It’s getting late in the game today and we’re down a couple of points, so its time to go for a double. Thanks to an easy pitch from the UK government and AutoBlogGreen, I’m going to swing. The Nanny State Incarnate is encouraging local UK governments to introduce blanket 20 mph speed limits in all residential area. And ABG picks up the story from Autocar and adds its own little brilliant addition to the story: its going to save fuel. Now how is it that a writer for the biggest little green blog in the land doesn’t know that cars are way less efficient at 20 mph than at their peak efficient speed of somewhere between 35 and 50? And there’s more; in fact this might well be a triple:
It’s not that 20 mph limits didn’t already exist in some cities, but they had to include calming devices like speed humps and chicanes. This proposal by the UK government would free cities to impose the limits city-wide, as was done in a recent trial in Portsmouth. Road safety minister Paul Clark explains:
We have seen that 20mph zones with traffic calming measures can make a real difference to the safety of local roads,” he said. “But we’ve also looked at the latest research and listened to councils and residents who want to introduce 20mph limits on a series of roads where physical traffic calming measures aren’t possible or practical.
“Allowing councils to put in place 20mph speed limits on more streets without speed humps or chicanes will mean that they can introduce them at a lower cost and with less inconvenience to local residents.”
AutoBlogGreen adds its insightful editorial perspective: “Besides saving a few gallons of fuel, these limits are being touted as a safety measure that can also encourage cycling and walking.”
Ok, I’ve passed second, and I’m going for third:
The government is also proposing that average speed cameras be used in residential areas to enforce the limits.
There it is! ABG, it’s not about saving fuel, but about making more money for the government coffers. Silly you.
Did I make it to third safe, or was that stretching it?
We have some 30km/h speed zones (20mph) and you’d swear you were standing still, it is so slow. It is almost impossible to drive that slow, and it will drive you crazy. It is one thing for a few blocks in a school zone, but to blanket residential areas with that speed is retarded.
I’ve lived in both the UK and the USA, and can note the following alarming differences between the two countries in terms of drivers (I could fill up your database storage allotments with diffs between the two countries overall!):
1. Americans are lousy drivers on Freeways. No lane discipline. Bad (or no) signaling. Poor use of mirrors. Complete lack of situational awareness.
1a. The British are generally good Motorway drivers. Not as good as Germans, but MUCH better than Americans in terms of the issues listed in 1. Brits drive fast, and well on their Motorways (M25 excepted.)
2. Americans (at least here on the west coast) are pretty good drivers in crowded urban/suburban areas. Courteous to pedestrians and bicyclists, generally. Keep speeds reasonable. Adapt to changing conditions. etc.
2a. The British drive like crap on anything smaller than a “B” road. Pedestrians (outside of zebra crossings) and bicyclists are fair game. No sense of personal space, at least beyond the car’s layers of paint (note the number of scraped and violently side-mirrorless cars in the UK!) Drive too fast on city streets. Situational awareness drops to zero once off the motorway.
It took me a while to understand this bizarre situation, but it is true. Not that I’m defending the proposals stated in the post, just an observation from afar.
You’re on the money, Chuck. I’m just back in the UK after a holiday in the US, and the differences you describe are exactly what I experienced there and here.
I find the in-town driving here in the UK particularly odd – it feels like everyone’s in a hurry the whole time, and as someone who cycles as much as drives (more, now that my old Saab 900 has gone to the crusher), it can be hair-raising at times. I suspect the basic problem is one of the available space: UK towns often have narrow, inconveniently laid-out streets when compared to your average post-automobile US grid layout…
It’s time for the formation of the International Federation of Motorists. The organisations’ prime aim is to put pressure on politicians to get real or be pushed out. Rise up brothers and sisters. take back what you have paid for, freedom and liberty.
You got your triple and a RBI.
Electronic governers linked to GPS or to cell tower based local speed limit emitters. No fines.
The worst mileage any car gets is at 0 mph.
Riiight. Good economy measure, cars in first or second gear get reallllly good mileage. I read so many stories like this about England that I think that country might be over the hill and unrecoverable…and it often seems to me that the United States is not far behind.
Why not simply require a person to walk in front of every moving vehicle and wave a red flag?
I think I have some throw up in my mouth.
I hardly ever read ABG, but it’s unsettling that they are that ignorant over there.
Yet another reason to leave the UK. You know what is the cheapest way to drive in the UK? Drive around in an unregistered car with no insurance. No speeding tickets, no need to tax it – and if the police ever do catch you the fines tend to be incredibly light. Jail time? You’re having a laugh. Think more like £150 – £300 per offence and 6 – 8 points on your license. I’ve watched plenty of people pass through magistrates courts be fined this little.
Now considering how ‘cheap’ it is to get caught compared to being bent over and shafted by HM government for car tax and speed tickets it’s no wonder that on last count an estimated 2 million drivers break the law by doing this.
That’s an interesting observation. A similar situation exists in Philadelphia except that the penalties when you get caught are much more draconian. But, depending on who you are, bypassing the system is still a better option that legality. And, of course, everyone who engages in any sort of illegal activity learned to use a throw-away car a long time ago.
