Should the speed limit be dropped to 20mph?

If you reduce the speed limit to one mile an hour and have a man walking in front of the car with a red flag you could reduce the death rate still further.

The problem is, they can't stop people speeding and when they do get caught there is no effective penalty, i.e. high fines and then take licence away.

So as usual, lets punish the majority who are happy to stay at 30 mph.

We have just had a 20 mph introduced in our area with mini humps that penalise small cars and have no effect on lorries. I have seen little noticable change in traffic levels or speeds. What more within days, as a law abiding driver, I have been terrorised and overtaken by those who as awlays will continue to speed or are not effected by humps.

Enforce speed limits by proactive speed limit sign emitters (or whatever you want to call them) combined with a cruise control facility mandatory on all vehicles. The technology is available already. Essentially on entering a speed limited zone the emitter would set a limit to a vehicle's speed, which would be lifted by the road clear signal on leaving the zone. Needs costing though.

In certain limited areas (namely outside schools and in extremely built up areas or village centres, I think this would be acceptable.

However, a blanket 20 mph speed limit many urban areas would be wholly uneccessary. Surely this would only serve to slow down the flow of traffic and those that choose to speed would continue to do so anyway.

The 30mph speed limit in urban areas was introduced in the 1930s, whilst the motorway speed limit of 70mph was introduced in the 1960s. Needless to say car technology has come on a little since then. Even budget cars now pack sophisticated suspension and braking systems and even the exterior design of cars has been changed over the last ten years to reduce the injuries caused by a potential impact. It is about educating drivers about the dangers of speeding, not placing blanket speed limits.

Indeed the reason many people 'speed' is because the speed limits in place on some roads are not reasonable.

Unfortunately the last government's (and people like Elder One's) only approach to speed issues is to try to control people either indirectly thought speed cameras or directly via the mooted in-built black box technology.

This is not the way. All this does it take even further responsibility away from individuals and will lead to a nation of zombie drivers. We are already a nation with huge numbers of poor drivers - how many times do you encouter a huge tail back ona clear open A road caused by some poor driver not skilled or confident enough to do more than 40mph? How about all those drivers oblivious to motorway etiquette, holding up the flow of traffic on the motorway by trundling along in the third lane at 60mph?

What we need is a better driving test system (how can you be considered to have passed your driving test without having ever driven on a motorway?!) and more driver education. We need to improve people's skills as drivers, not just impose mindless speed limits.

A blanket 20mph speed limit on urban areas will just slow down the flow of traffic, whilst being ignored by those who already speed.

Road signs have been around for a long time ,20 mph is sensible the amount or children that play and walk in the roadway in the quieter estates seems to increase after school hours ,many times the mad element comes to the fore with speedsters increasing speed in their cars just for the hell of it ,parked cars that block your sight at points need to be addressed as a hazard too ,road signs need to be updated with a maximum speed and one 10 miles less that way the eye would take in the information and keep you between the two speeds .

The speed limits are antiquated. 20mph on some urban roads and past schools is perfectly reasonable. 90mph in the outer lane of the motorway is also reasonable and safe. Lorries need to be banned from the middle lane although perhaps the middle lane ban should extend to the hordes of white knuckled, drivers who think middle lane driving is normal thereby slowing down the entire traffic flow and reducing capacity.

In a word, no. A blanket 20 mph speed limit will merely increase traffic queues and cause frustration for drivers who will then ignore the limit.

There is a wide road seldom used by pedestrians that was built recently in a town in my area and subject to the normal 30mph limit. This was widely ignored as it was impossible to travel at 30 mph with a car on your rear bumper. Sanity reigned and the limit is now 40 mph. On the other hand we are being subjected to the insidious creep of the 50 mph limit on country roads where there is no justification whatever.

Speed limits should be set according to road conditions and be site specific. There are undoubtedly some places where 20 mph (or 50 mph) would be correct but this should not be a blanket limit.

Should the speed limit be dropped to 20mph?

No - end of discussion - now lets move on

I've recently found that driving faster doesn't get you there significantly quicker. I used to like to drive at about 80 mph down the motorway but when you measure how much time it saves against driving at 65 mph it might save 10 minutes over a 80 mile trip, this sort of time saving isn't worth the extra cost in driving fast, most of the delays come from waiting at junctions, I've also recently found that on the way to work there is a 1 mile strech of road where the speed limit is 40 mph, I now drive down it at 30 mph and save having to wait at the queue of traffic at the roundabout at the other end of the road. So a lot of the time we drive fast we are really just getting to the next wait/jam quicker and having to wait there for longer. So I support the 20 mph limit in small streets but anything with a longer strech of road 30 mph is fine. I like 30 mph as I have a diesel and can put my car in top gear and just let the engine tick over and travel at this speed.

