Twenty’s plenty. Or is it? Many think so. Some don’t. Why? What are we talking about? Speed limits of course! El Brute have launched a consultation on their proposal to impose a 20mph speed limit on all roads in the borough. The only exceptions to this would be the A316 and the A205 (the south circular running through Barnes up to Kew) which are under Transport for London red route control. 20mph limits already exist in some parts of the borough, including the main roads through Twickenham town centre, but extending it to all roads would be a significant change. The intention, according to the Brutes, is that this will improve air quality, create environments that are more conducive to walking and cycling, reduce the number and severity of accidents and reduce the need for traffic calming measures. They also point out that 20mph limits already exist in full or in part in 15 of London’s Boroughs.
The aspirations are noble, but do they work? Research into 20mph limits has shown a very small reduction in average traffic speeds, just 1-2mph, perhaps suggesting that drivers either don’t pay too much attention to the limits (probably too busy staring at their bloody phones) or can rarely get above 20mph on many roads anyway (probably too busy fiddling with the sat nav). However, the research also shows that a 1mph reduction in average speeds can lead to a 6% reduction in collisions on urban roads. A small but potentially significant drop. What is perhaps more important is the reduction in serious injuries caused when vehicles are travelling at 20mph compared to 30mph. In this situation the chance of a pedestrian being fatally injured drops from 20% to 2.5%. It’s a major improvement.
It is hoped that the reduction in speed limits will make cycling and walking more attractive. Given that average speeds only fall by 1-2 mph this would seem to be about perception and ‘creating a culture’ rather than about any ‘would be’ cyclists thinking that a 1mph difference in traffic speeds will significantly enhance their riding experience. Cue comments about bloody cyclists always being on the pavements anyway AND jumping red lights at the same time! Idiots! And do NOT get us started on pedestrians with all that ‘walking around’ stuff they do.
Additional traffic calming measures such as speed bumps are not planned as part of the scheme. It’s all about the signage, see. We’ll tell you something for nothing, one thing that does need sorting out is the current, ridiculous situation where the main routes through central Twickenham such as Heath Road, Richmond Road and London Road have a 20mph limit while the side streets off them still have 30mph. Eh? The message is confused at best, dangerous at worst… Turn off the main drag, put your foot down, let’s go!!! Whether every ‘main drag’ in the whole borough needs a 20mph limit is likely to be a source of ‘healthy discussion’.
If you have any views on El Brute’s proposals you have until 21st December to let them know. There’s an online survey but there are also “Community Conversation Events” over the next couple of months in different towns around the borough.
All events begin at 6.30pm.
Have your say. The outcomes of the 20mph consultation will go to Richmond Council’s Cabinet in 2019.
Next Next post: Twickenham Riverside: Where Next?
Amazingly with all the reservations so eloquently stated here the majority of survey responses rejected 20 mph global limit. Hardly living up to their democratic nomenclature the council proceeded to pass the legislation. They should rename themselves the Liberal Undemocrats.
The consultation ended only a few (working ) days ago, and the results haven’t been published yet. However, the cat is now out of the bag, as our Leader tells us, in his blog in Community News dated 3 Jan, ” the consultation was never a referendum on the principle of making our roads safer. What the consultation did was allow a critical opportunity to hear resident views, understand any perceived drawbacks and to act in a way that best addresses the breadth of views we will have undoubtedly received”. In other words, whatever the people indicated they wanted, he would have his way. Why bother to “consult” at all? It would have saved much time and our money if he had just said “we are going to do it”.
In my experience “consultation” never means asking for authority. If LBRUT had merely enacted the 20mph limit WITHOUT any reference to the community, people would have been up in arms for their arrogance. Damned if you do…….
Suspect holding a consultation is so if a legal challenge to the 20 limit was made LBRUT can show they’ve acted fairly and followed due process.
I’m in favour, but it is completely pointless without some kind of traffic calming and enforcement. The 20mph limit in Twickenham seems to be ignored by almost all drivers including buses and police cars. The only thing slowing down the traffic is the traffic. No red tarmac, no cameras, no dot-matix speed sensors, no raised sections: all the same as before with a handful of small 20 signs. Like the “new” pavements in Twickenham that are never cleaned, I’m worried this is another empty gesture.
Please have a read of the latest and most authoritative research on this topic then complete the consultation. Make your own mind up, but turning existing law abiding motorists into those that break the speed limit to reduce average speeds in the borough by less than 1mph seems like an illogical move to me.
