UKC

Came across this article which makes for sombre reading for the motorist...

https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/cars/article-12752861/New-two-way-ultra...

Having driven back from N Wales to Devon yesterday it was so frustrating hitting 20mph restrictions everywhere. Some drivers continued at theis slow crawl when well past this latest restriction. It took forever to get home. Now with all this latest technology the traffic police will have enough in their coffers for a great Christmas party! Grrrr!

You could always foil their cunning plan by driving legally. A pretty wild idea, I know. 

"That means there is no need for road markings - which have typically been one of the biggest tell-tale signs to let drivers know the whereabouts of speed cameras."

Ha ha - second only to the camera itself being a great big thing painted bright yellow!

The money from speeding fines goes to the Government consolidated fund, not to the Police

Andy.

What? Drivers have to look at the road ahead now? Madness. Bloody woke lefty tofu-munching health & safety gone mad.

I can see that delivery drivers who spend a lot of time in residential 20mph areas might have to allow for longer journey times.

No idea what route you took but find it difficult to see how it could have added more than a few minutes to what is a 5 hour journey anyway

FTFY

Round of applause.

Hi Sean, were there any pedestrians present to actually run over?

Here in Pembrokeshire a lot of 20 zones are ghost towns out of rush hour, but we still have to crawl along - might make it to 3rd gear if we're lucky. So far I've been overtaken 15 times in 20 zones, one of them a pushbike that wasn't even going down a hill.

Cheer up though, looks like you'll soon be whacked with a tourist tax for coming here to spend your hard earned cash. Welcome to Wales.

There's a spoof vid on YT of Cmdr Drakeford that some find amusing.

youtube.com/watch?v=bF21wP04C9M&

There is massive opposition to this policy, with signatures on the petition against having well exceeded votes cast for Labour at the last Welsh election, even allowing for some signatories being outside Wales.  

I'm confused as to what would be sombre about this. Do you have difficulty following the rules of the road?

It should be quite easy... if you find it difficult, perhaps you should think about surrendering your licence to the DVLA.

The thing about a multi party democracy is that there are usually more people who didn't vote for the winning party that people who did. So whether or not any association can be drawn between signatures on an online petition and actual votes in a general election it's not that much of a surprise.

No, Google maps has warnings, so they're fine to keep staring at their phone while driving like a knob.

People also just don’t like change. Lots of people got all up in arms about having to wear seatbelts and motorways being limited to 70, and came up with all sorts of reasons why those changes would be disasters, but lo and behold the world kept turning. 

A petition after at least a year or so, once people have had a chance to get used to the change, might be more informative. But then it might not: at the end of the day speed limits aren’t there for the purpose of making drivers happier. They are fundamentally there to stop people doing something they want to (driving fast) in the service of a wider benefit (less dead people). 

Don't like it? Don't drive in Wales,  simples. 🤷

Liz Truss should be on to a winner if she gets the tory party leadership again. She said she would experiment with doing away with mandatory speed limits and instead make them advisory, thus treating the great British public like responsible and trustworthy adults capable of making their own decisions...excuse me while I collapse in a heap of laughter.

Doubt they'll make much difference, going by the amount of people I come across doing 50 in the right hand lane of motorways, and lorries restricted to 55 taking up the left hand lanes. 

As for the Welsh 20 limit, I rarely go there and I'm even less likely to go there now. It'll be interesting to see the casualty figures in a couple of years though. 

 Sean, one of the conditions of driving anywhere in the world is to obey the local driving rules and laws. One way out of your predicament is to tear up your driving license.

However, since speed limits only apply to motor vehicles the rider of the pushbike wasn't breaking the law.

Not 5 hours on a Friday. From Capel Curig to the M5 was an extended Crawl. OK, I know the fines go to the state. Pity it's not spent on the numerous potholes instead of the numerous cameras everywhere. The M6 has more cameras than Dixons!

Actually down here in Devon yesterday, we have had 3 cameras on the A30 chopped, obviously by some concerned motorist. 

I refer to you Hooo's post @14:02 (above).

FTFY

As others have said, don't speed (so sayeth the guy who got 3 shinny new points a few months ago) 

I did a week on holiday in Wales last month, I only found a couple of the 20 zones frustrating because I didn't think those ones needed to be 20 zones, in the most part I agreed with the 20 zones. 

I'm sure though that I was one of the people who carried on at 20 after the zone ended. I found them very well signed going in to them but on more than one occasion I found the exit signs lacking and being as its a new thing with an increased police focus I erred on the side of caution until I was certain what the limit was. 

Show me the person that says they never break a speed limit and I'll show you a fantasist or a liar.

The way dull, wearisome, obey-the-rules jobsworths pile in on people who want to make progress on the roads is so deadening to the spirit. We go rock-climbing for god's sake. It's inherently dangerous. We like it. It's a thrill. We use safeguards and our judgement to make it okay, safe enough, control the  danger and fear. We apply the same ideas elsewhere. Get with the program you dullards. Free your spirit.

I don't care about your safety if you choose to speed. You can take risks which only affect you as much as you want. 

But the 20mph zones are in residential areas. Kids, dogs, elderly people etc are not so risk aware. They step out and do unpredictable things. At 20mph you can react quicker to avoid hitting them and if you do hit them, the consequences are less severe. 

I used to be like you. Back when I had a motorcycle I treated speed limits as a minimum and at one point acquired 12 points but managed to evade a ban by pleading hardship. Now I have a car and more importantly a child I'm a reformed character. Of course I'm not perfect, but I consider it an error on my part if I break the speed limit. I'm really not too fussed about someone speeding on an empty unrestricted road in good conditions, but people who speed in residential areas (which is where these cameras will be) are antisocial selfish scum. You might "want to make progress", but where is your consideration for the people who live there? What makes your making progress more important than their right to a safe and peaceful life?

Call me dull and wearisome if you like. I won't call you what I think because I'll get banned again.

So exactly how much of that was down to 20mph limits? That you mention M5 instead of A5 suggests the problems might not be purely down to those limits.

Concerned how exactly? I will admit to not always obeying the speed limit (I do tend towards the theory if I am doing 5mph when the "smart" motorway is telling me its limited to 40mph I should be able to average the difference out once I clear the jam) but if I am caught I wouldnt consider any response made, say trying to evade the cops, as me being "concerned" vs me "doubling down on criminal behaviour".

And? When I take risks I try to avoid inviting strangers to play as well unless they are consenting adults.

Obviously not entirely avoidable with MRT or a police/ambulance responding if I or one of my group make a serious mistake but as far as possible its not involving random others.

If you want to drive like a nutter then go and do a track day with fellow enthusiasts and not through a village.

Hi Chris & Sean 

In a previous life, part of my job was having to knock on doors at all times of the day and night to tell somebody that a loved one had been killed or seriously injured in a road traffic collision, invariably caused through excessive speed by some party involved. It never got any easier no matter how many times you do it.

