Well, we've had six months of the new speed limits and Portsmouth hasn't ground to a halt. Now how about Hampshire County Council showing a bit of bottle and bringing in similar curbs in suburban areas where they're desperately needed. Then maybe parents would feel their children could walk or cycle safely to school and learn a bit about the world outside the confines of a motor car.

Why are we the only country being taken over by this political nonsense?

Johnny, thats coz Portsmouth is the first. It has already worked well, and is NOT nonsense.

Hit a child at 40MPH there a 80% chance they will die.
Hit them at 30MPH theres a 20% chance they will die
Hit them at 20MPH there a 2% chance they will die.

THIS IS NOT NONSENSE.

Reduce speed - Speed Kills. The goverment have been saying it for years! Yet people like you Johnny just dont listen do you. So you have to be told once and for all!

This is now being considered by council all over the country. And yes it works!

You hit a child in one of these 20MPH zones whilst speeding, just wait and see what happens.

Hi.

20 MPH speed Limits. It's the drivers that exceed the speed limit that kill, maime & destroy families lives. But, Just how do the powers that be expect to enforce the new lower speed limits then? When they struggled to enforce the original 30MPH speed limit. How many drivers will reduce speed in the busy narrow streets of Portsmouth? Some maybe but not all will. Sadly tho, I hope they learn the hard way.

Mick-B

Hi.
An afterthought. Maybe the 20 MPH speed limit will give cyclists on the streets of Portsmouth a chance to be safer on the roads.

Mick-B.

Mick-b,
As I said before, if you hit someone and kill them in one of these 20 zones whilst speeding, you'll have a lot of problem proving that you where doing under the speed limit! Therefore the driver will loose their license, probably go to jail, and won't be on the road for some time.

The police might not want to enforce the limit, but that makes no difference to the law. It's a bit like most criminals getting away with it, it's only when they get caught in the act they get done for there crimes.

Nothing new then.

Yes this won't stop people getting killed by someone who wishes to break the law, they don't even need a car for that!

Oh and yes, cycling in a 20 zone means that faster cyclists can take center lane without any problems. This makes cycling far more safer.

We must treat these new limits with caution. Ideally, speed limits are to be respected; these should be used to ensure a driver's actions remain predictable to all other road users. The problem is that too many are set unecessarily low (to significantly below reasonable driving speeds) so taking away from the preceived necessity where they are really needed ('crying wolf' if you wish) - it is no wonder that so many drivers continue to exceed them, both deliberately and accidentally.

This policy rides on the back of the misinformation and fallacies spouted by the camera parnerships regarding speed camera effectiveness (RTTM, bias on selection - google them). What we really need is for ALL road users to understand why they need to be considerate and predictable. Bringing back the Green Cross Code would be a good place to start - not walking in the path of a vehicle would bring the fatality level to 0%.

I support Safespeed.org.uk

Thanks Smeegy,

Just your point about 'significantly below reasonable driving speeds'. What is a reasonable driving speed?

10MPH is faster than walking. That therefore must be reasonable (i.e. your going faster than a pedestrian). It's this reasonable speed thing you talk about thats at fault. Drivers think what they are doing is reasonable and therefore break the speed limit!

Another point, when a child steps in front of a car you are saying they do it on purpose? These are children we are on about, they don't always look, and we shouldn't expect them to know (there still learning). So that's why the speed limit is there to stop people killing one another. It has nothing todo with how fast you would like to reasonably drive, but what speed is safe for all road users (including pedestrians)

The policy dosen't ride on the back of miss information , see my post above about speeds and percentage of deaths , this is fact get it right!

I dont support SafeSpeed or anyother web site set up by a non gov party. I support what is happening to save LIFES. Simple ehh.

A reasonable driving speed is one which everyone can reasonably be expected to safely navigate the roads, whilst remaining predictable, without undue impedance to any party. Previous studies have shown that a great majority of drivers will choose to drive at the safest speeds - without any speed limit in force (those who choose the 85% percentile speed are the safest).

Many of the new 20mph zones are absolutely fine, but given the current propaganda I worry that these will/have creep into inappropriate areas. Take the 30mph DCs in Southampton for example - some of those are totally inappropriate; worse still they lead to disrespect of limits in general - this is the problem. To address your point: the problem isn't when a few nutters think they can exceed the limit - it IS when the great majority can justify doing it, as well as actually doing so without posing risk (on a given stretch of road).

Of course children do not step out in front of cars on purpose, you commited a strawman fallacy whilst dodging my point. They must be educated to minimise the possibility of them doing it, accidentally or otherwise; Where there is doubt then they must be supervised. This is what guardians are for - anything less is neglect!

I did read your post and I had responded accordingly; I noticed you hadn't acknowledged my two critical points: (the former being the response) about other neglected road safety policies, and RTTM and 'bias on selection' - the latter is the misinformation. You believe you are supporting policies which are saving lives, the fact is that current policy has severly eroded what was a good, well balanced policy where boundaries of responsibilities were fair, just and properly enforced; now we have a one-sided focus on what is a lesser contributiry factor of all collisions. Recent DfT figures show that 5% of all collisions involve a driver exceeding the speed limit (amongst other contributory factors) and that includes joyriders and other criminals.
I

Continuing:

I call for more trafpol, yet it is well known their numbers are being replaced by automated means; those remaining are having their efforts diverted to areas which have little positive impact - that cannot ever be considered to be a good thing.

This is nowhere near as simple as the public have fooled into believing.
PS, I have no problem with speed limits or their enforcement, I'm concerned that they're not used correctly and are being abused by the few who have vested interests. I'm just like you: I don't want nutters tearing past me at xxx mph; the difference is I've done a lot of research into the field so I understand the underlying driving forces (no pun intended). I even own a speed camera!!!!!