As a cyclist I enjoy riding the 20 mph zones during quiet times on the road because I can ride at… 21 mph. Although 21 mph is slow in a car, it is fast by bike and it helps to have the whole lane to ride in, not just the gutter.
Most built up areas in the UK are over-done with cars and it is at the junctions that traffic builds up. During ‘rush’ hour (I don’t know why they call it that) there is not a lot of space left on the roads for people that are actually moving. The ‘moral majority’, sat in their little cars, obstruct the highway as if it was some daily protest against something. Little do they realise how dangerous they make the road for other users by blocking it, each and every day.
In London it is well known that the quickest way to get anywhere is by bicycle. Even if you do not know your route and have to take in a lot of ugly traffic, the bike will do 15-20 mph average speed. Meanwhile, the ‘horseless carriage’ makes do with 9 mph average, somewhat slower than the 11 mph average of a century ago.
The bike may not be for people that cannot face the world unless they have got their make-up on, it might not suit those that are afraid of the rain, however, it is the quickest way to get about in a British city. Parking is pretty easy too, saving more time. What is to be learned from cycling is that it is total journey time that matters, not top speeds en-route. Remember the tortoise and the hare? By cycling (where you will never get past 20 mph) one can save 8-10 hours a week on the journey times of a typical commute. As an added bonus there is all the exercise one needs and there isn’t the shame of ‘sitting in traffic’ (as motorists do).
Bring on the 20 mph zones, even if the Po-lice never enforce them. With so much rubbish (okay cars) on the roads the speed is limited by the junctions. It matters not what the speed is between queues for junctions as the journey time will be the same. By analogy, think of the Post Office queue on a busy day. If one were to run instead of shuffle slowly forward the queueing time would be the same.
I don’t buy you guys’ criticism.
Economy: your point is not proven, Paul. Or is it? Travelling at a smooth 20 is surely no less economical than at 40. The UK has thousands of roundabouts / traffic circles and when you’re travelling at 20, there’s less braking and accelerating to be done. (Obviously, the situation is different when you have a Hybrid). Hardly anybody is so dumb as to drive around in first gear at 20, just about everbody recognizes after a while that third is best.
Travel speed: as Tom Vanderbilt has noted (and his book has been reviewed *twice* by TTAC, and both reviews were very positive) urban traffic flows like rice, not like water. Driving fast increases congestion, just like when you try to force rice through a funnel. Studies have shown that overall urban travel speeds do not suffer much when speed limits are decreased.
Safety: go to around 20 (with modern, pedestrian-friendly cars), and you potentially *eliminate* pedestrian deaths. That’s nothing to throw your shoes at.
TTAC likes to kvetch about the UK. TTAC also likes to forget that the UK traffic regime has been exceedingly successful in reducing traffic deaths in the past decade. Too lazy right now to search for the source, but if I remember correctly, the US would have around 10k fewer deaths per year if it matched the UK’s safety standards.
The U.S. fatality rate (deaths per 100 million miles driven) is at a record low figure, and even the raw number of fatalities dropped dramatically this year. We’ve been very successful in reducing traffic fatalities, too.
I would wager that our higher rates have more to do with lower rates of safety belt use (the local paper lists whether those killed in accidents were wearing safety belts; about 90 percent were not) and deaths in more remote areas, where drunk driving is more common and accident responders must travel a greater distance to reach the victim.
As for studies showing that urban travel speeds do not decrease much when speed limits are decreased – that only proves that most people pay as little attention to speed limits in urban areas as they do on limited access highways. Traffic simply flows at its own rate.
ABGreen added the line on “saving gas” without any explanation or reference. I took it as a knee-jerk assumption that a reduction of speed always results in fuel savings. That simply is not true.
If there is evidence to show that a blanket reduction in speed limit to 20 somehow saves fuel, I’d be happy to see it and reconsider my position.
My general comment on the reduction of the speed limit is that it seems quite heavy handed to have it apply city-wide, without consideration of the variance in street design and natural traffic speed. 20 may be just right in a very congested area, but it may be insufferably slow in others.
Obviously, my reaction may be colored by the fact that our US cities are built very differently than in Europe. But here in Eugene, the city has gone mad with putting in speed bumps everywhere, which also clearly increase fuel consumption and increase noise levels and wear and tear.
Regarding reduction in traffic fatalities in the UK; good for them. I don’t know whether pedestrian fatalities are included in these numbers or not. But other than pedestrian fatalities, its hard to imagine reducing the limit from 30 or 25 down to 20 can have a meaningful impact on fatalities of passengers. It’s a bit hard to get killed at those speeds inside a modern car.
Reduction in fatalities 1979 – 2002:
US: -16.2%
UK: -46.0%
Source: Wikipedia “automobile safety”
Again, without having the facts, this may not be a useful or directly relevant piece of information. I do know that European fatalities were generally much higher in Europe in the sixties and seventies, due to conditions (fewer freeways) and the poor safety of small cars back then. The Europeans had much more opportunity for improvements than in the US.