Cycling UK Forum

Apologies if this has been raised already, but there's a new (to me) EU citizen's campaign here.

IMO one of the main problems with 20 mph limits (ie approx 30kmh in old money) is that the police have more or less said that they won't enforce them. Just the sort of issue that you new local sheriff (AKA police and crime commissioner) is supposed to be going to deal with - so long as enough people say what they think.

thirdcrank wrote:IMO one of the main problems with 20 mph limits (ie approx 30kmh in old money) is that the police have more or less said that they won't enforce them.

Round here they've said similar about some new 30mph limits

A limit of 20mph could be enforced if the motorist in front drove at that speed. All those behind would be limited, assuming the appropriate traffic calming measures were in force. It only takes one responsible driver to observe the law.

Personally, in residential areas I do drive at much less than 30. With kids pets and old folk around I think its sensible, 30 is too fast. I am sure that this irritates some other drivers however that's their problem, 30 is the maximum.

al_yrpal wrote:Personally, in residential areas I do drive at much less than 30. With kids pets and old folk around I think its sensible, 30 is too fast. I am sure that this irritates some other drivers however that's their problem, 30 is the maximum.

Me too,30 is the max and less if I think it necessary.

Most laws can't be enforced. We obey them by mutual consent. All successful road safety laws have worked this way; drink, seatbelts, speeding and eventually phones. The chances of actually getting caught is exceedingly slim and getting slimmer.

hexhome wrote:Most laws can't be enforced. We obey them by mutual consent. All successful road safety laws have worked this way; drink, seatbelts, speeding and eventually phones. The chances of actually getting caught is exceedingly slim and getting slimmer.

While I'd agree with some of that, the implication seems to be that enforcement is unnecessary to the point of being futile. It seems to me that the lack of traffic enforcement has led to the situation that motivated this thread. If everybody behaved properly, we'd not need speed limits, never mind enforcement. One of the problems with judging the speed at which to drive is that the person making the decision usually has a personal interest in going faster. Any absence of casualties is taken as justifying greater speed, when it often merely means that the potential casualties have either kept off the roads, or their parents etc have taken that decision on thier behalf.

Afaik, after representations by ACPO, the govt originally only agreed to the introduction of 20mph speed limits on the basis that they must be self-enforcing. That sounds OK, but IMO it's nonsense. At the operational level here's an example: a dozen years ago, several of us local cycle campaigners had a meeting with the Highways Agency "cycling officer." When challenged about the level set in the HA's speed limits, he told us that as part of a safety assessment on the A65 (not directly related to cycling) he had proposed reducing some speed limits and the local traffic "chief" - a sergeant - had told him he could introduce whatever speed limit he liked but it would not be enforced.

"Blackburns's Case" established that nobody can tell the police which laws to enforce. I'll suggest it's absurd that one arm of the state, in this case the highway authorities should establish that restrictions on driving are necessary and another, the police, should decide whether anything will be done about it. PCC's are a step towards addressing this. It seems to me that the only logical approach is to empower highway authorities to police their own traffic management schemes. This is slowly coming in anyway.

It's worth remembering that the significance of 20mph is that this is the speed beyond which people have a rapidly reducing chance of surviving "being in collision with" a vehicle. The people most adversely affected by the present situation are working class children.

hexhome wrote:Most laws can't be enforced. We obey them by mutual consent. All successful road safety laws have worked this way; drink, seatbelts, speeding and eventually phones. The chances of actually getting caught is exceedingly slim and getting slimmer.

But police forces could take the reporting of offenders(for whatever crime)seriously,something that is sadly lacking.
They could also make life difficult for known persistent offenders who,though can't be caught are reported on a regular basis.
I know of two people who would still be alive today had the police been vigilant and targeted the known behaviour of one individual.

thirdcrank wrote:

hexhome wrote:Most laws can't be enforced. We obey them by mutual consent. All successful road safety laws have worked this way; drink, seatbelts, speeding and eventually phones. The chances of actually getting caught is exceedingly slim and getting slimmer.

While I'd agree with some of that, the implication seems to be that enforcement is unnecessary to the point of being futile. It seems to me that the lack of traffic enforcement has led to the situation that motivated this thread. If everybody behaved properly, we'd not need speed limits, never mind enforcement. One of the problems with judging the speed at which to drive is that the person making the decision usually has a personal interest in going faster. Any absence of casualties is taken as justifying greater speed, when it often merely means that the potential casualties have either kept off the roads, or their parents etc have taken that decision on thier behalf.

Afaik, after representations by ACPO, the govt originally only agreed to the introduction of 20mph speed limits on the basis that they must be self-enforcing. That sounds OK, but IMO it's nonsense. At the operational level here's an example: a dozen years ago, several of us local cycle campaigners had a meeting with the Highways Agency "cycling officer." When challenged about the level set in the HA's speed limits, he told us that as part of a safety assessment on the A65 (not directly related to cycling) he had proposed reducing some speed limits and the local traffic "chief" - a sergeant - had told him he could introduce whatever speed limit he liked but it would not be enforced.

