to name a few. In England they’ve been rolled out in places such as Birmingham and Oxford.

Areas in Edinburgh and Glasgow have also introduced the new 20 mph speed limit.
"

Now, I have nothing against 20mph limits and have even argued for them in places, but is it just me that worries this is going to cause a minor mayhem? The law, in theory, says just 1mph over will cause an offence.

But ...
a) maybe OK for EVs, but cars I have had had a minimum 30kph (25mph) on the speed limiter,
b) 20mph indicated ... 10% + 5mph, so one person might be doing 20 and another doing 15 .. lots of potential conflicts there
c) just one mph over, so one guy could be doing 15mph (doesn't want to go over 1mph for fear of a ticket) and another can barely control their car at that speed
d) emissions .. really, my car is simply not operating at an emissions-efficient speed even in 2nd gear
e) fine where it is relevant, pedestrian density, schools etc, how long before this is a money-making adventure by councils?
f) conflicts between 'easy to control' low power BEVs, and those with a zillion BHP that go from 0 to 30 in a half second, so 18mph to a ticket at 22mph .. phew ... Judge "So you are saying, Mr criminal speeder, that a fly landed on your shoe while driving you 500bhp EV at 20mph and you accelerated to 21mph when you got the ticket?", "Yes, sir, that is my mitigation".

 

[crabsticks]

20mph limits have been in place for years so I don't see why they are being questioned now.

I think you're overthinking it.

 

[Mark I]

a) 30 km/h is closer to 18 mph than 25 mph. The only car I've ever owned with a speed limiter can set 20 mph.

f) Zillion-BHP, 0-20 time measured in nanoseconds, battery electric vehicles ought to have superb speed limiters to match their price and general quality.

 

[donald]

20mph limits have been in place for years so I don't see why they are being questioned now.

I think you're overthinking it.

Because they are going to set cameras up. Probably to 21mph.

They will set them up everywhere even if 20mph is neither needed, and it will end with higher traffic emissions.

If I am overthinking it, then tell me what speed you will be driving at on an open road that has no pedestrians around that was a 40mph limit last year, and you have a big truck right up behind you?

Let's say you are approaching a 20mph in an area that was 30mph the day before, there is a camera there, and there is a heavy truck right up your chuff. I am pretty sure you'll be doing quite a bit of 'over-thinking' then.

 

[Edinburgh 2000]

We have 20mph limits on most non-arterial roads within Edinburgh now and I am a big fan. It has improved the ambience of the residential streets and encourages more people to cycle and to walk. My Leaf's speed limiter works well at 20mph. I have no embarrassment sticking to the legal limit, regardless of the taxis and others who may choose to overtake me. If you want to go faster than 20mph, then stick to the arterial routes. Lower speed undoubtedly improves safety. The "increases emissions" baloney is just a desperate attempt from those who don't care about safety but who want to drive fast on residential or shopping streets. I shall be delighted to see speed cameras enforcing the speed limit. I don't understand how anyone can object to the speed cameras, given that they simply enforce the law. If you want to object to the law, that is your democratic right to lobby your elected politicians. But please don't argue that you don't want laws to be enforced.

..... tell me what speed you will be driving at on an open road that has no pedestrians around that was a 40mph limit last year, and you have a big truck right up behind you?

I shall most definitely be sticking to 20mph maximum in that case to encourage the "big truck" to use arterial routes and not my neighbourhood residential streets!

Although I don't know of any roads that were 40mph that are now 20mph. That would not fit with the "non-arterial mixed use" streets that are limited to 20mph now. 40mph roads tend to be arterial

 

[donald]

The "increases emissions" baloney is just a desperate attempt from those who don't care about safety but who want to drive fast on residential streets.

That generalisation is obviously a silly response to what I wrote.

I am all for it in the right places, but it DOES increase emissions. So one trades the safety with the increased emissions. Which is completely fine, so long as the 20mph zone is appropriate and DOES actually increase safety.

