Don't get me wrong I have no issue with 20mph limits on back street residential roads, but NOT on through routes.

Now, here's the thing, proponents of these blanket 20mph limits (and LTNs and Clean Air Zones) claim, with justification, that most residents of the areas "want them".
But we all know that NATIONALLY most people do not want them.

What get's me is the hypocrisy of those using the argument that locals should decide about stuff affecting the environment in their area.
Why ?
Well they are completely inconsistent about it.
They say that residents should get to decide on 20mph limits (or whatever) despite the fact they negatively affect other people but that residents should NOT get to decide if any housing estates are built near them.
So, what the proponents (of LTNs etc) are actually saying is that residents should get to decide in favour of stuff the proponents are in favour of, but only stuff the proponents are actually in favour of.....

What gets me is that these people claim it's making it safer for cyclists and pedestrians without producing any evidence of the accident rate. It's just been done throughout our village and the surrounding ones but in the 55 years I've lived here I can't recall any incidents involving vehicles. It's a completely unnecessary waste of scarce resources and, as expected, it's widely ignored (I comply with it but that doesn't mean I agree with it).

Meanwhile the centre line on the road connecting us with the local hospital, which we regularly use when attending appointments, has been allowed to wear away completely. That road scares the living daylights out of me when I have to use it after dark as the lack of a line combined with the excessively bright LED headlights of oncoming vehicles means I can't accurately judge my position on the road. I'm amazed there haven't been accidents there but as far as I know there haven't which speaks volumes about people's natural caution.

And, of course the potholes are getting progressively worse and more numerous. "Lunatics running the asylum" comes to mind. 🙄

I find it harder to concentrate in 20 zones especially when they have a speed camera. I was in Wales last month, and they had one at the bottom of a steep hill. Even as a professional driver, all the engine braking in the world wasn’t enough, it was a real challenge to keep it at 20, and maintain full awareness at the same time. In my opinion, they could well cause extra incidents, under certain conditions.

Of course, the evidence is clear when you get hit at 20 you’re way more likely to survive… but do your chances of getting hit go up because the driver is concentrating on the limit? I mean how many of us keep a true 5mph in a car park at all times?

I wouldn’t oppose it, in short sections, outside of schools- or those “20 when lights are flashing” kinda setups. But a blanket 20 is hideous in my view

Couldn't agree more.

If limits don't make sense then they will be ignored. But that leads to fines so the Councils are happy with that.

If the UK didn't already have one of the best safety records in the world, then yeah, add restrictions. Seeing as one of the major causes of accidents are driver distraction, having a driver constantly checking a speedo is not going to help matters.

11 hours ago, Theshed said:

Couldn't agree more.

If limits don't make sense then they will be ignored. But that leads to fines so the Councils are happy with that.

They certainly are :

Speeding tickets per year from the camera at A348 Ringwood Rd West Howe (a primary route dual carriageway) :

2020 - 39
2021 - 55
2022 - 32
<<<<<<< Limit dropped from 40 to 30 (despite no history of serious accidents)
2024 - 11,594
2025 - 3054 (pro rata = 6665)

BBC News

Speeding tickets up 36,000% on Bournemouth road after lim...

The camera in Bournemouth resulted in 11,594 speeding tickets in 2024.