• The post you are reporting:
   
  Alan
  There are plenty of spurious arguments against the 20 mph limit but the main argument for must be the figures that show the likelihood of death caused by speed. A pedestrian hit by a car travelling at 40 mph has a 95% chance of being killed while at 30mph this drops to 50% and at 20mph it drops to 5%. That's justification enough for me.
  Regarding the increase in pollution I cannot find any research based evidence to support this though a lot of people who see speed limits as an infringement on their civil liberties will cite it. I did find the following, however:
  • "Generally, driving more slowly at a steady pace saves fuel and carbon dioxide emissions, unless an unnecessarily low gear is used". DfT
  • When 30km/h (18.6 mph) zones were introduced in Germany, car drivers changed gear 12% less often, braked 14% less often and required 12% less fuel
  • The AA's report, Fuel For Thought (Jan 2008) "Along shorter roads with junctions and roundabouts, limiting acceleration to up to 20 mph reduces fuel consumption"
  In contrast to the outcry that often surrounds the mention of a 20 mph speed limit:
  • "The government has admitted that its proposal to increase the speed limit on motorways to 80mph would lead to more pollution and increase the risk of road deaths". The Guardian

Report Post

Your Name

Reason