Talk:Road speed limits in the United Kingdom

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Highways: United Kingdom Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Highways, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of highways on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HighwaysWikipedia:WikiProject HighwaysTemplate:WikiProject HighwaysHighways Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the United Kingdom Roads Task Force.

The initial content for this article was taken from Speed limits article. PeterEastern (talk) 18:08, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Good work Peter! -- de Facto (talk). 22:04, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest we have a section on Speed limiters - for example mopeds at 30mph, buses and coaches at 65mph which are not currently reflected in the speed limit tables. Will take a bit of time to get the tables clearer given all the different sorts of regulations. PeterEastern (talk) 20:57, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK by me. :-) -- de Facto (talk). 21:21, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't even aware of the bus one... As it happens, a limiter is not a limit. You can't be prosecuted for travelling faster than your limiter should be set for, if you're still within your vehicle class limit. If you can, then that is actually now the new (de facto even if not signed into law) limit and the whole table needs changed rather than extended.

Circumventing the limiter, however, can still be a (seperate) offense.

Do we know how widespread the application of this is now, anyway, and whether it's "more than 8 passengers + the driver", or "more than 8 seats outright", or if there's any weight limits that alter things? I don't recall seeing or hearing of any minibuses which fall within this or have "this vehicle is limited to 65mph" stickers on the back, though many of those are driver +8, or even upto driver +14. And why 65? Seems like a rather odd choice when they're already limited to 70 and enough other vehicles of that type - e.g. works vans - now come with 70mph limiters (or 68, ie 110kmh and just slow enough to usually avoid being caught on camera on a single carriageway road flat-out...) and no other light vehicle class on the UK roads is limited to a speed that's not a multiple of 10 (naturally, with that, discounting the europe-wide 90km/h limit on HGVs, the 30km/h limit for some roadworks vehicles, and the 5 mph limit on some heavy traction engines and the like). 193.63.174.11 (talk) 13:20, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hasn't the bus limiter now been further reduced to 100km/h (62mph), thanks to EU interference? I've not been on or seen any modern bus going faster than this, certainly ... though even with GPS it can be a little difficult to be absolutely certain on the difference between 62 and 65 ;) 193.63.174.211 (talk) 15:50, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Are we aware of the minimum speed limit sign being used anywhere in the UK? -- de Facto (talk). 21:27, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I am not aware of any however the highway code does however include a definition of them.[1]PeterEastern (talk) 07:21, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • A45 Wellingborough - Northampton says something like 'For vehicles capable of a minimum of 20mph'. It's not strictly a speed limit. I used to take it as a challenge on my pedal cycle! Checked with the council - they don't object to vehicles travelling slower - it's aimed at excluding certain tractors and 'plant'. I suspect it's a local Bye-law, and probably just a deterrent - I haven't heard of it being enforced.

Welllll, your bike doesn't have a maximum design speed as-such ... but JCBs do, and a lot of them (especially the bright yellow building-site ones that used to be infamous for getting in everyone's way) are rated for about 15 or 18mph (25-30km/h) ;) 193.63.174.211 (talk) 15:52, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bing & Google Maps aren't working for me at the moment - will try Birds Eye and Street View later ...

--195.137.93.171 (talk) 09:46, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's a few. Blackwall tunnel in London, for a start, has a 10mph minimum (and 30mph maximum) for some distance either side, that's actually canceled with a text sign at the end of the restriction. <snip> (removed overly detail discussion on the subject PeterEastern (talk)) </snip> 193.63.174.11 (talk) 13:28, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a short section on these limits. Bazonka (talk) 10:13, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One thing to bear in mind is that there ISN'T one for the motorways, as such; there is, however, a restriction against vehicles that aren't capable of a certain (quite modest!) minimum speed, whilst unladen, on the flat... either 20 or 25mph, can't recall exactly which. Same reason that the minimum engine size is 50cc, they don't want it clogged up with crawlers, but specifying an actual minimum is a recipe for all kinds of unsavoury chaos, especially in bad weather / road surface / traffic conditions, or if an abnormal load needs to grind over an unfriendly gradient. Or, in fact, if a mandatory variable limit (which can be as low as 20, now) needs to be applied. There's also a prohibition against causing undue obstruction, which travelling unusually slowly without presenting any kind of warning beacon (or sticking to the hard shoulder, if the crawl is because of mechanical distress) might constitute, but the interpretation of that is left to the prosecuting officer's discretion... 193.63.174.211 (talk) 15:48, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are some gaps in the article and I have some mysteries. I wonder if anyone has any answers or can find the answer to these questions? People may like to add to the list with their ones: PeterEastern (talk) 07:50, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• When was it first a requirement to have a speedometer for a vehicle used on public roads in the UK?

