StreetFilms recently shared this film from England where there is a concerted effort to reduce the vehicle speeds in residential streets to 20 MPH. Proponents argue that the slower speed makes the streets more welcoming to pedestrians and cyclists, reduces fatalities, and increases property values. They make a compelling case including some heart wrenching footage of a child being hit by a car. The human price of speed hardly seems worth the saved few seconds.
20′s Penty For Us from Streetfilms on Vimeo.
Currently, most Austin residential streets outside of neighborhood arteries are limited to 25 MPH. Unfortunately in England as here, the government has provided limited funding for physical traffic calming devices such as medians and pinch points (though it seems there is always money found for that next highway expansion or overpass, eh?). This is a step in the right direction but one wonders how much signs alone can accomplish.
What you think? Should we move residential speed limits down to 20 MPH? Is doing so without the accompanying traffic calming effective?
on Aug 31st, 2010 at 10:54 am
I’m behind this 100%. Having 20mph in front of schools for only 45 min 2x a day and 35+mph the rest of the time is ludicrous. If we believe that 20mph is safer for those 45 min, then it should be that way for all residential streets all the time.
Unfortunately, car culture is all about going sexyfast, not about driving slow and cautious. Ever seen a car commercial where someone drives slowly? Nope, it’s always empty streets with the engine revving showing you how you will stop being so impotent and start being powerful.
When I do drive, I go through my neighborhood at under 20, always, even though the speed limit is 35 (35! in a strictly residential neighborhood lined with houses and schools and NO sidewalks, unbelievable!) I couldn’t live with myself if I hit someone’s child like that video.
on Aug 31st, 2010 at 2:29 pm
This would be great! Fat chance of it happening here, though. I volunteered to be a part of my neighborhood traffic calming committee. The first meeting was particularly discouraging because of the number of people who actually came out against slowing down the traffic. We managed to get through the first steps, and are waiting to see the city plan, but I’m sure it will be an uphill struggle to get it voted in. Would love to see this 20mph limit be a part of it, but think the guy on the film is right. It would need to apply to all of the residential areas in the city to work at all well.
Can anyone imagine the backlash if something like this became an issue in Austin? And if it became known that the idea was based on something in a socialist country there would be British flag burnings and lynchings of random cyclists and pedestrians (by true patriots, of course).
I guess if a few of these traffic calming opponents would get run over, that might help sway opinion. Unfortunately, these people never walk anywhere, so they are in no danger of seeing the need for something like a 20mph limit.
on Aug 31st, 2010 at 3:09 pm
Very Cool! RT @austinon2wheels: Is 20 plenty? http://bit.ly/cX2IeW Great traffic calming campaign from England. via @Streetfilms
on Aug 31st, 2010 at 3:43 pm
I often ride my bike faster than 20mph, even up to 30-35 mph on Shoal Creek. Since that’s a residential street would my bike then be subject to speeding tickets?
on Aug 31st, 2010 at 4:25 pm
Yes, Otis, speed limits apply to everyone and I know of a least one instance of a cyclist getting ticketed for speeding in a school zone. Slow down!
on Aug 31st, 2010 at 4:52 pm
I just meant that if all residential streets were reduced to 20 mph, then that would be a pretty severe drag for all but the slowest of cyclists. Even my wife can easily get up to 25 mph on certain sections of slightly downhill smooth roads in residential areas.
I’m still a bigger fan of creating more pinch-points in residential neighborhoods to divert traffic away from or at least slow traffic in neighborhoods. Nobody even obeys the speed limits that are already in place.
on Aug 31st, 2010 at 5:09 pm
I dunno Otis, 20 MPH is pretty fast for riding around town. In Copenhagen, they time the lights on certain roads to 12 MPH so cyclists don’t have to stop. This speed is comes from the average speed of a normal person riding (not an enthusiast.) You can hurt someone pretty bad by hitting them with a bike, and you shouldn’t assume that bikes should be exempt. I think 20 MPH wouldn’t affect that many people in general and would make the roads safer and more inviting for new cyclists and children. I’d gladly soft pedal to achieve that.
on Aug 31st, 2010 at 5:45 pm
The day when a traffic law is conceived thinking on people —as opposed to car speed— in the US, I would be the happier person in the Western Hemisphere. Merely reading that someone even suggest it in TX makes me smile and renew my faith on bicycle advocacy.
Tomorrow it will be a different day.
on Aug 31st, 2010 at 7:06 pm
OK, I’m a scofflaw, I’ll admit it. When I come across one of those automatic radar things (cycling only), I like to go back and have go at setting a PR.
I was fortunate enough to live in both The Netherlands and England when I was a kid. I did lots of cycling in both (even skipping classes during high school to go out and ride). England is more like America in terms of cycling infrastructure. BUT, the big difference between The Netherlands and England and the US, is that in this country there is outright hostility to cyclists.
I know, it’s my fault. I go too fast past those radar things and make Hummer drivers hate us. BTW My best was 30 mph on a slight uphill on my touring bike.
on Aug 31st, 2010 at 9:04 pm
Anyone else have an average MPH on your car? Even counting round trips out of town, my average speed is never above 30 MPH, and I drive the speed limit to a T with the exception of the highway which I set the cruise control to 74.
What I think would be more effective would be to paint lines in the road about the width of a fat person. Those would be lanes. Bikes get one each, motorcycles get one each. Cars would require more depending on width. If a street was five lanes wide you could have two cyclist riding abreast and a 3 lanes for a car to pass. or two motorcycles and 3 bikes. or 5 bikes. Lane distribution equity for non highway roads.
Would ever happen, but seems unfair that a single person in a 3 person wide transport machine gets the whole road and 1 person wide bikes get the ditch.
on Sep 1st, 2010 at 10:47 am
I’m going to get West Lynn down from 30 to 25 if I have to post the signs myself. It’s ridiculous to have cars through a residential/commercial stretch with high ped/bike/school activity. Anyone that opposes 20mph for these stretches will have nothing to stand on for an argument when we look at the seconds they gain in travel time versus the statistic for speed killing.
Even worse is having my street at 25mph. It’s only half a block long, lined with park cars everywhere and a sharp corner that take you behind Mathews elementary, yet bozos fly down the street all the time, only to be stopped by traffic ahead of them anyway.
As for bikes needing the speed. Give me a break. I seriously doubt you need to go more than 20 unless you’re on some training mission, and that can be accomplished on plenty of roads around town.
on Feb 5th, 2011 at 12:44 pm
[...] I love the “20s plenty” concept http://bit.ly/cX2IeW especially when it comes to stopping distance [...]
on Feb 7th, 2011 at 12:40 pm
[...] about 8-80 and inquiries about the speaker. I happened to mention that he’s a big fan of 20s Plenty. Fellow bike blogger Elliot (@AustinOn2Wheels) chimed in about speed limits and neighborhoods. [...]