Educating pedestrians and cyclists should be a number one priority. As a careful motorist who does drive at 30 or 40 according to the prescribed limit, I get frustrated by cyclists in double line convoys chatting and disregarding the rest of road users. What about people who push buggies out into the road in hopes that all traffic will stop for them when they are a few yards away from the pedestrian crossing?

Accidents happen - fact of life. Stop over-protecting people and then wondering why they never learn how to cope in the real world. In reality the urban roads are no more dangerous than they were 20 years ago - just the people who use them are less responsible. Stop legislating to punish the well behaved and responsible majority!!

Of course fewer pedestrians are killed when hit at 20mph rather than 30mph! DUH!!

Answer? Teach the idiots not to wander across the road as if the cars weren't there. Especially the kids more intent on texting or chattering and never looking for traffic.

What we really need is to reclaim the roads for the *motorist*, for whom they are intended and who pay through the nose for them.

Unless you have the luxury of cruise control installed in your vehicle isn't there a real danger of the driver concentrating more on keeping the vehicle speed at the proscribed level rather than looking out the windscreen for un-legislated hazards (pedestrians - cyclists etc)?

Brian Meek has got it about right, trouble is, and we have a local village where they have introduced 20MPH, emissions are terrible in low gear, and it's all too general.

Why not aim specificly for periods of local risk, schools/shopping, where applicable, and any special times of danger.

The stupid thing is that none of our speed limits take into consideration that the danger of busy periods,often quite short, and hours of near empty roads, eg. 3am are all lumped together, causing a certain amount of contempt in general for speed limits.

In the US there are very low speed limits, I think 15mph, near schools BUT they are only operative at school opening and closing times. The limits are widely obeyed because the motorists can see the point of them. Blanket limits on wide roads will continue to be disregarded when there seems no particular reason for them.

Have any of these planks in government any idea of Cause and Effect theory?

Reducing to a blanket 20mph will exponentially increase air pollution and carbon emissions due to the fact that the whole population will be travelling in third gear.

... and I thought it was NuLabia that had a monopoly on crass lunacy.

Cars do seem to own the road at 30mph - 20mph sounds much more sensible.

I think the problem that this country has with all its transport infrastructure - in which we have seen very little investment compared to, say, France - is getting anybody from A to B in anything like an acceptable time scale.

Do we need more restrictive legislation when the existing limits are not necessarily rational or uniform (who decides and on what basis?), and as such are not obeyed?

I hoped that the change of government would allow us to see less of this bureaucratically inspired drivel, and an emphasis on the ministry doing something to reduce the disadvantages inherent in the obsolescent road system that UK businesses have to endure.

I'm with Jonathon. Most of the time people are just speeding towards red lights or jams at roundabouts/junctions. We could all do with slowing it down a bit...

I do, however, think that you cand rive over 70mph on the motorway and still be safe, especially when its quiet. This needs to be revised.

Speed limits, if any, should be flexible depending on traffic, weather and other conditions. A give and take approach would also help: whilst 20 MPH certainly makes sense in some places at some times of the day, 70 MPH on motorways is a recipe for nervewrecking boredom. The German autobahns, half of them with no speed limit, are amongst the safest roads in the world. By the way, ever wondered why Audis, BMWs and Mercedes are so desireable?

Drive responsibly should be the only line in the text book and nothing will ever replace education.

Happy motoring!

This new government is supposed to be more motorist friendly, this is the most stupid idea yet. They want to appear green and then suggest this which will add even more pollution to the air around us.

The human brain and body have evolved to handle speeds of up to about 15 mph. If we all drive around in urban areas at 30 or 35 mph for a million years or even just a few hundred thousand years we will probably evolve reactions that are up to the job. Unfortunately a lot of people will die or be injured in the mean-time. A 20 mph speed limit is a sensible compromise, if we want humans and cars to coexist in close proximity.

On the motorway relative speeds are quite low, so a speed-limit of 70mph is sensible (and there aren't any pedestrians)

The question is are more pedestrians run over by bikes on the pavement than by cars on the road?

Just drop it to 25 mph in urban areas but increase the Motorway to 75 - fine bikers and pedestrians for jaywalking and anti-highway code offences - make bikers use lights!

The problem is not the speed limit. It is the large number of inattentive (putting on makeup, using mobile phones, etc) and speeding drivers (and I've seen as many women at that as men). If we clamped down effectively on these problems, and drivers were more responsible in general, 30 mph would be fine. Speed humps and lowering the speed limit have little or no effect on most motorists' habits, so the measure is only window dressing. Get the police out and fine the offenders. A concerted effort should more than pay for itself.

It won't stop the twits who think speed is cool . They are everywhere and I don't think anything will stop them except heavy fines . But introduce heavy fines and sods law will say that ordinary law abiding drivers like me will be the ones getting caught during a second or two of inattention .

Great - I thought we were told by the latest bunch of liars in power that the war on motorists was over. Looks like it's business as usual.

