Has 20mph made our roads safer?

[North Cardiff Blue]

I have always said that, if my 11-year-old son got run over on a road and the driver wasn't to blame (dangerous driving, driving under the influence or without due care and attention), it would have been his own fault.

There are more serious accidents and fatalities on faster roads yet nothing was done about them to make them safer. In this whole debate surrounding speed limits, the one that keeps being shoved down our throats is the one about someone's child being seriously injured. Mercifully, the number of children being killed or seriously injured on roads with a 30mph or slower limit is very small indeed and, as a percentage, far more adults are killed or injured in those speed limits. I was surprised to discover that many were injured or killed when it was dark. These stats don't say whether an idiot pedestrian wearing earphones has just walked out in front of a car, oblivious to whether anything is coming. They don't say whether someone is pissed or out of their mind on drugs and has no idea of road safety. The stats I saw on StatsWales last year did show that many deaths and serious injuries were caused by dangerous driving.

I would say that no-one objects to 20mph limits around schools and in built up housing estates. I certainly don't. I do object to some on arterial roads where there is a) no history of accidents and b) where there is little around to cause accidents. Around me I know of roads around a mile in length where there are no houses and rarely ever any pedestrians but have been changed, yet other built up roads have reverted back to 30. Why should they be 20mph? That's my only issue. Where safe to do so, 20mph limits are utterly pointless. A blanket approach, which was going to reduce deaths and serious injuries significantly, hasn't achieved that so far and was never going to if the stats had been looked at properly. Moves to educate people on road safety and dangerous/drunk/drug driving would be far better. I seem to see more people using mobile phones when they drive as well, but let's blame things on 30mph roads.....

There are around 300 million car journeys alone made in Wales per quarter. Most will drive along a 20 or 30mph road at some point. There were 112 deaths or serious injuries on those roads, so 99.9999% of all road journeys on those speed limits pass by safely. Yet, because of dangerous drivers, those under the influence and other road users doing similar, everyone has to trundle along. The real problem isn't those drivers who drive safely, of whom virtually all will have an accident-free motoring life.

Good post

[Dembe]

I think caerkid answered your question for me but I got the facts from EHBs original post. I have no idea about the specific speeds.

Deaths on roads 30mph and lower: 8 in 2022 and 7 in 2023, so 1 fewer in 2023. As many deaths on 20mph roads as there were in 2022 on 30mph roads.

Serious injuries: down from 120 in 2022 to 105 in 2023.

I assume that his comment about deaths being the same was that 7 deaths is statistically the same as 8. The 15 fewer serious injuries is a bigger change but I guess if you were or were related to the on extra death that 1 extra might be very significant.

I have worked in the car industry where these calculations go on regularly. Car companies know that if they made cars out of rubber and stopped them driving at more than 5mph there would be near zero deaths. But that would be ridiculous so a calculation has to be made effectively deciding how many deaths is ‘tolerable’. Governments have to make the same decisions.

Regarding the ‘outside schools fair enough’ argument, my mates mother was knocked down on cowbridge road and lost a leg. The driver was not speeding. It was 30mph at the time. If the speed limit was 20 the driver would have stood a better chance of not hitting her and if he did, she would’ve stood a better chance of having less serious injuries. But as I said I hope driving slower doesn’t upset you too much.

Instead of reducing speeds and having rubber cars couldn't we do more to educate drivers and pedestrians?

[Dembe]

I have always said that, if my 11-year-old son got run over on a road and the driver wasn't to blame (dangerous driving, driving under the influence or without due care and attention), it would have been his own fault.

There are more serious accidents and fatalities on faster roads yet nothing was done about them to make them safer. In this whole debate surrounding speed limits, the one that keeps being shoved down our throats is the one about someone's child being seriously injured. Mercifully, the number of children being killed or seriously injured on roads with a 30mph or slower limit is very small indeed and, as a percentage, far more adults are killed or injured in those speed limits. I was surprised to discover that many were injured or killed when it was dark. These stats don't say whether an idiot pedestrian wearing earphones has just walked out in front of a car, oblivious to whether anything is coming. They don't say whether someone is pissed or out of their mind on drugs and has no idea of road safety. The stats I saw on StatsWales last year did show that many deaths and serious injuries were caused by dangerous driving.