But what of the locations where it does nothing to increase safety? Where it is merely an excess opportunity to take advantage of people without speed limiters on their vehicles?

Or is your claim that 20mph is always safer, there is never any question about it? Do you have data for this assertion?

I think the safest speed is 'the most appropriate speed', would you not agree?

 

[Edinburgh 2000]

Where it is merely an excess opportunity to take advantage of people without speed limiters on their vehicles?

What do you mean by "take advantage of"?

 

[Jimbo]

Living in London we are surrounded by 20mph limits. Many make sense, but some are on roads that were designed for 50mph.

This is where it gets hard - there is no obvious benefit to 20mph other than traffic calming - in some cases, even the cyclists have their own lanes, safely built behind barriers to prevent interaction with bigger vehicles - these are the roads where people are most likely to be fined. Frankly even the buses and blue light services all tend to break the limits on these roads (emergency or not).

 

[Rbrian]

Living in London we are surrounded by 20mph limits. Many make sense, but some are on roads that were designed for 50mph.

This is where it gets hard - there is no obvious benefit to 20mph other than traffic calming - in some cases, even the cyclists have their own lanes, safely built behind barriers to prevent interaction with bigger vehicles - these are the roads where people are most likely to be fined. Frankly even the buses and blue light services all tend to break the limits on these roads (emergency or not).

Is it even possible to reach 20mph in London?! I worked there for a few weeks last year, and averaged 8mph. I was held up more than once by Lambourghinis crawling over speed bumps and doing 17 point turns to avoid width restrictions, and made a note of the bicycles I passed, which passed me moments later, to the point where I just didn't bother anymore. A diesel van was entirely unsuitable (but still better than a Lambourghini...). The most popular vehicles seemed to be 125 scooters.

 

[donald]

What do you mean by "take advantage of"?

I mean, through no malicious intent, simply keeping what they thought was a reasonable speed, considering traffic conditions, ends up with them being extorted for money.

... thus...

Living in London we are surrounded by 20mph limits. Many make sense, but some are on roads that were designed for 50mph.

This is where it gets hard - there is no obvious benefit to 20mph other than traffic calming - in some cases, even the cyclists have their own lanes, safely built behind barriers to prevent interaction with bigger vehicles - these are the roads where people are most likely to be fined. Frankly even the buses and blue light services all tend to break the limits on these roads (emergency or not).

There will be an irresistible urge for councils to enforce extortionate and unnecessary fines. They already do this as policy decisions; oik up fines and enforcement because their revenues are low.

Councils should not benefit from fines they raise on the roads. Just shouldn't happen at all. End up with conflict of interest. They can collect a fair fee for the costs of enforcement, yes, the rest should go to charity or something, but definitely not into the pockets of those seeking a cash boost to cover their budget over-spends.

 

[Chrisb]

In Dorset the 20MPH zones are enforced at 25mph, 24mph is acceptable.
You would never get pulled at 21MPH.

 

[donald]

In Dorset the 20MPH zones are enforced at 25mph, 24mph is acceptable. View attachment 165013

The problem with 'is acceptable' will be what I suggest is the dangerous bit.

Some will drive along at 23mph, and maybe their speedo is spot on. They'll be saying in their heads 'C'mon, everyone knows 20 is too slow, and 23 is OK, so c'mon, speed up!!" They will end up behind someone who wants to drive at 20mph, when in fact their speedo is showing 20 when they are doing 15.

So the guy in front is doing 15 and the guy behind wants to do 23. That is a BIG difference; the guy behind wants to go 50% faster than the one in front of him. That is asking for conflict and dangerous driving.

Like someone tailgating you at 70 on the motorway when they think you should be driving at 110mph like they want to.

 

[Hobbyist]

I'm with donald here. Since having more people alive also means having more emission, ceteris paribus, any laws that save lives will definitely increase emission. Driving slowly in an ICE is also inefficient so it's a double benefit!