• I have now added details about speedometers. PeterEastern (talk) 07:41, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• A speed limit of 20mph was introduced for bus, coaches and HGVs in 1930, what was the speed limit before then? Was there one? It would certainly be interesting if lorries and coaches could have gone at any speed when cars were limited to 4mph!

It was 12mph for buses before that, and in fact the upgrade was only for pneumatic tyred buses - the limited remained at 12 for solid-tyred ones (which, obviously, then didn't stay in service much longer). I'm not sure about HGVs, they were probably either stuck at 12 also, or 20, or whatever it was for cars - it was possibly also determined by their tyres (and/or suspension, etc - much as it remains today). However, there weren't anywhere near as many HGVs then as there are now (most goods being transported by rail and then moved by road only from the local station to the town centre - long distance road freight was a wholly impractical prospect, ditto passenger transport FWIW), they weren't as large or heavy, and apart from some particular steam lorries their performance was pretty woeful and you'd have been lucky to find something capable of more than 30-40mph on the flat. 193.63.174.211 (talk) 15:44, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• According to the article the speed limit for coaches was raised from 40 to 50mph in 1966, but when did it go from 20 to 40mph? Not that exciting really, but needed for completeness!

I did see this mentioned somewhere - possibly even in a TV documentary - but not sure when it would be. I do know it went through 30 along the way, though... and drivers tended not to pay it much attention, and just went as fast as their wheezy engines would allow. 193.63.174.211 (talk) 15:44, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• There is some inconsistency in DfT documentation about when 60mph and 70mph were first introduced and when they were made permanent. Can anyone say what actually happened?