I would say that no-one objects to 20mph limits around schools and in built up housing estates. I certainly don't. I do object to some on arterial roads where there is a) no history of accidents and b) where there is little around to cause accidents. Around me I know of roads around a mile in length where there are no houses and rarely ever any pedestrians but have been changed, yet other built up roads have reverted back to 30. Why should they be 20mph? That's my only issue. Where safe to do so, 20mph limits are utterly pointless. A blanket approach, which was going to reduce deaths and serious injuries significantly, hasn't achieved that so far and was never going to if the stats had been looked at properly. Moves to educate people on road safety and dangerous/drunk/drug driving would be far better. I seem to see more people using mobile phones when they drive as well, but let's blame things on 30mph roads.....

There are around 300 million car journeys alone made in Wales per quarter. Most will drive along a 20 or 30mph road at some point. There were 112 deaths or serious injuries on those roads, so 99.9999% of all road journeys on those speed limits pass by safely. Yet, because of dangerous drivers, those under the influence and other road users doing similar, everyone has to trundle along. The real problem isn't those drivers who drive safely, of whom virtually all will have an accident-free motoring life.

[nomad blue]

I think people have just gone back to their usual speeds in the main. Cardiff is slow anyway as there’s lights every 200 ft so barely any point. From what I can gather there’s been more accidents as people are watching their speedo ins tread of the road. There were barely any fatalities anyway in 30 zones. It wasn’t done for safety anyway, just another deluded control freak.

If more people are crashing because they can't cope with checking their speed, those drivers probably shouldn't be on the road in the first place.

[Dembe]

If more people are crashing because they can't cope with checking their speed, those drivers probably shouldn't be on the road in the first place.

The reasoning people come up with for things cam be quite hilarious

[Tuerto]

Yes,it has made our roads safer. How could it not? Generally, people have slowed down, so, the clowns that used to drive around at 35 are now probably doing 30, those that mostly kept to the speed limit are probably knocking around the 25 mark. And then there are quite a lot of people who are playing it by the book, especially on roads that are tight for space, cars parked either side that can be blind for drivers seeing pedestrians. There was always going to be certain roads where 20 was going to be too slow, but can't please everyone. I think that it's been a positive move, and as time goes by and people get used to it, there will be less resistance.

[Wales-Bales]

Yes,it has made our roads safer. How could it not? Generally, people have slowed down, so, the clowns that used to drive around at 35 are now probably doing 30, those that mostly kept to the speed limit are probably knocking around the 25 mark. And then there are quite a lot of people who are playing it by the book, especially on roads that are tight for space, cars parked either side that can be blind for drivers seeing pedestrians. There was always going to be certain roads where 20 was going to be too slow, but can't please everyone. I think that it's been a positive move, and as time goes by and people get used to it, there will be less resistance.

The lockdowns made our roads safer too.

[North Cardiff Blue]

If more people are crashing because they can't cope with checking their speed, those drivers probably shouldn't be on the road in the first place.

If you drive you surely know that is the case, probably 30% of drivers are terrible. When did cars stop waiting for oncoming cars with the right of way, before going around a parked car in the middle of the road leading to head-on situations?

[Eric the Half a Bee]

Eric
I hope you and your son stay safe.
Cheers for the discussion.

If that's your only concern we wouldn't have cars.

[Eric the Half a Bee]

everywhere else it has been introduced it has led to a reduction in road deaths, is there any sensible reason that Wales would be different?

I've always said we should wait until it has been in place a year and then evaluate the changes

I'm going to play devil's advocate here for a minute and ask a few questions about these statistics.

The stats show that there's been a 12% drop in serious injuries and deaths on roads of 20 and 30mph. It will be interesting to see the results after a year.

Was there a target for a reduction in these injuries/deaths in those speed limit areas? Are there targets for similar reductions in injuries and deaths in other speed limit areas?

Who decides what is an acceptable reduction? Surely, if the whole point of reducing speed limits is to dramatically reduce these injuries and deaths. 12% doesn't seem a big reduction, so what's next? Who decides that 128 deaths/injuries is not good but 112 is better? Will someone say 112 is too many and that needs reducing further? Is there an acceptable level of deaths/injuries? If there isn't we'll just keep finding more ways to make cars slow down or not be used at all to further reduce these levels. If there is, it then makes a mockery of the whole thing.