Two links to a couple of drivers enjoying driving fast in my town. No doubt they ‘assessed the risk’ and felt invincible, that’s all good when climbing and putting your own life in danger or to some extent your climbing partner who is complicit and accepting of the risk. How do you therefore justify things when you kill or seriously injure some innocent party? Just collateral damage? What so innocent families are devastated because you want to do exactly as you please because you can? Because you’re a thrill seeking non dullard? So, your superiority complex puts you way, way above sensible, speed limit observers; catapults you into the realms of exciting adrenaline junkie albeit with a sideline in manslaughter.

https://www.gmp.police.uk/news/greater-manchester/news/news/2023/november/m...

https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/woman-...

Mmm. Sorry, no sympathy for that this week. Someone was “making progress” the other day down the 20mph lane outside my daughter’s nursery when they lost control of their van at what must have been upwards of 60mph. Debris strewn across the playground and serious injuries for all in the vehicle. A different time of day and there’d have been a steady stream of children being walked to school or in the playground. I make no apologies for having more concern for my child’s life than I do for a strangers desire to get a thrill out of racing down narrow residential streets. (Although in one sense I guess the driver did indeed get very close to freeing their spirit, and that of their passenger. And having seen the remains of the van I suspect they may not be out of the woods yet.)

I’m a motorist and I have sometimes broken the speed limit. This year I’ve driven in many areas with a 20mph limit in Scotland and Wales; it felt a bit slow and not always strictly necessary, but it only cost me a minute or two and that’s fine.

 I’m also a cyclist and I rode my bike a bit in Edinburgh’s newish 20mph limit. It’s transformational- suddenly cycling in a city feels like something anyone could do. 

I know which side of the fence I’m on.

I'm confused: not being able to drive even close to 20mph on average on some towns on the A5 and other trunk roads at busy times has been normal for decades when speed limits were 30mph. As for those turning the A5 into single track road chaos at Ogwen Cottage with dangerous parking, I'm glad such cars can get towed away now. In the end for such roads to popular places we need collective solutions..... more improvements in public transport, more car sharing, more people avoiding the busy periods. Aside from a few sections that might need tweeks, 20mph zones on Welsh trunk roads I use regularly seem to have little to do with congestion or delays.

I do wonder whether the new 20mph limits will actually make any practical or significant difference to road safety.

The reason I suggest this is because the people who drive like selfish nutters already ignore the current speed limits - see Stuart Williams' post above - and I can't see it very likely that many of them will change their ways. Nor will it alter the habits of those who seem to drive with a complete disregard for the very existence of others.

Part of the reason they continue to be dangerous bell-ends is because, in my experience, the average PC Plod regards minor traffic violations as beneath them to deal with. The number of times I've seen drivers cutting others up, tailgating or blocking yellow boxes when a Police Car can see it being done is legion. Councils aid in this by "conveniently" detailing their traffic wardens to be anywhere but around schools to deal with the parking issues on school zigzags - this duty having been "passed on" by the Constabulary.

When people realise they can take an inch with impunity they tend to proceed to take a mile, and it's only when something disastrous occurs that the authorities eventually get off their fat backsides. Far too often their only reaction is to ignore those who they should have been dealing with up to then, and impose some blanket law that, once again, only the law-abiding and careful obey, and that the real idiots will continue to ignore, especially as PC Plod now only believes in video evidence and refuses to accept sworn statements from multiple witnesses. Presumably this is because taking statements actually involves them doing some work for a living.

They don't have the resources to police motoring offences. The 'party of law and order' has slashed the police budget.

I hope that post was meant to be ironic.

If it was serious, you are a selfish tw@t.

What really grates for me is the knobheads banging on about taking risk and using their judgement to control danger when they're doing it in a car! Surrounded by a ton of steel with enough safety features so that most crashes are survivable for the driver. Big man eh? At least when I was acting like a total knobhead on the roads I had the decency to do it on a vehicle where I was unlikely to survive a mistake. 

You can just say 'bike'. And it sounds like this is an excellent opportunity to start riding one and get places more quickly

While I agree with the rest of your post I have to disagree with this. It's fine to just say bike when the context makes it obvious, but in this case it wasn't.

Good posts.

When I started driving my first cars were significantly faster than most motorbikes and probably even less safe to crash. Possibly because I got involved in motorsport (at a low level) I took it all very seriously and as far as I remember was a fairly responsible driver. At some point in my late 20s I turned into an idiot and drove much too fast, not in towns but on Highland and country roads I was frequently close to the car's limits, basically I treated every journey like a rally stage. How I escaped points or worse I will never know. I was also vastly overconfident in snow, and if I'm honest probably still am. That overconfidence was tempered a bit when I wrote off my work's HiLux.

I consciously slowed down only a few years ago, due to a combination of fuel-saving derived satisfaction, social conscience, the realisation that driving slower is a more mellow experience and that all the really fast and reckless drivers I knew were widely regarded as immature arseholes, and I didn't want to join them. It was also partly because I had a high speed head on crash which would have been less serious if I'd been going slower. (It would still have happened, I met some Spanish tourists on the wrong side of the road on a blind but fast corner). 

Its more like two tons of steel (or more) as people drive around in their monster truck sized cars. 

Given typical traffic levels and the limits they impose on speed, I’d far rather see anti-tailgating cameras.

Many is the time I see a speed camera and think “chance would be a fine thing” as some bellend sits half a second off my rear end, no doubt enraged by the sight of the appropriate gap between me and the car in front…

For me the big shift in attitude was moving out of London. In London a bike was simply the most practical form of transport. Out in "the country" a bike was far more often a toy used for fun. After explaining many times that I wasn't one of those weekend warriors and I hated the way they gave us proper bikers a bad name, I started to wonder if I really was all that much better than them. A bit of soul searching later and I came to the realisation that really, I had been behaving like a bit of a knob.

The big question is, is there anything anyone could have said to me at the time that would have made me change my attitude? Honestly, probably not. So I can call people antisocial bellends all I like, but it's really not going to change any attitudes. They will just have to work it out themselves in their own time. While we're waiting for them to do this, we can make it so bloody hard to drive like a knob that they decide they can't be bothered any more, and go and do something else. Like buy a jetski.

I haven't noticed a feeling of arriving at a safer space when going from a 30 to a 20 zone - the median reduction in traffic speed is apparently only 0.7 mph in residential areas.   

I live on a busy road now 20mph - still plagued by zoom zooms  playing in their Richard Small Energy plc company cars.  

There are two types of driver: those who exceed the speed limit occasionally and those who lie about it.

If we all had black boxes in our cars who is supremely confident they’d never get a letter?

I’ve driven way over 500k miles in 30+ years and never had an accident or any points on my license. I would much rather a system that prevents me speeding than a probability system of catching dangerous drivers. And that’s the rub: I don’t feel that my ‘right to speed everywhere’ is being infringed, it feels more like understandably human lapses of concentration are being punished. 

Speed limiters are pretty common now, as are cars that read (camera) / know (GNSS) the speed limit and give you over speed warnings.  The scope of “lapse of concentration” is getting pretty small these days.