Grump, grump, grump. Surprised that no-one has mentioned the piece in The Times earlier this week deriding the ineffectiveness of 20MPH zones, across the nation.
Wouldn’t a few of those flashing signs showing your speed and a suitable smiley/sad face be a cheaper option? Nothing is going to reign in the nutters who blast along my double parked road at 50 mph except getting caught and fined. The police have already said that won’t happen so it’s all about education. 700k for a job lot of 20 mph signs that literally some drivers will adhere to seems excessive.
The beauty of a borough wide 20 limit is avoiding the need to sign changes. Only small repeater signs will be needed apart from turnings off the A316. It will make the excuse of not seeing the sign less credible.
Being spectacularly late to the party: I feel like I should do what most of the other commenters have done to this post and levied their personal bias on what should be a fairly open and shut item. It’s clear that users of the effected roads “ignore” current speed limits. It’s also clear that there is a divide between two groups involved: those who are against the new proposed limit because they (allegedly) hate slowness; and those who are for the new proposed limit who (allegedly) hate cars. As a son of a person who died in a Road Traffic Accident, I’m going to quote a part of this article: “In this situation [where the speed limit is 20MPH] the chance of a pedestrian being fatally injured drops from 20% to 2.5%.” That means it will stop killing 1 in 5 ped’s, and start killing 2 to 3 of every 100. “It’s a major improvement.” In case you’re wondering: this doesn’t stop me wanting to learn to drive. Time and money does. Lastly: Perhaps parents with radar guns wouldn’t be such a bad idea if a School (or other site of particular interest) thinks children will be injured by a vehicle; no matter how many wheels that vehicle has.
My view of how Lbrut’s plan will go….waste money on a consultation, fudge/ ignore the results, implement the blank 20mph speed limit, moan when everyone ignores it, claim safety is being compromised use this as an excuse to out-source speed cameras installations everywhere and rake in mountains of cash…..just like they did with their residents parking based on emissions fiasco!! Oh and still don’t fix the bloody pot holes!!
and unless you believe our children are being indoctrinated, surely you will see some sense in the idea of speed reduction.
BTW , the featured school is right on the South Circular (outside the proposed scheme).
In your scenario raking in mountains of cash from voluntary contributions by speeding drivers would enable the potholes to be filled in. Win-win !
Lbrut have there own genius traffic calming plan which also saves money at the same time….simply don’t fix the roads so the pot holes slows everything down, Some roads like Amyand Park Road are in such poor condition that even 4x4s couldn’t sustain 20mph!
A limit not a target….so we should all be driving significantly slower than 20 then even when the road is clear?
stopping /reaction times at diff. speeds anyone???
There are some things you cannot legislate your way out of. Many things happen unexpectedly, there are dangers in the world! It wouldn’t make sense to go down the route of legislating for all the unexpected things as you would have to ban so many activities. I just hope we can be sensible in how we approach this instead of going with who ever shouts loudest….
What has happened to the dockless bike hire companies? There was a flurry of activity when first introduced and loads of abandoned bikes all over the borough but I’ve not seen any for weeks now. Did I miss Something?
Think Ofo have run up the white (or should that be yellow) flag. Did see a tweet from them earlier today in response to a question about were the bikes have gone in Richmond that ‘through the winter we will be operating across Camden, Islington and Hackney and Northern Southwark (London Bridge, Borough, Bankside and Rotherhithe).’ To be honest recently most local Ofo riders seem to be feral youths riding around on bikes that the rear lock has been broken off of. Also noticed that for the few bikes that are left the prices have gone up from a flat 50p per half hour when the scheme started to a 30p unlock charge and then 50p per 10 minutes. Time for LBRUT to review the contract with Ofo I think.
May have something to do with it.
in ‘poor’ towns, especially in places where there is little or no police presence, bound to happen…:/ in germany there is a very strict police force, even a fine for spitting gum..
Who ever it was mentioning “education” got it right – more Speed Awareness Courses. Motorists particularly need to drive with consideration for others, much more likely to injure another road user than vice-versa. No-one wants to explain to their children why /How they hurt someone else’s.
So, are you for road safety or against it? Bleeding obvious to me.
It will only work with speed bumps or other traffic calming measures. Need to ensure cyclists comply too.
FYI road speed limits only apply to MOTOR vehicles (except in Royal Parks).
