this post was submitted on 16 Sep 2023
162 points (93.5% liked)

Fuck Cars

12902 readers
459 users here now

A place to discuss problems of car centric infrastructure or how it hurts us all. Let's explore the bad world of Cars!

Rules

1. Be CivilYou may not agree on ideas, but please do not be needlessly rude or insulting to other people in this community.

2. No hate speechDon't discriminate or disparage people on the basis of sex, gender, race, ethnicity, nationality, religion, or sexuality.

3. Don't harass peopleDon't follow people you disagree with into multiple threads or into PMs to insult, disparage, or otherwise attack them. And certainly don't doxx any non-public figures.

4. Stay on topicThis community is about cars, their externalities in society, car-dependency, and solutions to these.

5. No repostsDo not repost content that has already been posted in this community.

Moderator discretion will be used to judge reports with regard to the above rules.

Posting Guidelines

In the absence of a flair system on lemmy yet, let’s try to make it easier to scan through posts by type in here by using tags:

Recommended communities:

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

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

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] TWeaK@lemm.ee 11 points 2 years ago (2 children)

But the UK just released that 85% of drivers exceed 20 limits - particularly in roads that were not designed and don't "feel" like 20 mph roads.

These reductions in speed limits are primarily political, while corruptly funneling money to overpriced contractors and police running deceptive speed traps. They serve to give brownie points to the people patting themselves on the back for doing it, meanwhile they do nothing to actually make the road work properly. They'll just slap a new sign on and paint some lines which flow worse than a 6 year old's scribble.

[–] bilboswaggings@sopuli.xyz 6 points 2 years ago (1 children)

But the limits are assigned so that pedestrians don't have to feel what it's like to be ran over

[–] TWeaK@lemm.ee 1 points 2 years ago (2 children)

No, they're not. The limits are assigned so politicians can pat themselves on the back and maybe score some votes. Sometimes also so some new speed trap locations can be created, catching people out in areas where the road feels like it has a higher speed limit (although this is perhaps less true for 20 zones).

If the goal was safety for pedestrians then a hell of a lot more should be done than just messing with the speed limit. Like, actually altering the road and including traffic calming measures - like the official recommendations for 20 limits state - and also providing ongoing training for drivers.

[–] ForgotAboutDre@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Speed limit reductions are often unpopular.

This policy is clearly evidence based. Not playing politics. It's why the conservatives oppose it. They take contrarian positions to fuel outrage, that keeps people voting against their best interest.

[–] TWeaK@lemm.ee 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

It's clearly not evidenced based, because the most recent evidence says that just slapping a 20 sign on a road built for 30 isn't good enough and leads to massive noncompliance.

[–] ForgotAboutDre@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago (1 children)
[–] TWeaK@lemm.ee 0 points 2 years ago

It's far better and I think far more effective to train competence in drivers.

[–] bilboswaggings@sopuli.xyz 1 points 2 years ago

You are right in the sense that they are popular, but only when compared to the idea of altering infrastructure because speedlimits cost less than building stuff

Increasing the speedlimit is way more popular, hell more people would probably want them removed altogether than decreased

[–] DrCake@lemmy.world 4 points 2 years ago (1 children)

I get your point about drivers exceeding the limit anyway. They trialed the 20mph in our area and on some roads it doesn’t feel like anything has changed.

Hopefully with this put in place first, they can then target areas where people are over and have the legal “backing” to add traffic calming.

[–] TWeaK@lemm.ee 2 points 2 years ago (1 children)

I detailed it more in one of my other comments and the government data and graphs can be found here, but yeah the real non-compliance happens when roads are reduced without traffic calming measures. Which basically shows that reducing the speed limit on its own does nothing but criminalise road users.

I doubt that noncompliance can effectively be used to deliver further measures beyond speed limit reductions. Rather, people are going to say "See, your blanket 20 limit doesn't work, you should undo it".

Ultimately I see this as a very cheap but ineffective method at achieving its purported goals, but it's very visual and very cheap so politically it's fantastic.

[–] ForgotAboutDre@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

No, only criminals would be criminalised. These speed changes would be sign posted. A lack of traffic calming doesn't justify speeding.

These changes will bring down the average speed of cars. This difference has a big impact on reducing the likelihood a child dies from an impact. It also reduces the likelihood of an impact occuring.

Your argument of the change won't reap the most benefit so we might as well do nothing is shortsighted. I could be your not shortsighted, rather you don't care and do want any change that might inconvenience cars.

[–] TWeaK@lemm.ee 2 points 2 years ago

They actually wouldn't be sign posted, the whole point of the change is that the un-posted speed limit will now be 20 instead of 30. So you may see a 20 sign on the entry to the area, but there will be no requirement for repeater signs.

A lack of traffic calming doesn't justify speeding, no. But the official recommendations for 20 limit areas recommend installing traffic calming measures and generally making the road feel like a 20 road. You're supposed to design a road with a speed limit in mind, changing the limit should involve more than just changing one or two signs.

It's not that I don't care, I don't recognise the significance of the effect, and I don't think they're putting in the effort they should be. 20 zones are good and can be effective in a lot of places, but they don't belong everywhere Wales has a 30 limit. Furthermore, this change by the Welsh Senedd puts all the responsibility onto councils to correct the new 20 zones that should have remained 30, at their own expense, with no further funding. What the Welsh Senedd should be doing is giving more authority to councils to create 20 zones where appropriate. Let them reduce the speed limits where it's needed.