My car reads speed limits and this is very reliable. It also has a speed limiter. What I'd really like is for the former to automatically set the latter, but for some reason this isn't an option. It's strange that this simple option isn't available, when the car is packed with a load of less useful and some downright unhelpful "safety" features.

Yours is a Leaf, isn’t it?  Same annoyance with ours.  My other one is that the driver’s lockout control for the passengers’ window controls also locks out the driver’s controls for the passenger’s windows.  My former  ‘04 plate X-trail had the same flaw.

Interesting, and disappointing if that’s true. It doesn’t match my subjective experience, which was admittedly limited.

 I don’t think the OP was complaining about having to slow down by 0.7mph though!

I've now upgraded to an eNiro. Loads more gadgets than the Leaf. Some of them nice, some of them annoying.

You forgot the ones who just don't give a shit, or think they're super skilled etc. and that speed limits don't really apply to them: the antisocial bellends mentioned above.  Helpfully one of them was honest enough to post and declare himself openly:

"The way dull, wearisome, obey-the-rules jobsworths pile in on people who want to make progress on the roads is so deadening to the spirit. We go rock-climbing for god's sake. It's inherently dangerous. We like it. It's a thrill."

Never mind that climbers taking risks are risking their own necks, whereas speeding drivers safely cocooned in a modern car are much more likely to be risking someone else's.

A 'lapse of concentration' as a driver can easily kill or maim a pedestrian or cyclist.  Compared to that the risk of getting a NiP through the post because you failed to spot a big yellow camera seems pretty trivial, so what are you whingeing about?

While I’m not disagreeing I’d suggest that most of these are local and know exactly when to apply the brakes. The nonlocal speeder probably has a a few points on their license and I suspect is doing 33. This rather leaves the momentary lapse driver to get caught which is the same as running a child over. Just that…

Where in North Wales were you travelling from, the A5 doesn’t have that many and obviously the A55 doesn’t have any. The roadworks at Corwen would delay you more than all of them combined. 

True! I assume drivers are a bit more diligent passing through the A5 towns than say the Cardiff suburbs. 

Come on.... most days (without those Corwen area roadworks) those travelling to the SW from N Wales are typically estimated to take between 10 minutes to an hour longer on the congested A55 (a bogus high number for those who speed on the M6 and M56 and the clearer bits of the A55). What do we do for those who long to be in Johnny's Bedford van?   

Any chance the various bods going through Nant Peris could consider going a bit retro and slowing down to 30, never mind 20? Yes, we all know it's fun to come off the bottom of the pass at speed, but you do know that having a pub one side of the road and a campsite the other means there's going to be pedestrians in the road late at night, right?

(Also, even people who aren't actually in the road don't appreciete the soaking when you hit the inevitable puddles at that sort of speed. There's a car park and bus stop that get used by various climbers, walkers etc and the local MRT, none of whom really want to end up any wetter than they really have to.)

(TLDR: Maybe try enforcing the existing speed limits first?)

I live in North Wales

Just before the 20mph was introduced I tried it coming off a local roundabout, a young lad ran out into the road in front of me - at 30mph I would have hit him and caused damage as it was an emergency stop meant I missed him

I won't boast at keeping to 20 at all times but certainly under 30

Well done for not hitting the young lad.

Mind you, it would be nice if fewer young lads (and lasses) actually had a bit more road sense. It's all very well blaming the vehicle for collisions, but there's an awful lot of plonkers out there on two feet who seem to be trying for a Darwin Award.

Is there a modern equivalent of the Green Cross Code and so forth, because everything I get to see (on the TV) blames drivers automatically and completely ignores the fact that far too many pedestrians are in a world of their own - Phones/Music/Texting.

How young are you expecting them to get road sense? How about a 5 year old who trips over on the pavement and tumbles into the road, like my daughter did once. Their fault for lacking road sense?

The point of speed limits in residential areas is so that when the inevitable happens and some "plonker" ends up in the road in front of a "concerned motorist", they don't die.

If you don't wish to accept responsibility when your two ton metal box is involved in a collision with a person on foot, regardless of how that person is behaving, I would recommend taking a taxi or public transport so that the professional driver can take responsibility.

When we drive vehicles around pedestrians we have a duty of care as we are a danger to them (whilst they are not a danger to us).

I don't see anything above the that makes it acceptable for someone to get life-altering injuries or death as a consequence. 

​

My biggest gripe with pedestrians crossing the roads where I live is not with youngsters, but is with older generations who seem to think they have an automatic right to wander across the road without looking, walking diagonally across the road in order to increase the time they take to get across the road, ignoring the pedestrian lights 20m along the road. By comparison, young people are absolute paragons of good road sense. 

The most common contributory factor in pedestrian RTCs is the pedestrians failure to look properly. Sorry, but those are the facts.

Don’t know about you but if I was say, driving down the M6 at 65 and killed a pedestrian who’d run out onto the carriage way, I might escape physical injury (not guaranteed by any stretch) though I very much doubt I’d escape psychological injury. 

Road safety is very much every road user’s responsibility.

I drove to Wales last week for the first time since it came in, and I found that in the rural areas it seems to largely be about right (i.e. through Fron/Llangollen/Corwyn on the A5) but the urban areas made less sense, e.g. 20 on the road from the A55 to Llandudno Junction (Conway Road) which really should be 30 until you reach the start of the shops/houses.  Indeed I think that stretch could validly be 40, becoming 20 at the roundabout where the car dealerships are clustered - it's not "where people are" which is justification for 20s.

I seem to recall it's made deliberately a bit of a faff to upsign, so there will be a lot of these which will reduce respect for it.

I did however note most people did seem to be complying, though I also noticed some undesirable features, e.g. people were "cutting up" out of junctions a lot more presumably because they felt safer doing so, but it's still rude to do so.

As for these cameras I don't agree with them being both point and average, I'd rather just average.  Point speed cameras cause people to panic brake, average is a far better solution.  The one I really don't get is why smart motorways aren't all average between gantries rather than point.

It's good to see that you are aware of the elder generation. If it is a recurring and hence not unexpected issue i'm sure you moderate your driving so as to avoid mowing them down repeatedly.

If someone lets a 5 year old out on their own then they're going to be being investigated for Safeguarding failures.

Aside from that, when out with a 5 year old presumably you hold their hand all the time while walking alongside roads (why have child reins disappeared as a thing?) and have them on the inside of you away from the road?  If not, why not?

Even if there's a 20 limit, a child "tumbling into the road" right in front of a car is going to get killed. Thus it's pretty incumbent on a parent to ensure this cannot ever happen.

(This doesn't mean we should not have 20 limits, I'm in favour of them in residential areas and town centres and would in some cases go further e.g. absolute pedestrian priority in some cases e.g. in the super-busy centre of Betws, Bowness or Ambleside) but any road regardless of limit poses a risk in that sort of case, which means parents with very young children need to be taking more care than to accept that their 5 year old may "tumble into the road" at any second).

