Slow change: The need for a 20mph limit

Slow change: The need for a 20mph limit

Speed limits on residential roads are falling. Except in Richmond and Surrey. Time for a change of gear, says Samantha Laurie 

Just before Christmas, Andrew Smith, head of Rodborough Technology College near Godalming, learnt that yet another of his pupils had been knocked down outside the school. A 15-year-old girl was in A&E, having been clipped by the wing mirror of a car and knocked unconscious. The car, travelling at 30 mph, didn’t stop. It was the fourth such accident in the vicinity within a year.

But even as Smith was penning a letter to parents venting his frustration at the council’s reluctance to lower the speed limit near the school, 40 Tory councillors were voting down a motion to make it easier to implement 20 mph zones when and where communities ask for them.

Something is happening around the country that is not happening in Richmond and Surrey: traffic is slowing down. Encouraged by an increasingly enthusiastic government – and by 70-80% satisfaction surveys – councils from Bristol to Portsmouth to Lancashire are introducing 20 mph limits on residential roads.

Eight million people in the UK now live in a local authority that has 20 mph as the default limit for residential streets. Slower roads are safer – witness a 42% reduction in casualties in London’s 20 mph areas – and encourage more cyclists and walkers (both up by 20% in Bristol). Moreover the impact on journey times is negligible. In the most typical model – main roads 30 mph, but residential roads lowered to 20 mph – average times have risen by just 40 seconds. As M25 engineers have long known, heavy traffic merges faster at slower speeds.

Yet in Surrey there is nothing but resistance to the idea. Incredibly, last year the council rejected best practice guidelines issued by the Department of Transport that make it easier to implement 20 mph limits on more roads.

In Richmond, a council task force urged more 20 mph roads back in 2010, but full council rejected this on financial grounds. Instead, residents can ask for the limit on their street to be lowered – but only if 50% of the whole road is in support. Naturally, the process is slow.

Meanwhile, Surrey’s road safety team manager, Duncan Knox, insists that reducing speed limits without enforcement does not work. Since the police are unwilling to take on extra responsibility, councils can either issue a 20 mph limit for all residential roads and rely on the public to adhere to it, or introduce isolated zones self-enforced with traffic bumps or chicanes. Surrey favours the latter.

At £60,000 per km, however, this is a limited solution. Moreover, it often increases driver frustration and danger to pedestrians, as cars speed up once out of the zone. A cheaper option is to install electronic signs for just £1,100 per km. Yet this makes for an average speed reduction of just 1.3 mph – pointless, says Knox, and may lead drivers to “disrespect limits in general”.

But the experience of other authorities signals otherwise: self-policed limits are a nudge toward a cultural shift in driver behaviour. In Portsmouth, where there is no physical calming, casualties have fallen by 22%. Because so many of its residents now live happily in 20 mph zones, they are much more likely to respect the limit on other roads.

By means of social – rather than traffic – engineering, change is under way. But it requires political will. And in Surrey, which has the highest levels of car ownership in the UK, the Cabinet Member responsible for Transport and Environment is unmoved.

“In a county as vibrant as Surrey, widespread 20 mph limits would not work,” insists John Furey. “Our economy works because people can get around quickly.”

Furey is wrong: driving quickly along residential roads is not the cornerstone of a vibrant economy. Nor does driving faster between congestion points speed up journeys. Most of all, Furey has misread the public mood.

“Surrey,” he continues, “does not have 20 mph zones because the people of Surrey haven’t asked for it.”

They have. From Weybridge to Godalming to Dorking and beyond, there are 20 mph campaigns that have run aground against a council policy couched in reluctance and with party politics at its heart. Slower traffic is a key tenet of Lib Dem policy. In Conservative-run Surrey, the matter is less about the quality of the politics than its colour.

Britain has the highest rate of pedestrian fatalities in Europe. Residential roads are 60% faster than in the US. In Richmond, where just 2% of roads are 20 mph, cycling casualties are 2.5 times higher than Outer London’s average.