"Blackburns's Case" established that nobody can tell the police which laws to enforce. I'll suggest it's absurd that one arm of the state, in this case the highway authorities should establish that restrictions on driving are necessary and another, the police, should decide whether anything will be done about it. PCC's are a step towards addressing this. It seems to me that the only logical approach is to empower highway authorities to police their own traffic management schemes. This is slowly coming in anyway.

It's worth remembering that the significance of 20mph is that this is the speed beyond which people have a rapidly reducing chance of surviving "being in collision with" a vehicle. The people most adversely affected by the present situation are working class children.

I shall not bite at the last sentence because I understand exactly what you mean despite classless (thanks bicycle )

I am broadly in agreement. I would much rather that sensible driver behaviour was enforced and encouraged by a large force of Traffic Officers (of the jam sandwich variety). Unfortunately, the fact is that unless PC Angus Nairn should come along I am able to use my mobile phone with impunity (until I have an accident). The same situation is now prevalent in all traffic violations. It is the general public who recognise that a practice is unacceptable and in effect, police it.

In my direct and obviously short experience, PCCs are not interested in roads Policing, it is not sexy enough politically. They will be focusing on crimes against the person (particularly sex crimes at the moment) and crimes against property. The fact that most of us are much more likely to be injured in a road accident than burgled is of no interest to them.

My conclusion is that the attitude of we the public is changing driver behaviour. People will react to another driver using a mobile phone, they will no longer condone and encourage drink driving, and increasingly they will no longer accept speeding in an urban environment. I believe that it is a considerable majority of the general public who have signalled approval of the 20 mph limits to the surprise of their political representatives. I hope that my optimism for the future of driver behaviour is not misplaced, but I do see an improvement over the last decade or so.

reohn2 wrote:

hexhome wrote:Most laws can't be enforced. We obey them by mutual consent. All successful road safety laws have worked this way; drink, seatbelts, speeding and eventually phones. The chances of actually getting caught is exceedingly slim and getting slimmer.

But police forces could take the reporting of offenders(for whatever crime)seriously,something that is sadly lacking.
They could also make life difficult for known persistent offenders who,though can't be caught are reported on a regular basis.
I know of two people who would still be alive today had the police been vigilant and targeted the known behaviour of one individual.

My experience is similar, except that whilst the Police have taken an active interest, there is rarely sufficient evidence to take any action beyond words. The public are now more likely to report driving offences to often good effect. The reality of the situation is that there are not enough Police resources to cope.

hexhome wrote:My experience is similar, except that whilst the Police have taken an active interest, there is rarely sufficient evidence to take any action beyond words. The public are now more likely to report driving offences to often good effect. The reality of the situation is that there are not enough Police resources to cope.

My experience of the police in recent years has been very negative,as a law abiding citizen who would always report crime if I saw it happening,to the situation where I now think,what's the point,nothing will be done about it.
Their lack of response to even very serious and potentially life threatening situations has been,frankly,unbelievable,I can only think that other formerly diligent citizens have come to the same conclusion.
I agree there isn't anywhere near enough police resources and as a result society is the worse for it.
Trying to put myself in the shoes of a serving police officer,I would imagine my morale would be in those shoes.
IMHO the blaim for this can only be laid at the shortsightedness of the politrickal classes and their insistance of the removal of funds for what is a fundemental need in a modern increasingly immoral and crime ridden society.
Let's not leave the CPS out of this either or the lenient sentencing structure handed down by them.
Crazy is the only term I can think of but,to coin a phrase,what can we expect from people who know the cost of everything and the value of nothing

reohn2 wrote:Let's not leave the CPS out of this either or the lenient sentencing structure handed down by them.

I think that you will have to, they are not responsible for sentencing.

hexhome wrote:

reohn2 wrote:Let's not leave the CPS out of this either or the lenient sentencing structure handed down by them.

I think that you will have to, they are not responsible for sentencing.

I didn't say they were.

reohn2 wrote:

hexhome wrote:

reohn2 wrote:Let's not leave the CPS out of this either or the lenient sentencing structure handed down by them.

I think that you will have to, they are not responsible for sentencing.

I didn't say they were.

Well seeing as it's the panto season - Oh yes you did

The Crown Prosecution Service was set up in 1986 to prosecute criminal cases investigated by the police in England and Wales. In undertaking this role, the CPS:

Advises the police on cases for possible prosecution
Reviews cases submitted by the police for prosecution
Where the decision is to prosecute, determines the charge in the more serious and complex cases
Prepares cases for court
Presents those cases at court