FWIW after experiencing it in Wales this weekend I'm starting to tend towards the idea we should entirely abolish default speed limits other than the NSL* and sign everything based on a risk assessment and policies, such as residential/town centres as 20 Zones with traffic calming and strategically placed "park only in marked bays" parking (signed 20 for now until we can implement in existing areas).  Basing it on street lights just seems a bit dated - there are very few places now where you'd have a 30 simply because of that, to the point that most people have forgotten that's even the law, and a few repeaters don't cost that much.

* which I'd set to the van limits i.e. 50/60/70 for all vehicles, by the way, reducing overtaking which is the most dangerous thing anyone ever does on the road.

Young people have no road sense. They are still developing and learning. Thats why the onus is on those who do have road sense (and have passed a test to allow them to drive) to avoid them, and rules and regs (including speed limits) are in place to minimise the risk to those without road sense. As a motorcyclist, you should be more than aware of vulnerability amongst different classes of road user.

There is; its called the green cross code.

https://www.roadwise.co.uk/schools/using-the-road/green-cross-code

Its part of the "war on motorists", but dont worry, the tories are going to stop it*

*sarcasm mode activated for this bit......

As a member of said generation, I am exasperated by the actions of some of my contemporaries. As of yet, I am pleased to be able to report that I have never mowed any of them down.

There are bright yellow average speed cameras on the A9 - I frequently see cars "panic braking" when their drivers notice them! And often those cars are already driving well under the speed limit.

I did say pedestrians on "Phones/Music/Texting" - That's not 5-year olds is it ?

My MOTORCYCLE weighs considerably less than that (I'm glad to say).

Exactly the point I was making - strange how so many people seem to read into anything whatever they choose, and not realise that they have gone off on a tangent regarding something else.

When I got my licence we learnt to look out for things like children with a ball, a loose dog, and so forth. Nowadays drivers seem more intent on looking out for yellow boxes that go "flash" and ignore anything else.

I DO keep my eyes open, I always stop for pedestrians to cross, I keep to the speed limits (with a 1948 designed 350 Enfield that's not too difficult by the way). What does p*** me off though are the complete idiots who wander into the road without either looking or giving any warning - since the advent of i-phones/smartphones/top end headphones this is happening more and more often. It's getting to the point where the introduction of a law against jay-walking might be necessary, and even the fact that I could consider that makes me wonder where we're going.

Then it is time to worry I believe the new cameras are both front and rear facing.

I am not a habitual speeder but old style front facing cameras meant there was one less thing to worry about when on the bike.

Indeed, have you tried walking round a supermarket recently? Full of infuriating people walking randomly without warning any which way. Backwards, sideways, fast, slow, around blind corners etc. Rarely looking. Most of them have driven there too.

....but in built up areas the assumption should be that the driver takes at least as much if not more care than all pedestrians. 

I was at the Kendal Festival this weekend,  busy place. Having looked carefully first, I attempted to cross the main road, which was clear.  Before I even got halfway across a lovely Rangerover pulled out of a side street and despite clearly seeing me accelerated towards me. I was in his road after all. I resisted the temptation to give him the bird as I jumped out of the way, but until we really establish the culture of pedestrians being the priority in built-up areas, speed limits are only a bit of a side issue. 

You could always not speed, then you wouldn't need to worry about them at all.  Though as it's possible to accidentally drift over, this is why I prefer average cameras.  Having said that, with most set to 10% + 2mph or thereabouts if you're drifting over by that much you probably need to retake your test, drifting over by 1-2mph is fairly easy but if you're in a 30 and get to 35 without noticing then questions are to be asked

That's where I was going.  I think the Dutch use the term "auto te gast" in those areas, i.e. the car is a guest and pedestrians have absolute* priority.  This is what I'd have in residential areas and non-pedestrianised town centres like Ambleside.  The actual speed limit would be 20 but you'd really need to vary your speed based on likely risks.

By contrast, similarly as per the Dutch, major non town centre thoroughfares should have higher limits and proper segregated cycle and pedestrian facilities, and pedestrian crossings where pedestrians don't have priority except when it's green for them.

(There's not, to be honest, a lot the Dutch get wrong about transport as a whole!)

* By which I don't mean peds should wilfully block cars by walking 10 abreast down the middle and not moving when they hear an engine, but basically the whole thing is a giant zebra crossing, so if you stand by the side of the road wishing to cross the cars should stop immediately and allow it, for example, and if a kid got hit it would be 100% the driver's fault as they should have been looking.

I have mixed views on a jaywalking law, but I know in Germany it's the norm that everyone carries their own personal general third party liability insurance policy (or was when I lived there years ago) - Haftpflichtversicherung - and so if a pedestrian did cause a road accident the costs would be claimed from that.

Often home insurance in the UK comes with this sort of policy but it typically excludes road travel (though not always - Direct Line's for instance used to cover cycling - I got it from them in writing once that it did).

Oh good god, read my post.

To an extent, but a car going over the body of a 5 year old would kill them even at 20mph, and if they fell right in front of it it wouldn't be able to stop in time.

I did.  I don't really worry about speed cameras because I don't generally speed.  People do naturally drift over sometimes, but drifting to 24 in a 20 or 35 in a 30 really does show either the wrong selection of gear or very poor driving, given that most are set to 10% + 2mph or sometimes even higher, and given that speedometers tend to read over so you're probably onto an indicated 36 or so in a 30 before you get flashed.

The main reason I dislike point speed cameras is that people panic brake for them even if not speeding - for some it's just a reflex.  The best for ensuring no speeding and avoiding this would be average cameras not in yellow.

FWIW I do recall once recently-ish "missing" a limit change from 50 to 40 on a smart motorway and going through a camera before realising (oops, totally my fault), and it didn't flash and I didn't get an NIP, so either it wasn't working (unlikely these days) or it was set even higher than 57!

The most effective thing we can do to reduce injuries in pedestrian RTCs is to reduce the speed of the vehicle involved. It's not about who's to blame, it's about fewer people dying.

I hired a VW Tiguan a couple of months ago whose cruise control automatically braked for limits lower that you were travelling at, and accelerated back up to your pre-determined cruise speed once through. Would be a simple modification to extend that to non-cruise driving.

The kinetic energy of a moving object depends on the mass and the square of the speed. For a 1.5tonne object the energy is as follows:-
20mph = 59.9kJ
25mph = 93.6kJ
35mph = 183.6kJ
As you can see, the energy involved increases far quicker than the increase in speed. This is why speed is such a big factor in accidents. An object doing 29mph has twice as much energy as one doing 20mph.
For those interested, a 2 tonne vehicle has about the same amount of kinetic energy at 30mph as a 1.5tonne one doing 35. Or looked at from the other direction, a 2 tonne vehicle doing 20mph has the same amount of KE as a 1.5T one doing 23mph.

It's about reduction in accident severity - many of the accidents in those zones will be caused by the 'outlier' drivers going a fair bit above the limit.  It's all about reducing their speed.

Over here (Guernsey) the limit is 35mph, with 25mph in built-up areas and a couple of new 20 zones by schools.  We don't have speed cameras, just radar guns, so the Police don't normally bother taking you to court unless you're doing 47 in a 35, or 35 in a 25. Thus the recent introduction of extensions to 25 zones has actually reduced the average uninterrupted speed of 35-40 down to 30-35 in those locations.