• I've updated the article with more of the history of the 70 mph blanket limit, which was introduced on 22 December 1965. I'll add more details about when the trial finished, and the limit became permanent later. -- de Facto (talk). 16:47, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks, however we now have two claims, one from the DfT claiming that 60 and 70 mph limits were made permanent in 1978, and yours that the 70mph limit was made permanent in 1967. Do you think that the DfT were referring only to the 60mph limit being made permanent in 1978? Can you check it somehow? PeterEastern (talk) 07:41, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, I saw that in the article and left it there (as it is from a DfT reference) until exactly what it meant could be clarified. I suspect it may be something to do with the formal ending of the temporary 1974 dual-carriageway limit of 50/60 mph. -- de Facto (talk). 07:52, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Peter, can you explain for the record what you think the relationship is between the fact before the dash and the fact after the dash in this sentence that you open the 'Road traffic safety' section with: "The highest number of road fatalities in the UK during peacetime was 7,985 in 1966 - the year following the introduction of a national speed limit." Are you suggesting that they are linked in some way? -- de Facto (talk). 21:58, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• It was a direct cut and paste from the history section; I will remove the reference to the introduction of the 70mph speed limit to avoid any suggestion that it was more than a co-incidence, possibly that fact belongs in the Effectiveness section;)PeterEastern (talk) 07:29, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• OK, so what do you think the relevance to the article is of just the 1966 fatality count? Do you think that the application of the the 70 mph NSL in 1965 somehow led to the highest fatality count since the 1940s? -- de Facto (talk). 09:13, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Do you think there was a causal link? Personally I suggest that we should not speculate on that one. Regarding relevance, is not the highest peacetime figure notable in whatever year it happened, specially since it is nearly 3 times higher than the present figure? PeterEastern (talk) 09:29, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• It is relevant only if a WP:RS opinion makes it relevant. It may have been part of the reason for imposing limits or it may have been claimed to be the result of a limit, or whatever. But without a context to associate it - it remains irrelevant. I would say the same applies to to 2008 figure too - without RS opinions linking it in some way to speed limits. -- de Facto (talk). 10:17, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• It is relevant because speed limits are primarily used to limit road casualties - I though we had already established that and therefore the statement its notable to the subject. I am not implying any causal link and therefore need no WP:RS for any link. PeterEastern (talk) 10:23, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't think we have supported the assertion that they "are primarily used to limit road casualties", or even to try to limit road casualties. Even if we do, and they are, we cannot imply that therefore they do influence the stats. We need to RS support the association of the casualty stats with specific claims. -- de Facto (talk). 10:41, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Let's wait for 3rd party comments on this one - I am sure other people will be following the discussion even if they have contributed to date. Personally I feel you are POV-pushing again, which is a shame because we had been doing good work together on this article together until now. PeterEastern (talk) 11:10, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Peter, which point of view do you believe that I am aggressively presenting in the article - and "again"? -- de Facto (talk). 14:56, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We clearly both know what is the issue here; for the benefit of people who don't they may wish to refer to talk:Speed limit where the issues have discussed with various parties at some length, in particular in the 'Notability of road casualty statistics' section, the 'Article damage' section and the 'Road traffic safety section'. Also, at the start of this section you seemed to be objecting to the proximity of the casualty figure to the introduction of the 70mph speed limit, I removed the reference to the speed limit change and now you seem to object to it the casualty figure itself. PeterEastern (talk) 17:22, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Peter, I repeat the serious question which you haven't yet answered: which point of view do you believe that I am aggressively presenting again in the article? Or in any other for that matter. -- de Facto (talk). 18:06, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Generally you aim to present a view that speed limits are not effective and that road traffic casualty rates are not relevant to an article on them. PeterEastern (talk) 18:41, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Untrue. What I actually do is aim to present RS supported facts about the effectivity of speed limits and I have asked for a RS context for what appear to be cherry-picked road casualty figures that you have inserted, with no context, into the article. -- de Facto (talk). 18:51, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Also, if you think there's something in the talk on the Speed Limit article which justifies your insistence on placing random road casualty figures in this article please duplicate it here for the record. If there isn't, please justify it here anyway. It needs a supported context to associate it with the article. Otherwise, we could put any piece of radom data, loosely linked to road safety, in. -- de Facto (talk). 18:14, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I would suggest that your resistance to the inclusion of the details from the World Heath Organisation road traffic casualty report within the lead for the speed limit article would provide the best good example of what I am talking about. I do not consider the facts 'random', I see them as central to the introduction and adjustment of speed limits over time. PeterEastern (talk) 18:41, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Add that context for them to the article then, and support it with a RS. Future readers won't know why they're there, and may well question the relevance as I have. Without that context they are irrelevant. -- de Facto (talk). 18:55, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can anyone add source details about the total length of roads for different speed limits associated with them in GB and separately for Northern Ireland? I would like to add that as an additional column to the accidents table to allow some overall safety per km to be deduced - is that information available somewhere? Also, I assume that casualty data for NI is collected separately given that the DfT stats are for GB only? PeterEastern (talk) 07:35, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be appropriate to create an enforcement section in this article and move most of the detail relating to the UK from the Speed limit enforcement article to this new section? If there is agreement then we should raise the question on the enforcement article. I guess we also need section on variable speed limits? PeterEastern (talk) 07:39, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think we need an enforcement section. I suspect that we may have enough material to justify a further article for it - Road speed limit enforcement in the United Kingdom. Yes, and a section for variable speed limits would be good, and for minimum limits, if we can find any. -- de Facto (talk). 09:31, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Good - I will raise the proposal on Speed limit enforcement and suggest that we move it here for starters. We may well be able to reduce the bulk of the content to avoid the need for yet another article. We can worry about that later. PeterEastern (talk) 10:02, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• OK, so we have now integrated the enforcement content into this article however there is quite a lot of it and it could easily grow as the history is filled in. Would it make sense to now split it out as a Road speed limit enforcement in the United Kingdom as you suggested? PeterEastern (talk) 07:33, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, go for it! In fact most of that section is about speed cameras, and there's probably more to come there too, so Speed cameras in the United Kingdom may well be next. ;-) -- de Facto (talk). 07:41, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Done.PeterEastern (talk) 07:58, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have reinstated content from the 'accident reduction' section which was removed in May10. I have built a stronger introduction to show the notability of the following content within this article. I hope this meets with general approval. I have renamed it 'Casualty reduction' which I believe is more accurate. PeterEastern (talk) 20:54, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In this edit I removed a diagram from the article which presents road fatality data along with a selected sub-set of road management and vehicle safety events. The problem is that the events shown on the diagram are a selection based on the personal POV of the editor who created the diagram, and which do not necessarily represent events which have had any significant influence on the fatality trends shown in the graph. The result is that casual readers may be led to believe that the events shown were in some significant in altering the trend at the point they are displayed on the graph. -- de Facto (talk). 12:53, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I recognise that you wish to dispute the causality of the trends, but view it as incomplete, not NPOV. I also note that since the graph measures pure numbers rather than numbers killed/km driven or hour driven then that should be included too. I would propose adding some more events: first motorways, 1973 oil crisis, drink-driving limits imposed, requirements for new cars to have ABS, air brakes, etc. And drop the new labour, that's a bit Daily-Mail really. Pulling the graph itself isn't the right solution, improving it is. I'd also like to see (1) more focused on seriously injured; KSI is often used as a metric, and (2) split of road users in the KSI category, as I've heard claims that after things like seat belts the deaths moved from car users to pedestrians, which would also be something to display. SteveLoughran (talk) 20:54, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The graph is non-NPOV specifically in this article, not necessarily because it is incomplete, but because it, by its presence, is implying a causal link between the various speed limit events on it and fatality trend changes. This article remember, is only about speed limits, not about their enforcement (that is covered in Road speed limit enforcement in the United Kingdom) and not general road safety initiatives or other road regulations.