But, as motor vehicles weigh >100 times more than bicycles and do >99% of the killing of pedestrians and cyclists the 20mph limit will still be effective in reducing casualties.
Speed cameras would appear to be the way, cheaper and self-financing (though that will upset a few). Will the moped delivery riders take any notice?
‘I was in an accident with a car when I was out training….cycling’: man to his GP on GPs Behind Closed Doors, Channel 5 ‘documentary’ (someone has to watch them) last week.
If sensitive cyclists are worried that everyone seems to hate them, they might usefully spend 20 minutes driving through Richmond Park (and surrounding roads for that matter) on a Saturday morning. What is, whatever you may think about it, a public road is regarded by a very high proportion of the cyclists using it, as a velodrome, a circuit on which to ‘train’, to improve one’s ‘personal best’, a goal which must not be blocked by tedious considerations such as personal safety or other road users. Cars seem to be viewed simply as mobile obstacles, there to test the ability to crowd, tailgate, swerve or block. I find it takes all my concentration to deny them their apparent wish to be involved in an accident with me. I am astonished by their apparent inability, despite all the anecdotal and statistical evidence, to grasp the reality of their own vulnerability. The piety deriving from the use of a non-polluting, green, ‘heritage’ means of transport (by people who are, after all, simply car-drivers dressed up in spandex) is used, it would appear, to absolve them from normal standards of behaviour on the road.
Sensitive cyclists: if you’re worried about the animosity, have a word with that lot…. If you can get them to slow down and compromise their PBs.
So there may be irresponsible people cycling in Richmond Park. What has that to do with people using a quiet and non-polluting means of transport on borough roads ? Mrs A Robot does not presumably feel obliged to police bad driving on motorways so, as a law abiding non-racing cyclist, I feel no obligation to police Richmond Park.
WTF has this got to do with the council’s consultation.
Next you’ll be accusing the Strictly spandex crew of breaking dance floor speed limits and terrorising innocent viewers in their vein attempts to beat their PBs.
As Mrs A points out those cyclists in the park are in all probability drivers dressed in spandex, and those young riders are future drivers. At the start of that path there is a big sign highlighting the 10mph speed limit and Pedestrian Priority, with a helpful diagram just in case they can’t read or recognise an old person with a stick with all the needs that implies. They are being taught that those regulations, designed to protect the safety and right to a nice walk of other park users, is trumped, either in its traditional sense or as practised by the orange meglomaniac and champion of personal privilege, by their personal right to go as fast as they want regardless of the risks to those around them. It is an attitude manifest in a lot of the objections to the proposed limit, and the failure to either respect or enforce those regulations the reason why so many of us are cynical about how effective they will be…..
And there’s no need to swear, A Mouse. I hear quite enough of that kind of thing when I try to overtake pelotons of four-abreast selfie-taking velonauts trying to relive the glory days of 2012 by precisely following Sir Bradley’s triumphant route (but failing to realise that no one’s closed off the roads for them on this occasion).
http://11foot8.com/ <<– YT link inside for the 11 foot 10 inch high trucks trying to go under the bridge!!
I’ve long been an advocate for Hans Monderman shared space/naked streets schemes. Even put a video up some time ago of this experiment in Poynton Cheshire.
These schemes have a proven record of improved traffic flow and dramatic drop in KSI statistics and improved environment for all users.
So why the reluctance to adopt them? I can only guess that people are reluctant to take responsibility for their own behaviour and rather petition the State to protect their own special interests regardless of the impact on others and the unintended consequences. That and the local authorities are never shy of the opportunity to exercise more control.
The current model of segregation, zones, limits and regulations have only encouraged hostility on the roads. This is not the time to double down on that methodology. It is time for a radical rethink.
That also links to an article indicating accidents involving pedestrians increased after the Poynton scheme was introduced.
I think it’s an interesting idea, the stop-start nature of traffic lights is inherently inefficient. But I think your assumptions of why there isn’t more widespread adoption of such schemes is wide of the mark, it might simply be that they aren’t popular and don’t work.
I’m not going to argue statistics, as Alexis infers – they can be manipulated. But having said that it is evident shared space benefits the majority involved.
You quote from a cyclist pressure group blog and after scanning the contents they wouldn’t be happy till all motor vehicles are banned. All of which proves my point about special interest groups petitioning for their own interests regardless of the impact on others.