If we want roads where kids can play, and that older people can safely cross, either council policy or the councillors themselves must change.


5 Comments

  1. Eat me 20th February 2013 @ 3:38 pm

    This article is funny. It kicks off with some outrage about an injured pedestrian, and then uses that as a springboard to launch another Lib-Dem attack on motorists.
    Firstly, in order for a pedestrian and motorist to collide, either the car has to mount the pavement or the pedestrian has to enter the road. In the case described, a little more care on both the part of the driver AND the pedestrian could have averted the collision. If the pedestrian had looked to see what was coming, it wouldn’t have happened. If the motorist had been paying more attention to their surroundings in a busy urban environment, and had tried to anticipate the possible actions of the pedestrian, it wouldn’t have happened. Perhaps (s)he was more concerned about the speed camera site?
    We don’t know, but we can say that the speed has nothing to do with it. For all we know, if the car was doing 50 mph, it might have missed the pedestrian altogether. When I was at school, the school and my parents taught me the Green Cross Code. I’ve never been hit by a car.
    20 mph limits are all very well, but to base the argument for them on a general assertion that speeds are decreasing anyway is simply deluded. Average speeds are decreasing in all limits, including across Surrey – Mr Knox has the statistics, but I guess Mrs Laurie has chosen to ignore them because they would undermine her argument. However this trend can and has been shown to be as much to do with the increasing cost of fuel as with any sort of social engineering.
    If local communities want them, the system in place by which they must demonstrate sufficient support for it seems reasonable, democratic and fair – unlike another nanny-state one-size-fits all mandate from central council.
    It’s also disappointing to see the very realistic and accurate views of Surrey’s road safety specialist shoved aside in such a cavalier manner. I have had the pleasure of discussing accident statistics in Surrey with Mr Knox, and while I remain uncertain whether he is friend or foe from a motorist’s perspective, he certainly knows what he is talking about and always puts across a common sense point of view backed up by real data rather than emotional or political propaganda.
    Most disappointing of all about the article though is the shameful attempt by the author to turn what aspires to be a serious debate about the safety of the most vulnerable pedestrians in society into a party political broadcast for the Liberal Democrats. Mrs Laurie, you should be ashamed of yourself.

  2. George 21st February 2013 @ 5:34 pm

    This is a great article. 20mph limits are a very good idea. The comment above is fatuous and hollow; it details no reasons why we shouldn’t have 20mph limits and no negative consequences of implementing them.

    This is because they are the best solution in urban areas.

  3. Wait A Tic 21st February 2013 @ 5:41 pm

    I wasn’t witness to the events so I can’t say but happened. But what I do know for sure is that a child can’t go 30 mph but a car can.

    A child’s reflexes and thought processes might not be as fast as an oncoming car. Four accidents involving children on the same site in a year is four too many. Yes children must be taught road safety. But cars should slow down around schools.

  4. Ian 22nd February 2013 @ 10:34 am

    I’ve seen a number of 20mph zones that have been implemented recently. From my own, daily, observations, many car drivers simply ignore them, and I’ve never seen any of these zones policed.

    Many cars drive along at 30mph or more, and simply bounce over the road humps that have been installed.

    When I’m driving at the 20mph, I’ve often been overtaken.

    So, while these zones are a good idea, and perhaps the whole urban speed limit should be reduced down from 30mph, there needs to be a step change in the attitude of many boy racers (many of whom aren’t young, or always even male).

    There needs to be better policing too.

  5. robertpedwards 25th February 2013 @ 5:29 pm

    “Children will be banned from cycling and walking to two North Downs Primary School sites over fears it would be too dangerous.” – What do we make of this? Read more here >>

    http://www.thisissurreytoday.co.uk/Children-banned-walking-cycling-North-Downs/story-18210883-detail/story.html#axzz2LXbu5ypD?3853461751&redirected=true

Leave a comment

Make sure you enter the * required information where indicated.