The diagram content is currently under discussion on its own talk page (although its original editor is currently refusing to contribute) - why not go there and contribute your ideas - and is still being used in the Reported Road Casualties Great Britain article, where it is arguably more relevent (if it is edited to include notable events which are likely to have influenced its trends). -- de Facto (talk). 22:20, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SteveLoughran, I can't really think straight at present with DeFacto piling into all these articles with the view that because a law needs enforcement then it isn't effective which I don't buy at all. In fact I missed your comment entirely. Thank you for your input, I would like to create some other charts or possibly you would? I do intend to work on a Road Traffic Safety in Great Britain article but not until all this has 'blown over'. If you can supply some vehicle safety dates then I will try to add them to the existing chart, but please copy your comment above to the chart talk page and we can work on it there. The reason I chose fatalities is because there is less doubt about the accuracy of the data - With KSI there is debate and I believe that the method used to produce the figure changed some time back. PeterEastern (talk) 21:44, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To User:PeterEastern: please don't keep changing the title of the 'Effectivity' section to 'Criticism'. It is not criticism - it is discussion of reseach and views about how effective speed limits alone are at controlling traffic speeds. If you feel that the section lacks balance then please redress it, with reliably sourced content resulting in differing conclusions. Remember though that this is an article about speed limits and we are talking about the effecteness of speed limits with no specific enforcement measures in place (discussion of that belongs in the sister Road speed limit enforcement in the United Kingdom article), and we are not addresing the role that speed plays in causing or in the consequences of crashes. -- de Facto (talk). 17:39, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am not intending to spend time 'addressing' the balance at present given that we are awaiting moderation on some wider issues. I consider that the title should reflect the existing content which is currently a 'rag-bag' of content mostly relating to 20mph or old. You say 'speed limits don't work' because they need enforcement. Well, ... the same is true for the laws against drink drive, burglary and weights and measures regulations - they all need enforcement. You have been challenged on these views many times by many people. PeterEastern (talk) 18:47, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What, in the context of Wikipedia and more specifically this article, do you mean by "moderation" and who are we awaiting it from? -- de Facto (talk). 20:23, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As you already know I have asked User:John Quiggin for advise on how to move forward on Wikipedia:Dispute resolution as per NPOV again? and persistence. PeterEastern (talk) 20:32, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, that. I thought that one had blown over, especially as you now accept what I've been saying all along, that speed limits alone are ineffective. You need to describe the remaining issues with this article here so that people interested in this particular article can particiate if they so desire - the first step should be to discuss any issues on the talk page, then escalate it only if absolutely necessary. -- de Facto (talk). 20:45, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. Refer to your talk page! PeterEastern (talk) 21:14, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The current content isn't 'criticism', it's an appraisal of 'effectivity' from reliablly sourced research and opinion. Your opposition to this contnet is very confused. On the one hand you describe my contribution that speed limits aren't effective on their own as of 'fringe' views (here and here) and on the other you agree that "of course they need enforcement"!