So a rather uncharitable interpretation of your comments would be that you’re aware of this and you are blaming the selfish demand of those with disabilities to be able to cross the road for holding back shared space development that would benefit the non-disabled majority.
I’m not against changing the status quo. Shared spaces initially sounded like a great idea to me and maybe in some circumstances they are. But on reviewing the literature it’s clear they aren’t necessarily the unqualified success you are implying.
The conclusion is that reducing the speed limit does improve safety but, to state the obvious, only if people adhere to it. Without traffic calming measures, which is of course what is being proposed, the speed reductions and safety benefits are still there but are not as pronounced. But the council are in a bind here. They don’t police the limits, and traffic calming measures are expensive, unpopular and worse for pollution. So they have to rely on self-policing. I’m rather more optimistic that others about how much this will work. I think were 20 limits have been introduced, such as through Petersham or on Priory Lane, while obviously not everyone adheres it has led to a general reduction in speed.
This scheme shouldn’t be billed as a silver bullet; the benefits shouldn’t be overstated. Accidents will continue to happen. The proposal suggests noise reduction would be a benefit, but the survey I linked to indicates there’s surprisingly little evidence for this.
Overall though I’m in favour of the scheme for a couple of reasons. As I’ve pointed out in another post I was in an accident that I think would have been less severe had this been introduced, and in addition because walking, cycling, working or indeed living next to a road is more pleasant with traffic going 20 rather than 30.
never mind the cost of the scheme, how about just paying the policemen more / getting more police???
Lorries should be mainly using the big motorways, where the speed limit is 60 to 70..
The speed limit on town roads is 30 – but due to traffic and buses, you will find you are much slower!!!
Agree. Though some will try (foolishly) to restrict lorries to main highways. That will not work if smaller concerns and households need deliveries.
As with so much of these visionary schemes they areally like the curate’s egg.
Enough of the anectodal evidence. Let’s take a look at the real facts of road casualties.
The report below from fullfact, using goverment data, shows that the number of road deaths in the last 5 years has remained constant at circa 1,700 per year. Most deaths are of vulnerable road users, namely pedestrians, cyclists and motorbikers, particularly when judged per mile travelled.
More than 99% of deaths are caused by motor vehicles. Less than 1% of deaths are caused by cyclists.
Of the serious injuries 98% were caused by motor vehicles.
1. Reduce the number of motor vehicles / miles driven.
From the facts you presented you can draw a logical conclusion that the best way to improve road safety would be if everyone drove a car and we removed the three vulnerable categories of road users from the road system! Logical but perhaps not very practical…..
“Lies, damned lies, and statistics” is a phrase describing the persuasive power of numbers, particularly the use of statistics to bolster weak arguments. It is also sometimes colloquially used to doubt statistics used to prove an opponent’s point..
Be in no doubt, Gareth Roberts LibDems and their Green chums will force this measure through with or without our support, so look forward to a new forest of confusing poles. Perhaps we can also look forward to extra poles aimed at the cycling fraternity, some of whom terrorise pedestrians and motorists alike with their aggressively inconsiderate behaviour – is it the tight lycra that does it? NB, Mr Lennon, peut-etre?
How to win friends and influence people. Thank goodness he will never be put to the test – keep on twittering Lucullus!
My congratulations to those who have written with well evidenced erudition – I look forward to the Clarendon Hall meeting.
I’m sorry anonymouse, I really should have made my last post clearer.
“Poles with signs on top”. There, is that better now?
Personally I find it rather pedantic, but – each to their own.
No it didn’t. Overall there was a fall in casualties; Only by splitting the results into zones , each with too few events to be significant, could they manage to find that there were more zones with an increase than a decrease. As a new administration they were hostile to the work of their predecessor and so twisted the statistics in this way.
My kids don’t cycle on the roads because of nutter drivers. 20mph should be standard across all London areas apart from bigger roads (Eg: A316 ,WestWay etc). I drive also, but tbf with traffic do you ever get much above 20mph going down High St etc anyhow? Bring it on.
Few people will follow it, certainly not the nutters anyway, making the roads no safer than they were originally and simply penalising normal people who are in a rush or just want to get somewhere in good time. Plenty of roads allow you to do 30mph in the borough even if the High Street doesn’t. Then the council will come along and put humps and bumps everywhere, claiming its the only way to make people do 20mph.
They say this expensive scheme won’t cost us money. For those that believe public money is created from fairy dust rather than taxpayers pockets – it would be money that could be spent on more important priorities – hospitals, schools etc.