Here's a thought - whilst everyone is driving at 20mph, paranoid of getting 'yet another fine', they won't be looking at the road, they'll be looking down at the speedo. Full attention on the road and being able to stop in the distance you can clearly see is far more important than an arbitrary number on a stick.

It's also important that pedestrians and cyclists watch out for vehicles, something which often seems to be forgotten these days.

But of course, road safety like everything else in this country has been dumbed down and it's 'all down to the motorist'.

Here's a radical idea - why not, instead of 'reclaiming the streets from motorised vehicles', why don't we reclaim them from scum - yobs, muggers, beggars, drunken louts and junkies?

Silly me, yobs, muggers, beggars, drunken louts and junkies aren't of any interest to the authorities. Motorists = fixed penalties and fixed penalties = cash prizes.

Far better to persecute those with the ability to pay rather than those who are a blight on society.

Slowing down traffic will cause more pollution. I own a diesel and there is no way I can drive at twenty in fourth gear let alone sixth. Many pedistrians are killed by walking/running out in front of traffic rather than use crossings and many cyclists do not look and turn in front of cars and many do not use lights at night.. So it is not just car drivers at fault.

What about pollution?. Most vehicles travelling at 20mph would have to be in a lower gear than at 30, so would use more fuel and therefore be more polluting.

Whilst the national speed limit is 70 why are cars built to do twice this and more. Also cars are advertised and sold in part on the basis of the illegal speed they can do.

Replacing all 30 limits with 20 ones would be ridiculous and would cause widespread anger amongst reasonable people. Drivers doing phoning, texting, smoking, scrabbling for CDs and DVDs, eating, drinking, unwrapping sweets etc are much more of a danger whatever speed they travel at. While I am at it, almost all speed bumps should be removed and replaced with speed cameras. Speed bumps creat insidious damage to car tyres and suspension that can cause accidents elewhere, and for riders of bicycles and motorbikes, especially on wet nights, they are lethal. The idiots who plaster our roads with these things, red rumble strips of the approach to conurbations, idiotic road furniture etc should be made to look for other jobs and to stop wasting our taxes. Look abroad, you don't see this junk there!

Stop penalising responsible drivers for the excesses of the idiotic minority! Most drivers are sensible and attentive, and yet they're tarred with the same brush as the morons.

Pedestrians and cyclists are far from blameless, with cyclists in particular causing havoc. Here's a thought, why don't cyclists:

1/ Have to take lessons

2/ Have to pass some sort of test that ensures they are capable of handling their vehicle on the public roads

3/ Have to pay insurance in case of any damage they cause, be that to unsuspecting pedestrians or to other vehicles

4/ Get fined for the numerous violations of basic traffic rules, chief of which is meandering through red lights!

"The human brain and body have evolved to handle speeds of up to about 15 mph. If we all drive around in urban areas at 30 or 35 mph for a million years or even just a few hundred thousand years we will probably evolve reactions that are up to the job" - shame about fighter pilots then - I think it's called 'training and attitude'

Speed limits are meaningless unless they are enforced. The drivers that stick to the limits are the more careful that probably wouldn't have an accident anyway. The irresponsible drivers that exceed speed limits are going to drive at whatever speed they choose, whether it's appropriate or not.

I live in a small village with no street lights, no footways and, other than the national limit, no speed limits at all. It was suggested that there should be a 30mph limit through the village. How stupid when even 20mph is sometimes too fast.

Would the proposed 20 mph limit apply to cyclists or would they be allocated a fast lane for the purposes of overtaking motor vehicles?

Actually a zero limit appeals. This would not stop drunks and others walking/crashing into parked vehicles and we would be ripped off with parking charges but it would allow drivers time to read the forest of street signs which currently distract them as they try to keep their eyes on the road.

In fact, a much stricter standard is required for driving licences. We don't allow any clown to fly a light aircraft so why do we make it a god given right for anyone no matter how young/old, alert/befuddled, fit/decrepit etc etc to use the roads? We've all seen these self-righteous crawlers with no awareness of road conditions, inability to position themselves correctly, ignorance of priorities at junctions and roundabouts etc. Certainly, anyone who cannot reverse into a parking space should not be in charge of a car and no amount of tinkering with speed limits will ever sort them out.

The real problem is again being missed, and that is that too many infants are being sent out to play on the highway without any training or controle by parents. These infants are then developing bad habbits which go with them to when they are driving themselves.

I seemto remember that the Highway Code used to say that parents were responsible for the behaviour of their children on the highway if they were not capable of using the highway correctly obeying the said Highway Code.

Maybe it is time to prosecute these lax parents instead of always blaming the motorist.

On a less serious note maybe going back to a man with a red flag in front of every vehicle would cut the unemployment levels, but don't tell the polititions, they are daft enough to take it seriously.

What a stupid idea!! Surely we have enough problems in the UK without this sort of idiocy. Is this what people( cabinet ministers) without a proper job do with there time, think up stupid ideas to make things worse