Am I understanding it correctly?

 

[donald]

I'm with donald here. Since having more people alive also means having more emission, ceteris paribus, any laws that save lives will definitely increase emission. Driving slowly in an ICE is also inefficient so it's a double benefit!

Am I understanding it correctly?

I think that is about it, but there is no functional relationship between these things in the general case, so we need to avoid 'generalisations' as have been made about 20 being 'safer'.

The point of 20 is that if a pedestrian is directly hit at that speed they have a 50% survival, whereas at 30 then it's more like 5%.

But I've seen 20mph on roads that don't even HAVE pedestrian paths!

So rather than protect pedestrians properly, with pavements set back and safety bollards and such, they choose to slow traffic down. Keeping traffic moving, at any speed, is the route to minimum emissions, the problem with town planners is that they seem to go out of their way to stop traffic so it does not move so fast and just because they hate cars so anything to aggravate car drivers out of their cars, they see that as a 'win'.

I was on a roundabout yesterday where not one light connected with another so you could get through consecutive greens. Totally idiotic. I mean, it's idiotic to even have lights on a roundabout in the first place, this is specifically a design to increase CO2.

Start with the basics first, if we want to fix all these things.

 

[crabsticks]

Because they are going to set cameras up. Probably to 21mph.

They will set them up everywhere even if 20mph is neither needed, and it will end with higher traffic emissions.

If I am overthinking it, then tell me what speed you will be driving at on an open road that has no pedestrians around that was a 40mph limit last year, and you have a big truck right up behind you?

Let's say you are approaching a 20mph in an area that was 30mph the day before, there is a camera there, and there is a heavy truck right up your chuff. I am pretty sure you'll be doing quite a bit of 'over-thinking' then.

20mph, obviously.

Does your tractor even get up to 20mph whilst you're collecting straw for your arguments?

 

[donald]

20mph, obviously.

Does your tractor even get up to 20mph whilst you're collecting straw for your arguments?

nearly super-sonic.

I do realise that people give lip-service to their daily thoughts and actions, they say they are law abiding and they are not, they say they do one thing but do something else. They tell others how to act, they say they are sensitive and caring to others and all that nonsense, and they only think of themselves.

This is potentially mis-thought out and dangerous stuff. Speed cameras, enforced by cash strapped councils. If you don't care about it, then easier you don't add to the debate with 'nothing-comments'.

 

[Chrisb]

Sorry but i do not see an issue with 20mph any more than a 30mph zone.
If i had to be hit by a car for an experiment i would rather it was doing 20mph than 30mph so 20 is safer, end of .

 

[donald]

Sorry but i do not see an issue with 20mph any more than a 30mph zone.
If i had to be hit by a car for an experiment i would rather it was doing 20mph than 30mph so 20 is safer, end of .

I don't either. Who is that at?

The issue is enforcement cameras, run by councils. The reason there is a difference is because there is quite a high compliance rate at 30 so councils don't bother so much.

An excuse to install 20 cameras!?!? Wooohooo ... their Christmases have come early!

 

[crabsticks]

nearly super-sonic.

I do realise that people give lip-service to their daily thoughts and actions, they say they are law abiding and they are not, they say they do one thing but do something else. They tell others how to act, they say they are sensitive and caring to others and all that nonsense, and they only think of themselves.

This is potentially mis-thought out and dangerous stuff. Speed cameras, enforced by cash strapped councils. If you don't care about it, then easier you don't add to the debate with 'nothing-comments'.

Do you have (grand) children or people you care about?

Would you prefer them to be hit by a car at 30mph or 20mph? By installing cameras the amount of speeding motorists are going to be significantly reduced, how is that in anyway shape or form a bad thing?

I literally can't see why this is "news" lol

 

[Hitstirrer]

Won't be long. And I'm not even joking.