To take your Bath case for example. An incoming hostile administration played silly games with statistics breaking up the overall decrease in casualties into small regions where the randomness associated with small numbers happened to give a slight preponderance of regions where there happened to be two casualties where there had been one. To say it again overall there was a statistically significant decrease in casualties with the introduction of 20mph limits.
This excellent piece is as divisive as brexit!
It’s definitely done a good job of outing twickenham’s boy & girl racers and cycle-haters.
At the end of the day 20mph limits are going to have eff’all effect on journey times because of all the traffic jams, lights, crossings, roadworks, etc etc. What’s the current average journey speed – 10mph?
So let’s just do it and make the roads safer for all of us pedestrians, cyclists and motor vehicle drivers, but let’s do it especially for our kids.
Less pollution will do nicely too.
Just look at the statistics of the number of people killed by motor vehicles versus those killed by cyclists or pedestrians (lets see if you can name one this year?) and it’s bleedin obvious where the real dangers lie on our roads.
But don’t let the stats spoil your good old anti-cycling rant.
Why can’t the borough put its efforts into policing 30mph properly. Even the buses regularly go faster than this. Try driving exactly at 30 and see how many irritated vehiclrs pile up on your tail, or worse still, overtake you dangerously and roar past. Putting it down to 20mph will turn the whole borough into Richmond Park. It will create an even greater sense of road rage, irtitability and impatience. Most people will drive just above it at 30 (uou can see this in the parks) so why not police 30 properly? The facts and statistics in the leaflet we were all sent were a dazzling array of incomplete information, carefully selected to persuade… .
The borough do not control the police.
The police actually agree that 30 is too fast in some roads but can do nothing about it.
What next ; a Mafia don on the best police tactics ? Narrow residential roads shouldn’t have any through traffic. The casualties tend to occur on major roads so that is where limits are most needed.
What next, a cycling zealot on general road policy?
Any thoughts on cyclist behaviour and adherence to speed limits in Richmond Park?
‘Narrow residential roads shouldn’t have any through traffic’. Cyclists are traffic so assume you want to ban them as well? Bizarre. Apparently Edmund King is a keen cyclist, and in 2012 made headlines by condemning cyclist-hating drivers as “absolute idiots” so perhaps his not all bad!
I was guilty of sloppy English; actually traffic probably includes pedestrians so I should have said no through traffic of motor vehicles. Go to Waltham Forest to see how it works.
I think this article missed the point a bit about the reduction in average speed.
The small average speed drop suggests to me that in urban areas your overall travel time is only slightly constrained by the speed limit, and that it is dominated by waiting at junctions, traffic lights and general congestion. So the maximum speed can be appreciably reduced, with the accompanying dramatic improvement in safety, without coming at a significant cost of overall journey time.
Of course not everyone sticks to the limit, but that’s not an argument against introducing it. Even if only three quarters of drivers adhere to it that’s still a significant improvement.
I’d be interested to know what the difference in average speed is along the A307 from Richmond to Kingston between the 20 and 30 zones. I was hit from behind in the 30 zone with a toddler and a month old baby in the back (I stopped for a zebra crossing, the guy behind didn’t). Had the same thing happened in the 20 zone the other driver might have been able to stop, or at the very least the impact would have been far less. Mercifully the kids were OK, but it brought home that a tiny increase in your journey time really is a price worth paying for safety.
There is a national scheme called Community roadwatch which failing the police resources being available could work quite well around schools. https://tfl.gov.uk/corporate/safety-and-security/road-safety/community-roadwatch It could be a requirement that schools as part of their traffic plan organise with the parent body to have volunteers use speedguns at busy school drop off and pick up times. Whilst receiving a warning letter might not have so much effect on those just passing, not a few of those speeding are parents / carers and reinforcing the norms within the school community might have more effect. Perhaps those speeding could be given a detention and those who respect the 20 limit a nice sticker…..
An unsignaled brick wall is perhaps just a little harsh but a par of clearly marked bollards would put a stop to rat-running.
HM What roads have such perfect safely records that a danger reducing lower speed is not needed ? My recollection of KSI maps it that they cluster precisely on main roads.
Of course KSI maps cluster on main roads, mainly because they have more traffic per minute than on a small road. If safety is the only and exclusive consideration then there’s no logical barrier to a 5mph limit, which clearly to everyone but the anti motorist lobby, would be completely stupid and wreak huge economic damage. So if we can establish that there is a balance to be had between safety and utility, there is an argument that we don’t lower the limit to 20mph.
