Most urban areas already have 20 mph speed limits but Surrey county council plans to go one step further & introduce 20 mph & 30 mph speed limits on roads that were previously 60 mph speed limits 
localgov.co.uk/UK-first-as- … oads/54651
lancpudn:
Most urban areas already have 20 mph speed limits but Surrey county council plans to go one step further & introduce 20 mph & 30 mph speed limits on roads that were previously 60 mph speed limits
My old commute was about 17 miles of unclassified roads each way, or 10 miles longer on main roads.
Any road where you would slow down for an oncoming car is far from ideal for a safe overtake by those with no patience or regard for the limit.
With 20 mph speed limits,most overtaking will be made by cyclists passing cars.
njl:
lancpudn:
Most urban areas already have 20 mph speed limits but Surrey county council plans to go one step further & introduce 20 mph & 30 mph speed limits on roads that were previously 60 mph speed limitsMy old commute was about 17 miles of unclassified roads each way, or 10 miles longer on main roads.
Any road where you would slow down for an oncoming car is far from ideal for a safe overtake by those with no patience or regard for the limit.
You’re not making any sense?
Gidders:
With 20 mph speed limits,most overtaking will be made by cyclists passing cars.
And everyone else ignoring the new limit.
From what I can gather it’s to do with the recent changes in the Highway code whereas priority lies with pedestrians, cyclists and horse riders over motor vehicles. They’ve been moved down the pecking order in favour of other vunrable road users.
stu675:
njl:
lancpudn:
Most urban areas already have 20 mph speed limits but Surrey county council plans to go one step further & introduce 20 mph & 30 mph speed limits on roads that were previously 60 mph speed limitsMy old commute was about 17 miles of unclassified roads each way, or 10 miles longer on main roads.
Any road where you would slow down for an oncoming car is far from ideal for a safe overtake by those with no patience or regard for the limit.
You’re not making any sense?
Might be the heat.
If I had to drive 10 miles or more at 20mph aling narrow roads I could easily imagine a number of other drivers making questionable overtakes to be able to make progress. Could be just as damaging to overall safety.
‘Some’ of it makes sense on certain specific very narrow lanes.But these zealots are using
that as a pretext for other stupidly inappropriate limits which they’ve already applied on numerous proper A roads subject to all sorts of arbitrary speed limits on often former NSL roads now 40 or 50 mph.
Such as the A24 between Leatherhead and Capel or A25 between Dorking and Guildford or A 246 between Leatherhead and Guildford.
My bet is they’ll even reduce the Capel bypass to 50 mph next as part of it.
The country has been hijacked by these fools turning our road network into a basket case.
Just be grateful that you don’t drive in the Netherlands.
Most country roads which were 80km/h were reduced to 60km/h. And most of those roads are now designated as “dual use” roads. Wide enough for two cars to pass, but not wide enough for two lanes of cars AND a marked cycle lane. There is a cycle lane marked on both sides, but the cycle lanes are only ‘live’ when there’s actually a bicycle using it, at which point cars are only allowed to use the single lane centre lane, until the cycle(s) has passed, at which point the cars can use the full width of the road again…
the nodding donkey:
Just be grateful that you don’t drive in the Netherlands.Most country roads which were 80km/h were reduced to 60km/h. And most of those roads are now designated as “dual use” roads. Wide enough for two cars to pass, but not wide enough for two lanes of cars AND a marked cycle lane. There is a cycle lane marked on both sides, but the cycle lanes are only ‘live’ when there’s actually a bicycle using it, at which point cars are only allowed to use the single lane centre lane, until the cycle(s) has passed, at which point the cars can use the full width of the road again…
I think the Ockley example trumps that combined with having to use all of the opposite side of the road to pass a bicycle.Unless being ridden side by side or taking the primary position making overtaking impossible.
Basically the intention is to gradually apply an effectively 30 or 40 mph NSL or the speed of a bicycle whichever is lower.
Then it will be cyclists allowed to use motorways.
In all cases cyclists are immune from the rule back off or stop in a safe place to help overtaking traffic pass and are being used as rolling road blocks to meet political aims of deterring car use.Just like inappropriate speed limits designed to criminalise drivers off the roads.
20mph are supposed to encourage people to take up cycling in-town.
All the while cyclists don’t use the special lanes built for them - the very lifestyle of “Cycling” is more likely to lead to premature death than both drinking and smoking combined.
You’re not safe in a Bus Lane because Buses use it as well.
You’re not safe on normal roads, because trucks use them as well.