How does it do it?

If it does it by reading signs, there's a risk it might pick up "fake" ones residents sometimes put up and cause* an accident by braking unnecessarily.

If it does it via GPS, that'd be even more dangerous.  Hands up anyone who uses a satnav that shows limits and has had it bleep at them for exceeding the 30 limit when it thinks you're on a 30 road next to a motorway?  Now imagine the brakes went on and what that might cause in the fast lane with a BMW up your backside?

This would be potentially SERIOUSLY dangerous.  Take the power off, possibly, as it'd only be for quite a short time (as I believe the new European mandatory limiters do), but braking, absolutely not.

* I know it would technically be the responsibility of the car behind, but I don't want the hassle.  Had it once this year already when some idiot went up my backside because he wasn't paying attention to the fact that I stopped at a roundabout because a car was already on it.

That's the way it classically was before cameras were invented.  Most people went around doing about 10 over the limit, so limits were just set 10 below what they wanted you to do (e.g. motorway roadworks were usually 40 but everyone did about 50).

There were the 120mph BMWs but the prevailing speed on motorways was generally about 80-85 indicated (so about 75-80 actual as speedos read over).

I gave you a like.

Me too. Certainly not as nippy across the road as I used to be.

Really? Personally I’d look at the major causes and address those prior to a factor that contributes to just one in four pedestrian fatalities.

I think it depends what 20 zone.  If the road is wide and uncongested it'll make hardly any difference.  But around central London or Edinburgh, there is a definite safety gain from being faster off the mark than the traffic but it not then catching up and overtaking you.  (I was going to put "faster than the traffic" but riding a hulking great "Sadiq cycle" over 20mph is not an easy task! )

The 20mph in London seems to have completed the task of, aside from the very busy main roads, making the cyclist "king of the road".

Where did you get that from?  Are you using contributing factors (which incidently arent "fact" but as the government documents state "factors are largely subjective" ) vs the outcome?

The collision could be purely down to the pedestrian jumping out in front of the car but the likelihood of it being fatal will be mostly down to the vehicle speed (plus size of both vehicle and pedestrian).

Is the car's kinetic energy at the moment of impact much of a factor in the damage to a pedestrian?

I don't think so.  My reasoning is that the mass, momentum and KE of the vehicle are so much higher than that of the pedestrian that the ability of the pedestrian to absorb some KE and momentum during a collision is going to have very little effect on the acceleration profile they experience.

I disagree. Imagine a pedestrian falling in a horizontal plane on to nose of a car mounted vertically, bolted to the road.  The speed of the pedestrian is going to be such a big factor, and the mass of the car no longer comes in to it.

KE and momentum are more relevant when objects of somewhat similar masses hit each other, and in terms of breaking.

Love it!!!

Love this reply too!!

Just watching C5 news stating deaths from speeding has increased by 20% this year.

With the ever increasing proliferation of speed 'traps', it appears it's not working. 

Bad driving and driving tired are the big killers, unfortunately hard to prove in a court.

As NASA's orbiting toolkit has to slow down to 20mph over Wales, I'll be there to catch it.

I need a new drill. I know it's a bit boring.

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2023/nov/11/astronaut-toolbag-earth-spa...

I recently cycled from one side of London to the other,  since the 20 mph limit has applied to Greater London, and was never "king of the road" - felt safer back in a 30 zone! TfL's Vision Zero - what a load of .. 

In my case, my daughter was on her scooter, and I was between her and the road. She lost control and rolled much further than I would have predicted. What would you suggest? No scooting, no running, no fun of any kind on the journey home from school? What sort of generation will that produce?

Child reins? FFS, children are to be kept on a lead now? No. I don't want to be subservient to motorists. I want residential streets to be the sort of place where a child can make a mistake without suffering the death penalty for it.

Not in my case. Because despite it being a 30 limit, the approaching car driver was doing a reasonable 20mph and so they were able stop in time. Had they been doing 30 (legally), probably not.

Love it enough to have a serious thought about your attitude?

What would you do then? Let's hear it.

“the most common contributory factor allocated to pedestrians in fatal or serious collisions (FSC) with another vehicle was ‘Pedestrian failed to look properly’. The most common factor allocated to the vehicles involved was ‘Driver or rider failed to look properly’”

https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/reported-road-casualties-great-bri...'

That’s where I got that from. I get that you don’t like the implications. Feel free to provide a link evidencing that speed is the main cause of RTCs.

The first recorded UK car vs pedestrian road fatality involved a vehicle traveling 5 mph.

The last 3 child Vs car fatalities work mates of mine attended involved a car reversing out of a drive, a car in a car park and a tractor traveling no more than 15 mph.

but hey, why let facts get in the way of assumptions 

Spend a bit of time and money improving driver awareness and the difference between a speed limit and a safe driving speed.

Spend a bit of time and money improving pedestrian awareness. Stop, look and listen would be a good start.

People keep using the "Drifting over" as a reason to speed. 

The limit whatever it may be is just that, a limit. It's not a target. If your worried about going over (this isn't aimed at you Neil) then drive at 28 in a 30 to give a buffer. 

Can't argue with either of those being good ideas that we should pursue. But they're not enough. People are always going to make mistakes. They are also expensive to do well enough to make a difference, whereas getting people to obey the speed limit is not only cheaper, but has myriad other benefits too.

So was everything they told me on my speed awareness course a pack of lies? Because they did bang on a hell of lot about how a small increase in speed made a major difference to survival rates. Is this all bullshit then?

OK, speed limits on our roads are constantly being dropped, more and more "traffic calming" measures implemented, more and more congestion, more and more pollution and more and more time commuting rather than doing something infinitely more productive.

We seem to have forgotten the point of motorised transport is getting from place to place quickly and efficiently so we have more free time to actually do stuff we want to do. You might think "so what if traffic calming and reduced speed limits means an extra 5 minutes on my commute". The so what is the extra 40 hours every year you spend sitting in a metal box.

I think we're collectively losing perspective. I think we're forgetting we have some of the safest roads in the World. I think we're forgetting how well we're doing regarding pedestrian vs car fatalities:

"Between 2004 and 2021:

fatalities decreased from 671 to 361 (-46%)

serious injuries (adjusted) fell by 51%

pedestrian traffic (distance walked) grew by 10%"

https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/reported-road-casualties-great-bri...

You were on a "speed awareness course" because you'd been caught speeding. What did you think they'd bang on about? 

You're deliberately ignoring my point. Were they lying when they said that a small increase in speed made a significant difference to casualties?

Nope, a small decrease in speed makes a big difference in the outcome of a car vs pedestrian impact. My point that you're ignoring is that speed is a very minor cause of the actual impact happening in the first place.

Personally and professionally speaking, I'd rather we took measures to entirely avoid that impact occurring at all.

We have a fundamental difference in outlook here. I think we're finally gaining a bit of perspective. For too long people have been subservient to motor vehicles. They are a useful tool, but we have built our lives around them, rather than using them as tools. We've got to the point where people see a car as a necessity of life. How the f**k did we get here? We really need to be working on reducing how much people drive. It's not just the casualties. It's the pollution, both air and noise, the stress suffered by people (usually the poor people) who live in high traffic areas. The children who never get any exercise because it's too dangerous for them to cycle or walk anywhere.

Cutting speeds doesn't just reduce casualties. It makes it a more pleasant, less polluted and less stressful environment for the people who live there. If someone has to spend a bit longer sitting in their metal box to accomplish this then that's fine by me. It might even encourage them to get off their arse and join the rest of us outside the box.

It might be true that it's a minority of incidents where excess speed is recorded as a factor, but that's just the recorded cause, with a high bar set to attribute it. Many accidents which were not blamed on excess speed would have been prevented if the people involved had been going a bit slower. I know, because I have been personally involved in several of these! I've never been accused of causing an accident by going too fast, but I bloody well know I wouldn't have crashed if I'd been going slower.

So it's not all bad then. In all seriousness though, if a 20 limit is enough to stop you visiting a country then I'm sure you won't miss Spain, France or any of the other EU countries that have implemented them

Whilst it's certainly possible to kill someone at 5mph, I think it's fairly safe to say if we had a blanket 5mph limit across the country there would be significantly less collisions between cars and pedestrians. 

I think it's also fair to expect that there are low numbers of injuries from collisions between pedestrians and cars that are stationary, therefore speed plays a significant part in most traffic accidents.

When they reference speed as a factor, they will be looking at "excessive speed" which is governed by the rules of the road as a frame of reference. Change those rules (and enforce them) and you will have an impact on the accident rates, as well as the outcomes.

I thought I would feel like this (due to 20 extending the overtaking time of large vehicles) but instead I found that large vehicles mostly didn't bother overtaking, which was far preferable.

Now?

Child reins are almost unknown now, but they were used on both me and my sister in the 80s and were very, very common back then.  They aren't an utterly terrible idea, as they stop kids running out into the road when they're too young to understand that may be dangerous.

We just walked to/from school.  Scooters and the likes were for playing with in the park or in the garden.  In the 80s, when H&S wasn't invented, my parents made sensible choices based on risk, mucking about on a scooter on a busy road wasn't sensible.

Not possible to completely eradicate this without completely eradicating cars.

In your incident yes, but it wouldn't have taken much variance for the car to have hit her at 20mph, which probably would have killed her.  If a car hits a 5 year old the likely outcome is death, even at a very low speed, because it would be too easy for them to go under the wheels. They're at much higher risk than an older kid who would instead go up over the bonnet, and in that latter case 20 vs 30 makes much more difference to survival.

I didnt say that. Why make stuff up?

I was addressing your claim it is not a major cause in fatal RTCs.

An RTC at 19mph is far less likely to kill the pedestrian (5% or less) than one at 30mph and beyond that the risk jumps rapidly. Hence even if the driver was blameless that they were doing 30mph instead of 20mph would have increased the chance of the accident being fatal.

Which is the point about 20mph zones. Its about changing what is considered excessive speed.

https://www.rospa.com/media/documents/road-safety/inappropriate-speed-facts...

I would also suggest you read your link about contributing factors and see how they point out it is flawed as a measurement.  This is reflected in how the police have decided to revise it as of last year including the results of police forensic investigations rather than first impressions.

https://www.autoexpress.co.uk/news/358022/speeding-be-recorded-cause-many-m...

Where this has been trialed the numbers have jumped massively although across all incidents so pedestrians might still stay low.

I am fascinated where this argument of yours is going? Are you under the assumption I believe low speed results in no fatal accidents vs just an decreased risk?

Aside from anything else kids (plus oaps) risk of fatality is higher. Think its something like the same risk at 20mph as for a middle aged person at  40mph.

We weren't mucking about on a busy road, we were walking home from school on residential street. A street on which 20mph is a sensible speed. Of course 20mph doesn't guarantee survival, but it increases the odds  and in this case it made a difference.

When I was a child in the 70s we'd cycle all over on roads like this without adult supervision. Wouldn't dream of it now. Not because we've gone all health and safety, but because the roads are so much more crowded and faster now.

We'll never eradicate the risk, that's not what I'm asking for. I just want to get back to a balance where non-motorists have the same rights and access as motorists. I think 20mph in residential areas is about right, because it's within the realm of human powered transport. 

I both agree with 20mph on residential roads and disagree that it's the right place for a 5 year old to be riding a scooter where they could easily end up under a car.

Yes, kids rode (and still do ride) bikes on this sort of road, but it's generally expected for them to be old enough to know what a road is and that cars might kill them before they do.  And that again was the same for me when I was a kid in the 80s.

The prevalence and proliferation of cars, it might be argued, has tended to entrench the view that roads are <i>just</i> for cars, rather than a public highway for everybody to use. 
In practice it's probably not sensible to insist that five-year-olds should be able to scoot on any road they cared to, but a little less car-centricness seems like a good way to honour my own younger years spent happily playing in the road.

'Car!'

You could reduce the speed limit of motorised vehicles to that of a rickety pedestrian 80-year old with a walking stick.

But if some idiot suddenly changes direction and steps in front without looking or giving any hint of said change in direction then there will be a collision - just like there are in supermarkets with idiots pushing/plonking their trolleys or suddenly diving sideways to get something from a shelf.

Some pedestrians need educating, just like some drivers.

The trouble is, there is a core of people who want to put ALL the blame on one group, just like with everything. The world is not black and white, it's got an awful lot of different shades of grey in it.

I'd completely disagree. If there was a 5mph blanket speed limit, far more pedestrians would walk straight across without looking (and even with changing direction instantaneously) because they would gradually completely ignore the idea of even looking where they're going and what (or indeed who) is already there.

If you don't believe me then try walking in a straight line down any high street in the country and just count the number of plonkers who suddenly change direction and walk in front of you close up, or the number who charge out of or into a shop doorway that cut you up.

You wouldn't back yourself to be capable of avoiding collision with erratic pedestrians at 5mph?

Why a straight line? 

It seems to me you might be conflating annoying pedestrian behaviour with pedestrian behaviour that means you can't avoid collision?

When driving (or riding) a motorised vehicle around pedestrians you have a duty of care to those, pedestrians. When you're passing people on the pavement walking with heads in phones, if you're an experienced driver (or especially rider) and concentrating on the task at hand, you'll be constantly assessing those pedestrians, your speed, oncoming traffic, distance from parked cars, etc. subconsciously, to ensure you're ready to react to the unexpected.

Of course there is vast opposition.  The cult of the self entitled motorist is wide spread.

Its not like 20mph / 30kph is a Welsh specific thing.

FTFY

i think it is amazing that pedestrians can negotiate crowded pavements with very few collisions. And this is despite many of them paying little attention, different walking speeds, parents with child buggies, people with mobility problems. And no rules. Seems to work really well.

If only car drivers were capable of the same feat.

I wouldn't say busy pavements worked well.  I'd say they were incredibly frustating!

"Sidle out of the store gingerly, embrace the margin!"

Given the option, France is only 30 miles away, and Spanish vs Welsh weather, no contest. 

I see your point totally but when you consider the starting point, a huge number of people all with different speeds and intentions crammed into a slim sliver of road space with absolutely no rules I think it works fine.

You can probably get about 20 pedestrians into the road space taken by one car, typically with one or perhaps two occupants.

Certainly - this is one thing in favour of town-centre pedestrianisation, which isn't a modern day thing but largely took place in the late 1980s and early 1990s, curiously except London which has probably contributed to the near-death of Oxford St in favour of the shopping centres e.g. Westfield which are far nicer to walk around as they're not choked with traffic and fumes.

That of course, like 20mph limits and LTNs, is just one of the tools you can use to manage car traffic, but that isn't without consequence (e.g. LTNs make main arteries busier).  But cars are not going to go away.  Look at the Netherlands - the high cycling is great as is the quality and value of the public transport, but cars are still needed.

If you walk around central London, it's pretty quiet in terms of traffic, in many places.

Oxfrord st has widened the pavements. There is a refuge strip along the entire length, making it easy to cross. There are no cars, few buses and taxis. Lots of bikes and scooters though.

In fact, if you wander from Bank along Fleet st, to Aldwych, its a similar story. You could be forgiven thinking that it was a quiet Sunday afternoon some days. Trafalgar sq, used to be surrounded by a race track. Tricky for people getting to the museum or square, especially for tourists not used to the traffic. That has been pedestrianised and calmed. Its taken decades, but central London traffic is way calmer than back in the 90's.

Oxford st, especially the easy side is pretty poor. But that has more to do with US candy stores, crap tourist rip off shops and high rents, than traffic.

There are absolutely loads of buses, it's a major artery, and a lot of taxis too which often obstruct the buses.

I'd agree with this, though.

Bad shops are a symptom of a dying high street, which is generally caused by a combination of online and out of town shopping centres where (a) one can easily drive to, and (b) one doesn't need to contend with cars while walking around.

It's happening in a lot of places - in London's case it's the two Westfields, in Manchester's the Trafford Centre did a lot of harm to the city centre years ago already, but Liverpool has seen a bit of sense and put an "out of town shopping centre" actually in its city centre, rescuing it from a similar fate, but with the same features - a big, but expensive, car park, and car-free malls.

And one measure by which you can reduce the chance of impacts occurring is to reduce speed; you have more reaction time, and a shorter stopping distance. The consequences of a lower speed impact are also less severe.

Basic risk assessment: reduce the likelihood and the severity.

Yes, people (drivers & pedestrians) should be more observant. But reducing speed limits also helps; it's not a question of just doing one thing.

Speed limits can be automatically enforced. Detecting whether people are being observant is not yet practicable.

I guess you'd like the speed limit at 3mph  (walking speed).

That goes for bicycles/scooters/horses/ runners  etc as well though.

Just in case!!!!! 

Some people forget that, whatever the speed limit, the overriding obligation is to drive at a speed that is safe, for the local conditions, on the day and sometimes 20 mph (or 10 or 5) is too much.

Near where I live we have a road, with a current 30 mph limit, that has seen a number of recent accidents with people losing control on a gentle corner. The proposed solution is a 20 mph limit for a mile or so and that seems to miss the point, to me. It isn't a busy road, there are few pedestrians and no parked cars (big houses with long drives / big parking areas). Some irresponsible people are treating it like a race track and won't observe a 20 mph sign any more than they do the 30 mph one.

Assuming my preferred solutions of police snipers or a deep crocodile-filled ditch on the corner isn't allowed then I'm not sure what to do for the best. Whilst I'm quite sure the default limit for residential side roads should be 20 mph, I'm not convinced about a blanket 20 mph limit in place of all current 30 limits. Apart from not being effective, I'm concerned that having lots of speed limits that many people think are excessively restrictive will lead to even less respect for necessary limits.

I guess you would want no road traffic law?

See; we can both play reductive silly buggers.

Does that exist anywhere in the UK? It’s not the case in Wales. 

Although I wasn’t making a particular case for lower speed limits. I was just expressing my utter lack of sympathy (or respect) for someone who sets out with the express intention of driving dangerously because they think it makes them seem cool. 

Well I think this thread is drawing to a close, but it's been a good one, so thanks for that. So great to see an OP like that get the response it deserved. Absolutely hilarious to hear about someone "free their spirit" while sitting in a metal box. And I have a new entry in my lexicon of expressions meaning "selfish knobhead": Alongside "jetski owner" I can now deploy "concerned motorist". How about "Some concerned motorist has flytipped a ton of shite in a SSSI". Works brilliantly!

How dare you unilaterally determine that a thread is drawing to a close.

Yours, a "concerned motorist" 😁

I can stop dead because I'm looking where I'm going.

Most of these plonkers aren't even looking in the same direction they're travelling.

I have advocated for snipers for a long time now, I think it's a great idea as long as it includes god owners who don't clean up and people who throw fast food wrappers out of the car window. 

The world would be a much better place. 

When I go somewhere I tend to walk towards it, rather than meander like a drunk - what do you do ?

If you think that a pedestrian suddenly changing direction and walking into a someone else - a child perhaps - isn't not only annoying but downright selfish and dangerous then I must assume that you're attempting to deflect blame from yourself for being one of these "kind souls".

Of course, but what happens when the idiot with the headphones, who is facing away from you, decides to turn at 90 degrees and walk straight across the road when you're feet away ? As far as I'm concerned that plonker needs to be assessed by a professional as being a suicide risk, not a poor innocent.

And by the way, I was turning left BEHIND a car last night when a female, on the phone, and completely in her own world, tried to walk between the pair of us (travelling about 15mph) last night. She's OK because I avoided her, but she didn't even notice that I was there even though I was wearing a high-vis jacket, the bike had indicators and dip lights going (plus an old-fashioned British single isn't the quietest engine around), and I was following another vehicle - which I also believe she didn't see. This was all at a set of lights by the way, so the "give way to pedestrians" rule wasn't applicable.

Yeah, those Hindu and Buddhist folks leaving flowers everywhere are a pain

Where has this stat come from? The Government reporting on Contributory factors in collisions says:

Contributory factors provide an insight into how and why collisions occur. The factors are largely subjective as they reflect the opinion of the reporting police officer. They are assigned quickly at the occurrence of the collision and often without extensive investigations and so should be interpreted with caution. They are likely to be affected in part by preconceptions police officers have of certain vehicle groups.

Though excessive speed is only 6th in the list of Driver Contributory Factors, the statistics do not delve into whether a reduction in speed would have significantly improved the outcomes for the pedestrians involved.

What about dyslexics...?

My OP was originally posted tongue in cheek. Two issues that get the blood pressure rising on ukc are speed cameras (and speeding generally) and parking tickets. I must admit to once being clocked at 43mph leaving Bethesda but only received a warning. But have always had a clean licence, more down to luck than always adhering to the speed limit, I must admit. The recent tragedy near Tremadog certainly brings it home. Take care out there and always drive to the road conditions.

Then we are in accord. You want to avoid Wales, I want to avoid your neck of the woods (the south east I presume)

Not "my" neck of the woods, just happens to be a patch of dirt where I'm sort of based at the moment, the only thing going for it, is the local beaches, as for the rest, best avoid. 

Funny how people get so defensive over a patch of dirt????

Then you've guessed wrong. 

You stated you want to avoid the impact entirely, but a 20mph or even a 3mph limit won't do that. So where's the cut off point?

First step in any risk assessment, remove the hazard (unlikely that vehicles will be banned). Then you  start looking at reduction of severity,  a blanket reduction of the speed limit being a fairly poor one.

Those who were ignoring the limit are going to continue and quite likely even more will ignore the lower limit. 

Funny how people get so defensive about what, in reality, makes very little difference to their journey time 

Even funnier how people think a blanket speed limit reduction will cure all the problems. 

O

It won't solve all the problems.

But it will mitigate some of the effects. Inattentive drivers and inattentive pedestrians are going to come into contact with each other. Doing so at what on average should be a slower speed will reduce the level of injury.

I dont suppose you have any examples of people saying that? Or are you just making stuff up.

Do you have a suggestion for an intervention that will solve all the problems in one fell swoop? If not, we’re left with the situation where we need a range of imperfect solutions each addressing different aspects of the problem. 

GPS for sure.  I understand your theory, but that must be avoidable by the Navi knowing where you were 5 seconds ago and making an educated decision.

So you'd think, but I very often get "beeped" on a motorway when it suddenly thinks I'm on a parallel 30mph road.  If that caused the brakes to go on it would probably result in a multi-car pile-up given how close some idiots drive.

(As an aside on that, why does adaptive cruise control allow one to select to follow the car in front closer than the published recommended braking distances?  I know a machine can react faster, but it really does encourage bad practice - if anything we should be designing cars that automatically remove power or at least sound a really annoying warning if you do that for more than a few seconds when flooring it for an overtake)

There is an unexpected environmental consequence to these cameras.

The onerous journey through mid Wales to Pembroke becomes even more difficult, making me consider investing those hours in a flight somewhere else instead.

Ms Thunderbird won't be happy.

I've encountered various different kinds of speed limiter, but never one that actively brakes. Just refusing to apply power above the limit is perfectly sufficient to achieve the goal. It would be very safe, even if it briefly misjudged the speed limit, because the most dramatic effect it has is no different to easing off the accelerator pedal. Not that I've ever had a car fancy enough to automatically pick up speed limits. But I do find manually setting the speed limiter in my current car to 30 in town and using cruise control on the motorway makes speed limits much less frustrating. I think it's because you're no longer having to actively think about limiting your speed all the time.

They are particularly irritating and unpredictable because of the mysterious way they move.

If you go back through the thread following the "in reply tos" you will see that this was a reply to an adaptive cruise control system that did brake, which is unbelievably dangerous.

Loss of power is fine as long as you can floor the accelerator to get it back.

Yes, I'm a big fan of my manual limiter though I wish it would move in 5 or 10mph jumps by default given that you don't get 36mph speed limits or whatever.  You can do it by holding the button but it's quite slow.

From my experience with adaptive cruise, I'd say it's because of the amount of people who pass and then pull in to early, if you have the gap set at the correct distance the brakes are always being applied. 

As a passenger following Google directions I was curious about at how Google Maps indicated speed limits. It was within 10m of the sign at the side of the road.

As well as their own cars, which take photos and gps, and use a bunch of smart image processing, they own Waze. That used crowd sourced info to feed back into the mapping system in real time, via 4g. It was handy for showing things like accidents, road works and speed cameras, that were not on the standard sat maps. Journey times could be adjusted or rerouted depending on real-time information.

Car satnav ought to be using map matching as well as raw position. Map matching ought to know that you can't leave the motorway for a side road, except via mapped junctions.

As they should be.  If someone cuts you up, you should recreate the correct gap as soon as you safely can, not sit on their tail.  They may be the one that created the dangerous situation, but it's on you to resolve it as well.

For that reason I very rarely use my (non-adaptive) cruise control, preferring to use the limiter so I can briefly lift off when this happens and recreate the gap.

"Ought to be" is doing a lot of heavy lifting there

In my experience, Waze (at least) does tend to prefer to think you're still on the mapped route even if you've moved from it slightly (e.g. if you elect to leave a motorway instead of staying on it often doesn't realise until the top of the ramp) but it does still happen sometimes, but the risk of strong brake application on the motorway either down to an incorrect low speed or with someone too close on your tail is so high that it basically has to not happen ever.

Thus I'd prefer any such limiter to only "lift off" rather than braking, or certainly give an overrideable warning before it does brake purely on speed limit grounds, though I get that with EVs that's a bit blurred.

What that 'heavy lifting' means is that a satnav that isn't using a functional map matching algorithm is a shit satnav; stop using it.

100% of satnavs are shit satnavs, then.  It's not actually that easy a thing to do, because there are cases where, given the accuracy of GPS, there can be ambiguity.

As I said, if you're going to implement automatic braking for speed limits it needs to be absolutely 100%.  Even slightly less and it'll cause more accidents than it prevents.

It's not about sitting on their tail, if you are doing 60 on the motorway and someone passes you and pulls in too early the brakes will be applied even if they are doing 70, you asked why it could be set closer than the recommended safe distance, I gave you a possible reason 😉Surely it kind of just backs up your argument about the brakes being applied at random times like the 30 zone running beside the motorway.

I can follow back through to Toerag using the term "braked" for the Tiguan they hired, but it's not entirely clear whether they're specifically saying it applied the brakes or whether they're just using the term loosely to mean "slowed down". Certainly I would be astonished if any vehicle would automatically brake sharply for a change of speed limit, for the reasons you've given.

I would imagine (though I don't know) that the system would measure the gap and the closing speed and adjust the speed correction accordingly

I only have adaptive cruise on a vw van, it does have some monitoring of closing speed, and it works very well, but if someone cuts in front of you it will apply the brakes until the gap is back to the set distance as it should, I don't have any issue with it, I just think it could be a reason why it's possible to set closer distances than recommended, which was the original question. 

My basic understanding with VAG newer cars is it usually depends on the speed differential how “hard” they brake or use engine braking where it is not GPS based. However, if it is (GPS) I don’t know as I decided against one by what I was told.

I decide against a ID3 when the salesman (of all people!) told me his company one braked automatically on his journey home every day at a point where the car thought he was entering a 20 zone whilst actually on a dual carriageway at 70. The road were parallel but very close together. He said he had to override the car to avoid this. He had the advantage of knowledge of that journey and that it would happen.

Don’t know if it was speed sign recognition or GPS or a combinations or how rapidly it actually braked, but I decided I didn’t want a car that was able to do that without warning. I assume he mentioned it as it was an unexpected harsh slowing down so that prospective owners were well warned. On adaptive cruise control though they brake quite hard if the speed differential is high, but much less so if differential is lower or if really low only by engine braking.

Maybe someone with a newish VAG car will answer.