Has any evidence been produced that 20mph limits (rarely followed, especially not by the drivers that are causing these accidents) are better from a safety standpoint than more rigorous enforcement of the already well established 30mph limits, the use of speed indicators along roads, better design of junctions/crossings and better education of drivers, pedestrians and cyclists, etc. Clearly not, the agenda is simply to try and frustrate anyone driving anywhere when the vast majority of people within the M25 only drive when they need to.
Hang on. This doesn’t necessarily mean everyone driving at 1mph less. An average 1mph reduction would also occur if the single 80 mph nutter who collides with multiple vehicles was removed from the equation, wouldn’t it?
Cherchez le nutjob, el Brute.
People need to respond to the consultation because you can bet the organised “anti motorist” lobby will be and will get this forced through, regardless of whether 20mph is sensible across the whole borough. As others have said, if safety is the only criteria why not make it 5mph. 20mph as a blanket limit will be ignored, and to enforce it they will have to introduce more speed bumps. Also it’ll render it less effective in the small number of streets where it makes sense to have this.
For reasons that are made pretty obvious in the blog post. All speed limits are a compromise between speed and safety. Lowering the speed limit from 30 to 20 in an urban area has a pretty limited effect on overall average speed, but has a dramatic effect on the chance of fatal injuries. Reducing the limit further to 5mph would slow traffic far more without a big improvement in safety.
Safety isn’t the only crtieria – you’re welcome to go and find your own data to demonstrate that more people driving around more quickly is a good thing. If it were me managing a consultaiton, and a majority of responses came back with the same level of un-evidenced drivel you’ve assembled in this post, I’d be treating them with the contempt they so richly deserve.
Your ‘anti-motorist’ lobby comprises people who want do things like let their kids walk safely to school without being terrified they’ll be run down, or make the roads safer so that the everyone can cycle more comfortably to the shops or wherever they want to go, so families don’t feel they have to ride on the pavement because the road is too scary a place to take children, and so that we have fewer people injured or killed on borough roads. Are all those bad things?
I fully support the 20 limit. It’s not an anti motorist mob although given the appalling car pollution we all slog through, why in earth not?
Some of us just have a funny old thing about reducing risk, being able to ride bikes on the road or have our kids do so without being terrified and, oh you know, wanting to live. Stamping your selfish wheels because you didn’t want to slow down when careering around inner Twickenham is a bit childish.
Maybe no speed limit but a reverse gear only scheme be applied to all roads in Twickenham. This would certainly make traffic even slower and appeal to the Lib Dem cohort whose Party seems to have gone in reverse gear too.
Can you imagine driving from Twickenham to Kingston at 20 MPH. Smaller residential roads fine, but main routes would be too slow. And bikes would be going faster.
If that encourages more people to use bicycles for such local journeys so much the better for the atmosphere and personal health .
I cycle that stretch every weekday morning and many cars don’t even adhere to 30mph. 20mph would certainly make me feel safer cycling to work. And a comfort to my partner knowing that I will get home safely again that evening.
You could always take the bus, or ride a bike – it’s not a long journey, is it? Besides, surely there’s usually enough traffic on such a route that you rarely get to 30mph anyway?
I would have thought that most, or certainly the worst, accidents are caused by people ignoring the current limit, so to reduce it would only affect those law-abiding drivers who actually pay attention rather than the ones who choose to drive dangerously. By the way, have the people proposing this actually tried driving at 20mph for any distance?
If you have driven through either Richmond Park or Bushy Park, then yes you must have driven 20mph. It will certainly require a change for mindset by car people as not constantly ‘putting the foot down’ to get to the speed limit asap.
There is already a 20mph limit in force in the centre of Twickenham but nobody sticks to 20 and that includes LBRUT staff.
I have had buses flashing me for doing 20 and other rude and irate drivers shouting obscenities because I was driving too slow.
A 5 mph limit would be safer and a much better idea.
That is, of course, if safety were the only consideration.
A 23 hour per day curfew would be safer still.
The evidence seems to be that 20mph limits are adhered to where there is an obvious and compelling need for them but that a blanket imposition make them become increasingly ignored. Noboby seems to abiding by the limit on the Isleworth section of Richmond Rd/St Margarets Rd.