Pehaps you've misunderstood the point that I'm adding; I'll recap: the evidence that I've added supports the case that speed limits alone (i.e. unenforced by additional means) in the UK are generally ineffective. That isn't to say that speeds shouldn't be reduced or cannot be reduced by other means, or by the relentless enforcement of the speed limits. This article is about the speed limits themselves, there is another article about their enforcement - which is only necessary for one reason!

-- de Facto (talk). 21:18, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If it isn't clear yet, then it never will, therefore... I am not discussing the content of this article with you any more. PeterEastern (talk) 21:33, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Effectivity is not a word I recognise - its legitimate usage appears to be a technical term in game theory. Coming to the substance, I don't think it is controversial that unenforced laws are ineffective. The problem for the purposes of the article is that this point is so uncontroversial that it is hard to find much in the way of WP:RS for it. What you can find is various WP:FRINGE groups such as Safe Speed who assert that, even with legal enforcement, speed limits are ineffective. The views of these groups, which may best be labelled as "criticism" should be reported with appropriate attention to WP:WEIGHT.JQ (talk) 01:37, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your constructive remarks John. In fact the Oxford English Dictionary defines 'effectivity' as a noun with the same meaning as 'effectiveness', which, looking back, was the title of that section before this edit, so I've now changed it back to that, which should make it clearer. -- de Facto (talk). 07:45, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all

Can someone take action to correct the lead ? The second paragraph is extremely misleading and is in fact incorrect.

"Since 1965 the maximum speed limit for all roads unless indicated otherwise has been 70 mph (110 km/h)

• Not really - the "unless indicated otherwise" is actually 30 mph.

From the DFT online highway code [2]:-

The 30 mph limit usually applies to all traffic on all roads with street lighting unless signs show otherwise

60 mph (96 km/h) if articulated or towing a trailer.

Speed limits

124

You MUST NOT exceed the maximum speed limits for the road and for your vehicle (see the table above). The presence of street lights generally means that there is a 30 mph (48 km/h) speed limit unless otherwise specified."

There needs to be clarity between the speed limit on dual carriageways displaying the NSL sign and motorways which have the motorway sign but also fall under the same rules as the NSL (dual carr). There also needs to be more clarity regarding the distinctions between MWL speed limit of 60 and lorries with similar restrictions. It may also be prudent to include trailers.