You’re not safe on country lanes, because 4x4s still insist on driving at the national speed limit, as per the road signs permitting such madness.
You’re not safe in the middle of the night, as drunk drivers have as much chance of taking you out, be you male, or female.
You’re not safe commuting, because everyone else and his dog is out there too, more worried about being sacked for lateness rather than you trundling along, wearing a helmet, but no high-viz…
All these efforts made by the establishment to “change our behavior” as a people…
At the end of the day, each and every one of us - has to come to their own choices on “how to stay alive”, or at least improve one’s chances of such a modest goal in these uncharted waters into which we are now heading.
What next?
Watch out for TYPHUS and CHOLERA folks.
Water is this week’s formerly “taken for granted” item that is now compromised… 
10,000 or 57% of annual road fatalities occur on country roads? Is that accurate? An annual national fatal road toll of over 17,500?
Just imagine the ever more draconian government mandated measures they’ll come up with over the coming years as we count down to NETZERO, They’re legally bound to reduce transport emissions YOY.
local.gov.uk/delivering-local-net-zero
Enabling switches to public transport away from cars would result in around 62.4 billion vehicle kilometres less being driven in England in 2030 and around 173.1 billion vehicle kilometres less being driven in 2050.
These vehicle km being switched to public transport would save an estimated 2.5 MtCO₂e in 2030
Star down under.:
10,000 or 57% of annual road fatalities occur on country roads? Is that accurate? An annual national fatal road toll of over 17,500?
In 2021, the majority of road length in Great Britain was rural, with 75% of ‘A’ roads, 80% of ‘B’ roads, and 57% of the combined ‘C’ and ‘U’ roads classified in this way.
What’s your point?
stu675:
Star down under.:
10,000 or 57% of annual road fatalities occur on country roads? Is that accurate? An annual national fatal road toll of over 17,500?In 2021, the majority of road length in Great Britain was rural, with 75% of ‘A’ roads, 80% of ‘B’ roads, and 57% of the combined ‘C’ and ‘U’ roads classified in this way.
What’s your point?
From the link in post #1
“In total, rural roads have an annual toll of about 10,000 deaths and serious injuries among motorists, cyclists and walkers.”
(Highlights mine)
So, “total” deaths, not annual ones.
17,500 deaths seems to be since 1926?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reported_ … at_Britain
Not many motorways around in the 20s and 30s were there?
So, SDU is asking a good question, straining more than a little to see the relevancy.
stu675:
Star down under.:
10,000 or 57% of annual road fatalities occur on country roads? Is that accurate? An annual national fatal road toll of over 17,500?In 2021, the majority of road length in Great Britain was rural, with 75% of ‘A’ roads, 80% of ‘B’ roads, and 57% of the combined ‘C’ and ‘U’ roads classified in this way.
What’s your point?
My point? Have you read the thread and included links, in entirety?
Star down under.:
stu675:
Star down under.:
10,000 or 57% of annual road fatalities occur on country roads? Is that accurate? An annual national fatal road toll of over 17,500?In 2021, the majority of road length in Great Britain was rural, with 75% of ‘A’ roads, 80% of ‘B’ roads, and 57% of the combined ‘C’ and ‘U’ roads classified in this way.
What’s your point?
My point? Have you read the thread and included links, in entirety?
AHH, not the link. I knew about the story beforehand.
Seems to be overstated by a factor of 10 at least. Surely not more shoddy journalism?
Franglais:
stu675:
Star down under.:
10,000 or 57% of annual road fatalities occur on country roads? Is that accurate? An annual national fatal road toll of over 17,500?In 2021, the majority of road length in Great Britain was rural, with 75% of ‘A’ roads, 80% of ‘B’ roads, and 57% of the combined ‘C’ and ‘U’ roads classified in this way.
What’s your point?
From the link in post #1
“In total, rural roads have an annual toll of about 10,000 deaths and serious injuries among motorists, cyclists and walkers.”
(Highlights mine)So, “total” deaths, not annual ones.
17,500 deaths seems to be since 1926?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reported_ … at_Britain
Not many motorways around in the 20s and 30s were there?
So, SDU is asking a good question, straining more than a little to see the relevancy.
The term “rural road” is open to definition and interpretation but “annual toll” is clearly definitive.
In this case, the exact definition of “rural road” is of little relevance, it represents 57% of annual road fatalities, ergo, 100% exceeds 17,500.
Either the journalist has less than primary school abilities at written English (quite possible these days), or it is a deliberate misrepresentation of the facts, for nefarious purposes. That of course is unless your annual road fatalities exceeds 17,500.