Cycling UK Forum

Is there anyone left on this thread who is interested in the issue raised by the OP?
It's a pity there are no moderators to bring this thread back on topic, the 20mph campaign has reached a rather critical stage and Mark Ruskell the MSP who initiated the motion has written to supporters as follows...................

I urgently need your help. My Safer Streets Bill would save lives and make our communities safer, better places for all by reducing the default speed limit across Scotland from 30 to 20mph.
Take Action Now
Today SNP and Lib Dem MSPs on the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee teamed up with the Tories publishing a report recommending Parliament rejects my bill. The committee is divided however, with Green, Labour and a backbench SNP MSP supporting it.
This is hugely disappointing, particularly as my bill is backed by everyone from NHS Health Scotland to British Cycling, from Friends of the Earth to Guide Dogs.

My Bill will go to a vote in two weeks. That’s why I need you to write to the First Minister now and tell her that a misguided motoring lobby shouldn’t come before child safety and the greater good.

Write to the First Minister

Yours,

Mark Ruskell MSP

Yes. If Scotland adopts this policy, it might eventually filter down to England!

Ron wrote:Is there anyone left on this thread who is interested in the issue raised by the OP?
I
Write to the First Minister

I am, but I live to the south of the Cheviots.

birkhead wrote:I have just read the BBC news report on Welsh minister's support for making 20mph the default limit.
Could Cycling UK please launch a campaign to do this in Scotland, starting with an electronic letter writing campaign to MSPs

With the 20mph safer streets bill being rejected by the Scottish parliament this week, it might be a good time to launch a campaign whilst 20mph is still in the news.

Why 20 mph, why not 10 mph ....
How many of the accidents that occur in 30 mph areas are caused by vehicles exceeding the speed limit ?
So the accident rate will stay the same but the causial vehicles will just be breaking the speed limit by a greater margin ?
What does the data say ... after all there must be loads .....?
The Scottish Govt must have had reasons not to proceed.

landsurfer wrote:Why 20 mph, why not 10 mph ....
How many of the accidents that occur in 30 mph areas are caused by vehicles exceeding the speed limit ?
So the accident rate will stay the same but the causial vehicles will just be breaking the speed limit by a greater margin ?
What does the data say ... after all there must be loads .....?
The Scottish Govt must have had reasons not to proceed.

10mph would be good, but drivers have a strong lobby and are unreasonably impatient. 20 mph is a compromise.
The government ran a series of adverts explaining why it is good to restrain speed. It gives more time to avoid and brake and reduces the severity of impacts.
Drivers, in their selfish hurry, still break the limit, but are doing a lesser speed when they do.
The data says that these zones reduce accidents.
The Scottish Government is, like all governments, under much pressure from drivers and the motor lobby, and most of its members are drivers too.
Why not reduce speed limits? The streets would be more pleasant quieter and less stressful for the slow and impulsive.
What is it about driving that makes drivers so impatient? I see drivers (who have been breaking speed limits) amble across the car park to the supermarket. Why do so many drive so close to the car in front? Why is it so unbearable to slow down behind a bike and wait for a safe overtaking opportunity?
A 20 mph limit would enable law abiding drivers who are considerate of others to drive slowly (at a speed I find fast on my bike) without feeling pressured into going too fast.

landsurfer wrote:Why 20 mph, why not 10 mph ....
How many of the accidents that occur in 30 mph areas are caused by vehicles exceeding the speed limit ?
So the accident rate will stay the same but the causial vehicles will just be breaking the speed limit by a greater margin ?
What does the data say ... after all there must be loads .....?
The Scottish Govt must have had reasons not to proceed.

The streets should be for people, not cars. It is uncivilised to have traffic doing 30 mph, usually rather more, in proximity to people.

Mike Sales wrote:

landsurfer wrote:Why 20 mph, why not 10 mph ....
How many of the accidents that occur in 30 mph areas are caused by vehicles exceeding the speed limit ?
So the accident rate will stay the same but the causial vehicles will just be breaking the speed limit by a greater margin ?
What does the data say ... after all there must be loads .....?
The Scottish Govt must have had reasons not to proceed.

10mph would be good, but drivers have a strong lobby and are unreasonably impatient. 20 mph is a compromise.
The government ran a series of adverts explaining why it is good to restrain speed. It gives more time to avoid and brake and reduces the severity of impacts.
Drivers, in their selfish hurry, still break the limit, but are doing a lesser speed when they do.
The data says that these zones reduce accidents.
The Scottish Government is, like all governments, under much pressure from drivers and the motor lobby, and most of its members are drivers too.
Why not reduce speed limits? The streets would be more pleasant quieter and less stressful for the slow and impulsive.
What is it about driving that makes drivers so impatient? I see drivers (who have been breaking speed limits) amble across the car park to the supermarket. Why do so many drive so close to the car in front? Why is it so unbearable to slow down behind a bike and wait for a safe overtaking opportunity?
A 20 mph limit would enable law abiding drivers who are considerate of others to drive slowly (at a speed I find fast on my bike) without feeling pressured into going too fast.

Thanks Mike that makes sense, personally i'm a 20 mph driver in housing areas as i'm always preparing for the child running out from behind the parked cars.

Best if motors were limited to a lower speed than cyclists
Going slower than the maximum speed limit is fine in theory, it would be better if normal drivers could be prevented from overtaking but often it 'provokes' them into overtaking (at more than the maximum speed limit) minusminus

landsurfer wrote:The Scottish Govt must have had reasons not to proceed.

I would suggest it might have had something to do with the make up of the RE&C committee who deliberated on the Bill, one wonders if they were asked to declare an interest before discussions commenced. Questions like how many miles have you cycled in the past ten years, how many in the past year, similarly for driving.
The chairman of the committee stated during the meeting that the real danger on the roads was those cyclists who do 40mph, which caused me to have doubts as to his impartiality.

Ron wrote:[
The chairman of the committee stated during the meeting that the real danger on the roads was those cyclists who do 40mph, which caused me to have doubts as to his impartiality.

Or even his grip on reality .... 40mph .... not even at my TT peak ....