Chaosdruid (talk) 23:42, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've attempted to clarify it - is that better? If you feel more could be said, either in the lead summary or in the main article body, why not have a go yourself. -- de Facto (talk). 10:22, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed there are some long standing disputes and did not wish to get involved as I have enough long standing disputes of my own already :¬) Chaosdruid (talk) 18:10, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just had to separate the two again. They are not the same thing. The only commonality is the use of "20 mph" in their names. '20 mph speed limits' have virtually no effect on reducing traffic speed so are only used where the speeds are already low. '20 mph zones' are zones where calming (usually speed humps) is used to ensure that speeds are below 20 mph.

We shouldn't try to conflate the two, which might imply that speed limits themselves are effective at reducing speed limits - because they aren't. If they were, zones wouldn't be required.

-- de Facto (talk). 18:38, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They both have legally enforced 20mph maximum speed limits. All that is different is the signing requirements and that zones have mandatory speed bumps. They are also used together sometimes as is the case in Hull which your additional headings mess up. The leaflet describing them by the DfT is called '20 mph speed limits and zones'. I have not changed the text, but with respect have removed the addition headings. PeterEastern (talk) 20:13, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The two have become two very different concepts; one is a traditionally set 'speed limit', where the traditional 85th percentile rule is used to set the speed limit to match the prevailing traffic speeds. The other is used where the traffic speed is deemed too high for the conditions and needs reducing - as speed limits don't work for that, calming is required. The DfT distinguish in sub-sections, they are completely different. Why would we want to confuse the two if not to imply something other than that reality? -- de Facto (talk). 20:58, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is this suggesting that our road planners actually do - or at least, are supposed to - follow the 85th percentile ruling? <snip> (removed general discussion about speed limits PeterEastern (talk)) </snip> 193.63.174.11 (talk) 14:33, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• No, the 85% 'rule' in the UK is used as an upper guide to a safe speed limits. In practice they are often set lower. PeterEastern (talk) 15:14, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, they should use them for 20 mph limits. Because of the very limited effectiveness of speed limits at reducing traffic speeds the Dft suggests that 20 mph speed limits are only suitable for use where the 85th percentile speed is not above 24 mph. -- de Facto (talk). 16:14, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed - so far, at least - in the Birmingham Council big push to introduce a great many more 20 limits across the city, apart from some singular anomalies where you can't believe that had actually been the case (all of themselves being Zones instead of particular roads), they only seem to have applied them to stretches where for the majority of the working day and an hour either side of it you'd have been very lucky to reach 30mph for any meaningful length of time. I had feared that they were basically going to dump it on every last non-classified bit of road (there were talks of it being 80 to 90% of all mileage at one point), including all the essential backstreet cut-throughs which are little trafficked and don't have much in the way of pedestrians or children playing in the carriageway... but, to date, it's actually more likely that a congested piece of A- or B-road will get the restriction (or a dead-end street or residential network where speeds are naturally lower and through traffic has no place), and it's more to smooth out the traffic flow and manage expectations than do anything about average transit speed. A little annoying if you're going through there at 3am on Monday morning, perhaps, but the stretches aren't that long either...

(...thus far. I still don't hold any faith in this sudden flush of logicality persisting for long. Queensway and Bristol Road South between Snow Hill and the Middleway is still stuck at 30 rather than 40mph, and the canker of perfectly good 40 roads being bounced to 30 elsewhere shows no sign of stopping...) 193.63.174.211 (talk) 15:36, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I realise that my memory may be at fault here. However my own recollection is that prior to the 1973 oil crisis the national speed limit was 70 mph, for a short time it was reduced to 70 mph on motorways, 60 mph on other dual carriageways, and 50 mph on single carriageways, then it was changed to 60 mph on single carriageways and 70 mph on dual. Can anyone clarify? PatGallacher (talk) 12:54, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read the section named '1973 oil crisis' in the article - it describes how the speed limits were varied during that period? -- de Facto (talk). 16:24, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've now copied a quick summary of that upwards from the detailed section to the terse paragraph in question, to clear up any passing confusion. I've also taken advantage of my access to an academic newspaper archive to check what actually happened in December '73 (as the Times citation would take some digging-out), and it's proven correct. If desired I can also check the later dates to see if there's coverage of the limits being raised again.

