CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Infrastructure

'Self enforcing' 20 mph zones

(7 posts)
  • Started 11 years ago by Charterhall
  • Latest reply from Dave

No tags yet.


  1. Charterhall
    Member

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-25407233

    "The five trials are being proposed will seek to improve road safety generally, but we expect them to bring specific benefits for vulnerable road users, such as older people and cyclists."

    "The proposal does not include traffic calming measures. The limits are to be "largely self-enforcing""

    So if these are going to provide such benefit, and will require only limited infrastructure changes, perhaps simply a new sign, why have so many towns been ruled out ?

    "Pilot schemes in a number of other locations were considered, but rejected as being "ineffective or impractical".Those not going forward to consultation are: Keith, Nairn, Inveraray, Golspie, Callander, Springholm, Crocketford, Aberlour and Cromdale."

    Posted 11 years ago #

  2. minus six
    Member

    The limits are to be "largely self-enforcing"

    that should average out at around 34mph, then

    Posted 11 years ago #

  3. Charlethepar
    Member

    'Largely self-enforcing'

    I suggest whatever genius came up with this tries driving at 20mph where marked in Holyrood park or the South Edinburgh zone. They'll find bampots right on their tail, looking to overtake, even where lights and traffic give no prospect of actually getting anywhere any sooner. Can be a joy to watch the bampots' faces, though. Sometimes I think their heads will simply explode with frustration at having to drive within the legal limit.

    Posted 11 years ago #

  4. slowcoach
    Member

    'The limits are to be "largely self-enforcing".' that normally means traffic calming or the existing layout is such that it is very difficult to go faster than the limit.
    '"The proposed pilot areas should not require significant engineering or police enforcement to support their operation ...' = they are not going to get any new traffic calming or extra policing, so the speeds are probably already in the low 20s.
    'we expect them to bring specific benefits for vulnerable road users,...' = 'people might feel safer with lower speeds on the signs, but the traffic won't be be made to go any slower'??

    Posted 11 years ago #

  5. sallyhinch
    Member

    They've listed the reasons why some places have been ruled out here. 'Not enough bodies' seems to be the reason in many cases.

    POP's take

    Posted 11 years ago #

  6. PS
    Member

    There's a bit of Langholm that I can see being self-enforcing because the road narrows as you go past the town hall to the extent that there is a "give way to oncoming traffic sign" for the southbound traffic, but that's about it. Nothing to really make you slow to 20mph otherwise.

    Posted 11 years ago #

  7. Dave
    Member

    There are two ways to look at this.

    Because it's not enforced you could argue that it's a waste of time. However, we saw from the southside pilot that speeds were significantly reduced (despite people still speeding) and there were no associated costs beyond a few pennies at the start.

    If someone is run down by a car going > 20mph they'll potentially enjoy an extra advantage in the legal/compensation process.

    Getting something for nothing is usually seen as a great deal.

    Posted 11 years ago #

RSS feed for this topic

Reply

You must log in to post.


Video embedded using Easy Video Embed plugin