6 ms·

Yeah I moved a short distance in London to an area that is all 20mph and for me the most noticeable change is the reduction in noise levels (the limits in the p

Yeah I moved a short distance in London to an area that is all 20mph and for me the most noticeable change is the reduction in noise levels (the limits in the previous area were generally 30mph). The new area feels so much more peaceful. It surprised me how much difference a 10mph drop makes.

matsemann 3y ago
It's also surprising how much safer that little speed change is for pedestrians/cyclists if they were to get hit. https://www.nullvisjonen-agder.no/images/grafikk/dodsrisiko-1.jpg https://www.nullvisjonen-agder.no/images/grafikk/dodsrisiko-... Speed in km/h vs death rate. From about 10% death (90% survival) at 30 km/h (~18mph) to about 80% death (only 20% survival!) at 50 km/h (~31 mph)
- mcv 3y ago
  I think this is by far the biggest reason for the preference for 30 km/h. Reduced noise and pollution are certainly nice, but killing far less people is huge.
  - anonymousDan 3y ago
    Sure, as a sometime cyclist I am not discounting that as a reason. I made the comment above as I found it was something that perhaps isn't mentioned as much but really does give an immediate quality of life improvement.
  - MandieD 3y ago
    It also gets people like me who are scared to ride a bike on the 50 km/h street to reconsider how they’re going to run to the grocery store to pick up stuff that can fit in a backpack, or to daycare. I default to doing both on bike, because the convenience outweighs any safety concerns, now that my neighborhood (suburban Nürnberg) is all 30 km/h. And my kid will be able to be more independent at age 10 than I was at 15 growing up in car-bound Texas.
  - pakitan 3y ago
    Why not reduce speed to 10km/h then? Even fewer people will be killed! This is the covid logic all over again. Let's lock everyone in their homes, we can't afford to have old people dying! Also, no, ICE cars generally don't pollute less at 30km/h, compared to 50km/h. Engine does the same work, just at lower gear.
    - phanimahesh 3y ago
      Let's make it so that cars don't have to dictate peoples movements so that people won't feel personally attacked by regulations slowing card around pedestrians, kids, and elderly in residential areas.
    - mcv 3y ago
      > Why not reduce speed to 10km/h then? Even fewer people will be killed! It depends on how the street is used. There are places where maximum speed is 10 km/h. I grew up in the street like that: a "woonerf", a residential area where the street is explicitly meant for playing children, and cars have to go at pedestrian speeds of 5 or 10 km/h. The goal these is to not lock up kids in their homes, but encourage them to play outside, which is great. These were fairly new but popular in the 1980s and late 1970s, but not so common anymore, sadly. 30 km/h is roughly the speed bicycle of bicycles and similar vehicles. Not suitable for playing kids, but more suitable for mixed through traffic. Driving through an entire city at 10 km/h would be as tedious as walking that entire distance, but 30 km/h is very doable.
      - Vinnl 3y ago
        Doesn't really affect your point, but AFAIK the maximum speed on a woonerf is 15 km/h.
    - Muromec 3y ago
      Ban ICE cars altogether while we are on it! https://www.amsterdam.nl/verkeer-vervoer/milieuzone-amsterdam/ https://www.amsterdam.nl/verkeer-vervoer/milieuzone-amsterda...
    - michaelhoney 3y ago
- MandieD 3y ago
  A 30 km/h car is also a lot less likely than a 50 km/h one to hit a cyclist or pedestrian in the first place - far shorter braking distance, and longer time for the slower mover to spot and avoid them. Also, as someone who is both a cyclist and a driver, there’s a bit less urgency and frustration to pass a 15-20 km/h bicycle when you’re only allowed to do 30 anyway than when the limit is 50.
- ricardobayes 3y ago
  I wish they would actually explain some of the decisions - I think everyone would understand and even perhaps advocate and wish for changes like this, instead of immediate pushback. Even in the most transparent of places, I don't really see decisionmakers explaining their decisions.
  - pjc50 3y ago
    No they wouldn't. We're deep into post-evidence politics. In all these cases the decisions have been explained, in the normal place, but that's too boring to share on social media so nobody hears it.
    - nvm0n2 3y ago
      The decisions haven't really been explained by the standards of explanation you might expect for such a move, at least not everywhere. In Wales the official explanation is: Welsh ministers said a 20mph (32km/h) limit would reduce deaths and noise and encourage people to walk or cycle [1]. Drakeford elaborated by saying "It's going to take you a minute longer to make your journey, and we will save 10 people's lives in Wales every year as a result of that one minute contribution - it doesn't seem an unfair bargain". This explanation is nonsensical: 1. It could just as well apply to a limit of 5mph, or 10mph, or banning cars completely. It explains the desire to lower the limit but not the choice of 20mph vs 30mph. 2. The claim is that it adds a "minute longer" to make your journey, a clearly confabulated number. Not all journeys are the same and lowering the speed limit nationally will clearly be a scaling factor to your journey time, not a constant minute regardless of distance. 3. The justification is a 100% subjective feeling that "it doesn't seem unfair". This isn't an explanation, just an emotion. When politicians serve up gibberish explanations, people tend to split down the middle. One half will assume that politicians are just being really stupid. Others will say that nobody can be that stupid, so there must be some alternative agenda at work. Certainly this looks to people like "post-evidence politics" albeit not in the way you probably imagine. It doesn't help that these people are socialists who have a long history of presenting one explanation for their policies whilst actually having another. When they're in friendly territory they tend to talk about how much they strongly desired things like enforced equality of outcomes, degrowth and reducing CO2 emissions, but they never talk about pedestrian safety. So when they impose policies that will clearly have the effect of reducing growth and car usage, but justify it with some new cause they hardly talked about before, it doubles up suspicion again. BTW the 20mph limit didn't appear in any manifesto. More people have now signed a petition against it than voted Labour in the first place. So they can't claim these policies are popular or democratic. [1] https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-wales-66774379 https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-wales-66774379

