20mph residential speed limit (replacing 30mph)

It's fundamentally exploitative a rarely are the 20 limits I now see circumstantially based. I't slike the rad lefties are just taking over everything that used to make sense and allow some progress and turning it all into a mire of ridiculous.
 
jpaul said:
you are right - experience cars sitting on my shoulder waiting for a gap and then crawl past too close.
Click to expand...

I'm surprised they even wait - recently was a cyclist on the main road in front of me and I think only one out of about a dozen cars ahead didn't just brush past and I got beeped at for waiting for an appropriate place to go past with sufficient space and then I could see most vehicles behind me not even budging over.
 
What a bunch of bloody cry babies. If the limit is 20 then stick to 20. If you don't like it get the law changed.
 
What is this thread about?
There are speed limits of 70,60,50,40,30 and 20mph.
Are people complaining that 20mps is "too low?"
If so, talk to your MP - democracy in action...
(yes I have a speed limiter and use it in 20mph zones)
 
gEd said:
Are people complaining that 20mps is "too low?"
Click to expand...

No - people are complaining about inappropriate implementation of 20 MPH limits and hoping not to see more widespread use of them based on agendas/wrong reasons. Pretty much no one has a problem when they are used appropriately to protect higher than normal risk areas.
 
Last edited:
Rroff said:
No - people are complaining about inappropriate implementation of 20 MPH limits and hoping not to see more widespread use of them based on agendas/wrong reasons. Pretty much no one has a problem when they are used appropriately to protect higher than normal risk areas.
Click to expand...
Exactly. Near a school? No problem. In an accident prone area? Sure. Down a narrow residential street? OK.

But they have been rolled out as blanket default speed limits across some entire areas which is not OK.
 
This thread feels like it’s mostly populated by a bunch of people who are trying to feel better about breaking the speed limit by having a “group think” moment.

The answer that it’s not.
You’re not only breaking the law, you’re also setting an example that it’s OK to ignore rules of the road. Driving standards have seemingly gone to poop. My guess is that the lemmings have seen enough examples by “the entitled” and believe that they should do the same.

I wouldn’t mind, but where I live, it’s difficult to maintain a 20mph average, meaning that the entitled don’t get to their destination any faster, just to the next red light or traffic queue.
 
Mr_Sukebe said:
This thread feels like it’s mostly populated by a bunch of people who are trying to feel better about breaking the speed limit by having a “group think” moment.

The answer that it’s not.
You’re not only breaking the law, you’re also setting an example that it’s OK to ignore rules of the road. Driving standards have seemingly gone to poop. My guess is that the lemmings have seen enough examples by “the entitled” and believe that they should do the same.

I wouldn’t mind, but where I live, it’s difficult to maintain a 20mph average, meaning that the entitled don’t get to their destination any faster, just to the next red light or traffic queue.
Click to expand...

near half a million in Wales have signed a petition wanting it gone and there are only 1.6 million drivers in Wales so it is a large chunk and does not include all those who did not sign it for various reasons. Calling people lemmings and entitled is not an accurate description of what is happening in these zones in Wales.
 
Last edited:
Mr_Sukebe said:
This thread feels like it’s mostly populated by a bunch of people who are trying to feel better about breaking the speed limit by having a “group think” moment.
Click to expand...
People who are happy to speed won't care about a 20mph speed limit. They will still speed whether it is 30 or 20. It's the rest of us, that don't speed, that are most affected by the unreasonably low limit in some areas.
 
Nasher said:
20mph a cyclist is probably going to hurt more than a car. Soft plastic bumper and large thin metal surface area on a car, or a solid skull and thin metal bars on cycle.
Click to expand...

Like being hit by the bony knuckles of a twelve year old girl will hurt more than Tyson Fury's big soft boxing glove?

Ignoring basic concepts of physics such as mass and kinetic energy, obviously.
 
Brun said:
Like being hit by the bony knuckles of a twelve year old girl will hurt more than Tyson Fury's big soft boxing glove?

Ignoring basic concepts of physics such as mass and kinetic energy, obviously.
Click to expand...

There is a reason boxing gloves are used, even though they add weight behind a punch. I'd rather be hit by a large deformable thing than a metal bar or a skull at equal speeds.
 
Last edited:
A bike will hit you with considerably less energy and have considerably less inertia than a car. If you can’t see why that would be advantageous, I’d suggest you go back to school then to learn more about physics ;)

The bike can slow down and stop quicker and is likely to be going slower at the point of impact. Likewise the bike is considerably less ‘solid’ than a car, its parts and riders are all on leavers which move and deflect the forces on impact.

It’s rider and the pedestrian are likely to have better visibility of each other and avoid each other altogether.
 
b0rn2sk8 said:
A bike will hit you with considerably less energy and have considerably less inertia than a car. If you can’t see why that would be advantageous, I’d suggest you go back to school then to learn more about physics ;)

The bike can slow down and stop quicker and is likely to be going slower at the point of impact. Likewise the bike is considerably less ‘solid’ than a car, its parts and riders are all on leavers which move and deflect the forces on impact.

It’s rider and the pedestrian are likely to have better visibility of each other and avoid each other altogether.
Click to expand...

Actually a car can stop in a shorter distance, often much shorter. The brakes are far more powerful relative to their weight and they have ABS.

If you brake checked a cyclist at around 30mph, even with a couple of cars gap, they are going in to the back of you :p
 
Last edited:
b0rn2sk8 said:
A bike will hit you with considerably less energy and have considerably less inertia than a car. If you can’t see why that would be advantageous, I’d suggest you go back to school then to learn more about physics ;)

The bike can slow down and stop quicker and is likely to be going slower at the point of impact. Likewise the bike is considerably less ‘solid’ than a car, its parts and riders are all on leavers which move and deflect the forces on impact.

It’s rider and the pedestrian are likely to have better visibility of each other and avoid each other altogether.
Click to expand...
Bit of a check here, cars are designed to absorb pedestrian energy. Bikes arn't, locallised pressure of a handle bar on a child skull is likely to be worse than a soft deformable bumper and bonnet surface.

You dont need to go back to school to learn about Physics, you are getting a free lesson from me.

jpaul you can Google VPI for a few hours to keep you quiet.
 
Last edited:
Nasher said:
Actually a car can stop in a shorter distance, often much shorter. The brakes are far more powerful relative to their weight and they have ABS.
Click to expand...

True, but nothing to do with braking power. Even a rim brake on a bike has enough power to lift the back wheel off the ground, which is the point of maximum deceleration. Better brakes or more grip won't help at all. The limit is due to the relatively high centre of gravity, bracing the arms and keeping the weight as far back as possible increases it.

I looked up the numbers a while back and a cyclist can manage about 0.5G before the point where they go over the handlebars. Typical cars can manage between 0.7 and 1G.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom