20 really is plenty

People have the right to disagree, but they need to produce evidence. Andrew RTD has repeatedly referred to this as a blanket, when it isn't (there are still plenty of 30mph limits). It is mildly annoying to do 20mph where one used to do 30. Some of the decisions about what speed is appropriate seem bizarre and should be reviewed. The absence of any signs on entering Wales seems mean, and could make prosecution of England-based drivers difficult. But speed limits felt random before this was implemented, and a solid review would be welcome. This policy is saving lives. A mother recently talked of how it had saved her son's life. She should take him to meet ARTD to ask why he wants her son dead.

It is.

'There are already fewer accidents and the ones that occur are less serious – this means fewer dead people and fewer people suffering life changing injuries.' I was initially sceptical as to the desirability of this innovation - not least because it seemed to me bound to to make things more difficult for people - such as district nurses, domiciliary care staff and bus drivers, for example - whose daily work requires them to stick to a tight timetable. But the hard statistics around the reduction in the number and seriousness of road accidents on urban roads have shifted my view.

Recently I was driven by a relative who hates the limit but I was very impressed by the effectiveness of the gizmo in her car that sounds a warning when she exceeded 20 (it's a matter of an on-board camera that reads the signs). The warnings were obviously more obnoxious than having to slow down. Hooray for technology.

I still get idiots tailgating me when I’m sticking to 20 mph. Is it because they disagree with me abiding by the law?

Bore da Adrian, I absolutely respect people’s right to disagree and welcome any informed opinions with cogent, sustainable and data driven arguments. And that’s the crux. The data from other countries where this change had been implemented was already overwhelming. Lo and behold, data from Wales since the change backs this up completely. This was entirely predictable and the arguments and reasoning which led to the change originally have simply been reinforced. Why then have Welsh politicians and Welsh leaders rowed back on something they got right and they should be celebrating? It’s bad politics, it’s poor leadership, it speaks to an entire nation’s lack of self confidence. We all deserve better - even if you disagree with this particular law.

Doesn't help when the welsh cons constantly attack it in a way to encourage dissent. Rather than sit back and say "lets see the benefits then we make a choice", the cons decided that they "don't care about lives and injuries, we will harm you all for our ideological hate" and ART "I am not racist but" D is out front tubthumping, it is all he does, bashing that tub. He is not the political thinker he thinks he is. I am all for it. I was on the fence and waited to see how it would affect me. It doesn't affect me. When you read on a motoring forum how to game the petition, you know its not to be trusted.

Don’t mention anything trans, You’ll set Adrian off on one.Poor dab.

Happy to see this issue aired and argued, thank you Gwern Gwynfil. But I should like the name of the research behind the key claim ‘There are already fewer accidents and the ones that occur are less serious – this means fewer dead people and fewer people suffering life changing injuries.’ Named research would strengthen the case a great deal. Similarly if a poll shows 70% opposition by the public, please tell us which poll by whom.

I support this law in principle. Anything that reduces unnecessary deaths and major injuries gets my vote. But in practice this law gets me highly nervous in case I miss a sign and break it. Driving has become unpleasantly anxious. So I now don't go out unless absolutely necessary. A bonus win for pollution levels I suppose but an added load to growing agoraphobia as I get older. It's complicated. :)

The 20 mph default speed limit was , and still is, a good law poorly implemented by Welsh Labour. And it makes me bloody angry all those that listened to the likes of Conservative clown Andrew RT Davies and other cretins who were led like sheep as they were with their monumental self harm with Brexit attacking signs that itself could have caused accidents moronic. Big things were made of the poll by those who were hostile. And because of Andrew RT Davies including I might add, Iain Duncan Smith whose BBC interview condoned damage done to ULEZ cameras which was shared on X (Twitter) by the Welsh Conservatives that no doubt led to damage to road signs throughout Wakes costing thousands to replacing but if this the 20 mph default is returned to the 30 mph. Will be another act of self harm. Yesterday I was told by a family member who lives in Swansea that a child was hit by a car driving erratically and that there was an Air Ambulance Wales flying above the city en route to Morrison Hospital. My memory then flashed back to the early 1980s when on two separate occasions my sisters nearly died having both been hit by speeding cars. Why are we in Wales so damn stupid sometimes, I ask myself? We get angry over Europe with Brexit , enough to leave causing untold harm to our economy, Senedd democracy, human rights & state funding , but do nothing when the Tory government steals power from our Senedd, robs us of billions in HS2 consequential and interfered questioning Senedd competency and even repelled Welsh Law. Normal countries and its people would be outraged?

I share your support for data-driven policy. But the (un)popularity of a policy is also data. Assuredly there were opponents of 20mph, especially early on, who were ignorant or misinformed. But that opposition should have started to fade as people experienced what 20 is like in practice – as the WG's experts apparently assured them it would. There's no sign of that yet. Even 59% of Labour voters are now against it, and I don't suppose many of them are hanging on the words of ARTD. Maybe people in practice are finding 20mph a bigger nuisance than the modelling led you to expect? In my rural part of Wales, it's true to say there are "relatively" few roads that are now 20 and really shouldn't be. But they tend to be the roads that are most used (A and B roads through villages). At what point do you start to allow popular opposition into your data?

​17% fewer road traffic collisions reported to police in 2024 Q1, compared to 2023 Q1, correlating with fewer fatalities and serious injuries. it follows from the YouGov poll result showing 72% against the new speed limit, that some drivers and households who continue to oppose the limit may have already benefitted seriously from 20 is Plenty. We and they may never know who they are, whether drivers, or other road users. 

Insurance policies are the clincher. If they are less expensive due to less incidents due to more 20mph limits then the only question for those against the 20mph limits is - Do you really want to scrap the default 20mph limit and so pay more for your vehicle insurance and increase the chances of losing your no claim bonus?

As a former community speedwatch volunteer living on a now 20mph road, I and several members of the community want it changed back to 30mph. Several CSW volunteers resigned as they wanted no part in getting letters sent to people for doing 26mph and above. It’s a rural road and nobody was sticking to 30, let alone 20! At least we’d have a speedwatch if the road was put back to normal. And please do not remain under the illusion that this was ever about safety. It was about climate. Go and read Future Wales 2040 and the Transport Strategy 2021. By the way, hardly anyone in our area is driving at 20 and all is well.

As usual, someone in favour of generalised 20mph speed limits claims a slam-dunk victory by citing the benefits, and completely ignores one half of the debate. Almost every engagement in life & society involves balancing risk with reward, otherwise we wouldn’t get out of bed for fear of falling down the stairs. The actual consideration with this matter is what level of risk are we prepared to accept in order to allow people to drive motor vehicles. The author clearly accepts this premise: people still get killed when there’s a 20mph limit. If all we cared about was minimising casualties we’d just ban cars altogether - and society would hardly function at all. There are known downsides to reducing speed limits: diminishing returns on speed reduction, increased disregard of motor law in general, increased journey times, increased road rage & ‘tailgating’, decreased engine efficiency, and higher emissions: the author mentions none of this. Some people believe the risk/reward equation is best served at 30mph, others at 20mph: both accept that there will be accidents and deaths, so let’s be clear, neither holds the moral high ground. As far as the government’s ‘consultations’ are concerned, we should all know by now that such displays are meaningless: our dear leaders habitually decide the outcome and then go on to manufacture the supporting evidence: that’s why 450,000 people complained about the policy after the fact. By all means analyse this issue, but can we please analyse all of it, not half of it?