matsemann 3y ago

It's also surprising how much safer that little speed change is for pedestrians/cyclists if they were to get hit. https://www.nullvisjonen-agder.no/images/grafikk/dodsrisiko-1.jpg https://www.nullvisjonen-agder.no/images/grafikk/dodsrisiko-... Speed in km/h vs death rate. From about 10% death (90% survival) at 30 km/h (~18mph) to about 80% death (only 20% survival!) at 50 km/h (~31 mph)

mcv 3y ago
I think this is by far the biggest reason for the preference for 30 km/h. Reduced noise and pollution are certainly nice, but killing far less people is huge.
- anonymousDan 3y ago
  Sure, as a sometime cyclist I am not discounting that as a reason. I made the comment above as I found it was something that perhaps isn't mentioned as much but really does give an immediate quality of life improvement.
- MandieD 3y ago
  It also gets people like me who are scared to ride a bike on the 50 km/h street to reconsider how they’re going to run to the grocery store to pick up stuff that can fit in a backpack, or to daycare. I default to doing both on bike, because the convenience outweighs any safety concerns, now that my neighborhood (suburban Nürnberg) is all 30 km/h. And my kid will be able to be more independent at age 10 than I was at 15 growing up in car-bound Texas.
- pakitan 3y ago
  Why not reduce speed to 10km/h then? Even fewer people will be killed! This is the covid logic all over again. Let's lock everyone in their homes, we can't afford to have old people dying! Also, no, ICE cars generally don't pollute less at 30km/h, compared to 50km/h. Engine does the same work, just at lower gear.
  - phanimahesh 3y ago
    Let's make it so that cars don't have to dictate peoples movements so that people won't feel personally attacked by regulations slowing card around pedestrians, kids, and elderly in residential areas.
  - mcv 3y ago
    > Why not reduce speed to 10km/h then? Even fewer people will be killed! It depends on how the street is used. There are places where maximum speed is 10 km/h. I grew up in the street like that: a "woonerf", a residential area where the street is explicitly meant for playing children, and cars have to go at pedestrian speeds of 5 or 10 km/h. The goal these is to not lock up kids in their homes, but encourage them to play outside, which is great. These were fairly new but popular in the 1980s and late 1970s, but not so common anymore, sadly. 30 km/h is roughly the speed bicycle of bicycles and similar vehicles. Not suitable for playing kids, but more suitable for mixed through traffic. Driving through an entire city at 10 km/h would be as tedious as walking that entire distance, but 30 km/h is very doable.
    - Vinnl 3y ago
      Doesn't really affect your point, but AFAIK the maximum speed on a woonerf is 15 km/h.
  - Muromec 3y ago
    Ban ICE cars altogether while we are on it! https://www.amsterdam.nl/verkeer-vervoer/milieuzone-amsterdam/ https://www.amsterdam.nl/verkeer-vervoer/milieuzone-amsterda...
  - michaelhoney 3y ago
MandieD 3y ago
A 30 km/h car is also a lot less likely than a 50 km/h one to hit a cyclist or pedestrian in the first place - far shorter braking distance, and longer time for the slower mover to spot and avoid them. Also, as someone who is both a cyclist and a driver, there’s a bit less urgency and frustration to pass a 15-20 km/h bicycle when you’re only allowed to do 30 anyway than when the limit is 50.
ricardobayes 3y ago
I wish they would actually explain some of the decisions - I think everyone would understand and even perhaps advocate and wish for changes like this, instead of immediate pushback. Even in the most transparent of places, I don't really see decisionmakers explaining their decisions.
- pjc50 3y ago
  No they wouldn't. We're deep into post-evidence politics. In all these cases the decisions have been explained, in the normal place, but that's too boring to share on social media so nobody hears it.
  - nvm0n2 3y ago
    The decisions haven't really been explained by the standards of explanation you might expect for such a move, at least not everywhere. In Wales the official explanation is: Welsh ministers said a 20mph (32km/h) limit would reduce deaths and noise and encourage people to walk or cycle [1]. Drakeford elaborated by saying "It's going to take you a minute longer to make your journey, and we will save 10 people's lives in Wales every year as a result of that one minute contribution - it doesn't seem an unfair bargain". This explanation is nonsensical: 1. It could just as well apply to a limit of 5mph, or 10mph, or banning cars completely. It explains the desire to lower the limit but not the choice of 20mph vs 30mph. 2. The claim is that it adds a "minute longer" to make your journey, a clearly confabulated number. Not all journeys are the same and lowering the speed limit nationally will clearly be a scaling factor to your journey time, not a constant minute regardless of distance. 3. The justification is a 100% subjective feeling that "it doesn't seem unfair". This isn't an explanation, just an emotion. When politicians serve up gibberish explanations, people tend to split down the middle. One half will assume that politicians are just being really stupid. Others will say that nobody can be that stupid, so there must be some alternative agenda at work. Certainly this looks to people like "post-evidence politics" albeit not in the way you probably imagine. It doesn't help that these people are socialists who have a long history of presenting one explanation for their policies whilst actually having another. When they're in friendly territory they tend to talk about how much they strongly desired things like enforced equality of outcomes, degrowth and reducing CO2 emissions, but they never talk about pedestrian safety. So when they impose policies that will clearly have the effect of reducing growth and car usage, but justify it with some new cause they hardly talked about before, it doubles up suspicion again. BTW the 20mph limit didn't appear in any manifesto. More people have now signed a petition against it than voted Labour in the first place. So they can't claim these policies are popular or democratic. [1] https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-wales-66774379 https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-wales-66774379