Surely those who can only keep advocating that it might save one life of someone you love will accept that reductions in deaths/serious injuries will only ever go so far.

[NYCBlue]

Why are we still talking about this? Isn't it obvious that driving at 20MPH is safer than driving at 30MPH?

[Dembe]

Why are we still talking about this? Isn't it obvious that driving at 20MPH is safer than driving at 30MPH?

Messageboards are a hotbed for discussion threads.

[NYCBlue]

Messageboards are a hotbed for discussion threads.

But this has been going on far too long. And it's mostly just people whining. And the discussion is always political. Enough already.

[Dembe]

But this has been going on far too long. And it's mostly just people whining. And the discussion is always political. Enough already.

I know

Same kind of thing in work or down the pub/cafe/whatever, people just go over and over the same crap all the time, I get why Tuerto doesn't have no work mates

[Tuerto]

The lockdowns made our roads safer too.

Yeah, good point. Mass suicide would be a good idea. no famine, disease, road accidents.....Kill the patient in order to kill the disease..... You're always one step ahead...

[Wales-Bales]

Yeah, good point. Mass suicide would be a good idea. no famine, disease, road accidents.....Kill the patient in order to kill the disease..... You're always one step ahead...

There's nothing wrong with being risk averse if it's for the greater good

[Jimmy the Jock]

But this has been going on far too long. And it's mostly just people whining. And the discussion is always political. Enough already.

Move along then .Who are you to tell us what to discuss?
We are discussing a subject that I feel quite strongly about.
I made a comment about Mark Drakeford , it wasn't political , it was an observation.

[Jimmy the Jock]

Yeah, good point. Mass suicide would be a good idea. no famine, disease, road accidents.....Kill the patient in order to kill the disease..... You're always one step ahead...

We should only be allowed to drive between the hours of midnight and 5.00 am . Rarely an accident between those hours.

[Tuerto]

There's nothing wrong with being risk averse if it's for the greater good

I completely agree.

[Dembe]

We should only be allowed to drive between the hours of midnight and 5.00 am . Rarely an accident between those hours.

Only through pure luck. Some of the lads that I see drive off on 2 hour drives after a shift probably lucky to make it home without falling asleep.

[goats]

If more people are crashing because they can't cope with checking their speed, those drivers probably shouldn't be on the road in the first place.

No shit, there are some shocking drivers out there

[North Cardiff Blue]

But this has been going on far too long. And it's mostly just people whining. And the discussion is always political. Enough already.

You live in the US, you haven't got a clown for a leader so wouldn't understand

[BLUETIT]

You live in the US, you haven't got a clown for a leader so wouldn't understand

Here’s their “leader”
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=nbEKgBaTGQo

[TWGL1]

I completely agree.

As long as those risk averse policies don’t cause long huge and long lasting damage in the long run

[Rjk]

I'm going to play devil's advocate here for a minute and ask a few questions about these statistics.

The stats show that there's been a 12% drop in serious injuries and deaths on roads of 20 and 30mph. It will be interesting to see the results after a year.

Was there a target for a reduction in these injuries/deaths in those speed limit areas? Are there targets for similar reductions in injuries and deaths in other speed limit areas?

Who decides what is an acceptable reduction? Surely, if the whole point of reducing speed limits is to dramatically reduce these injuries and deaths. 12% doesn't seem a big reduction, so what's next? Who decides that 128 deaths/injuries is not good but 112 is better? Will someone say 112 is too many and that needs reducing further? Is there an acceptable level of deaths/injuries? If there isn't we'll just keep finding more ways to make cars slow down or not be used at all to further reduce these levels. If there is, it then makes a mockery of the whole thing.

Surely those who can only keep advocating that it might save one life of someone you love will accept that reductions in deaths/serious injuries will only ever go so far.

The reason why so many countries have started to implement 20mph / 30kmph in urban areas is that it does reduce deaths and accidents, insurance claims etc but it doesn't have much significant impact on most people's journeys or a particularly negative effect on the economy.

Clearly if you reduced the motorways to 20 you could save even more lives, but that would have a devastating impact on the economy, so it is always about striking a balance.