(The news coverage, and contents of the newspapers in general is actually quite telling of the crisis of the period - basically everything is on a theme of shortages, chronic energy austerity, inflation and so-on. It really wasn't a good time to be alive and one suspects the limit was more of an educational measure to show the disbelieving public that, yes, they actually will go a few miles further on that last gallon of fuel they managed to scrape out of the pump if they knock off a few mph... There's even an advert in there for a car that supposedly still achieves reasonable performance and refinement on (cheaper, more plentiful,) low-grade 2-star petrol that would otherwise usually only be suitable for mopeds, lawnmowers and vintage cars, and would require a power-sapping retune to be of any practical use in other modern engines...) 193.63.174.211 (talk) 15:28, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Look. This is wrong. I don't know why the converter's doing it, but I'm off to email the admins after writing this. 70mph converts to 113km/h (112.7 if you want it to 1dp). The converter is doing a correct job for all other speeds, e.g. 60 = 97, 75 = 121, so I don't know why it's getting this wrong by a full 3km/h. It may be worth testing 67, 68, 69, 69.9, 70, 70.1, 71, 72 mph to see if the output km/h figure pings back and forth.

I've tried manually fixing a lot of them for now (I can't see it's any less bother to just remember a fairly short list of equivalents and type them in rather than having to put the converter code in every time) but getting down towards the bottom of the page there's a holy ton of the things for reasons best known to the author (surely putting the conversion in once at the head of the section then simply writing "70mph" or even "70" by itself afterwards would be clear enough?) and I haven't the time to go through fixing them all.

If the converter doesn't get fixed in short order can someone finish the job for me please? 193.63.174.11 (talk) 13:36, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you let the rounding default (by not specifying a rounding value) then, if the number is a multiple of 10 it will round it to the nearest 10, if it is a multiple of 100 it will round it to the nearest 100, etc. The solution is to specify rounding to zero decimal places like this {{convert|70|mph|0|abbr=on}} which gives: 70 mph (113 km/h). -- de Facto (talk). 14:24, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Too bad hardly anyone knows this, which leads to this retarded situation where it automatically assumes any figure with trailing zeroes implies a reduced number of significant figures even if it's merely one exact number in a series. Zero-place accuracy should be the default, unless post-decimal accuracy is present in the input figure (then, a matching number of dp or sf should be used, depending on how great a conversion factor is in play), and a specified reduction in output accuracy the manually-defined case. The risk of overly amplified serial-rounding effects is just too great, and certainly shouldn't be preferred over a slightly untidy-looking output that still preserves a useful level of precision (and can then be rounded-down either via manual editing of the code, or in the head of the person reading it). Hell, the assumption of any accuracy less then 3sf in any situation is pretty dicey, unless only a one- or two-digit number has been defined.

tl;dr untidy but usefully precise > obsessively neat but hopelessly imprecise. Function over form. This isn't a fashion magazine, it's an encyclopaedia. That doesn't imply that we should be messy on purpose, but for heaven's sake... get the data correct, then tart it up. 193.63.174.211 (talk) 15:16, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

113 kph is also wrong, because you cannot legally travel this speed due to it being slightly more than 70 mph. In kph, the UK absolute maximum is 112 kph.--94.193.246.182 (talk) 22:28, 7 May 2016 (BST)

I agree that the constant doubling up of mph with kph is unnecessarily fussy and makes the article very difficult to read. a better solution might be to list 20 30 40 50 60 70 with the equivalent in kph at the start of the article and leave it at that. Lawrence18uk (talk) 10:33, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the 'Killed on British Roads.png' chart because of the labels on it which are pure WP:OR. There is no reliable source supporting their association with the subject of the chart, and the ones present are given WP:Undue weight in relation to the ones which are missing. See File talk:Killed on British Roads.png#Original research. -- de Facto (talk). 16:45, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have added the chart back with a clarification to the caption while we review your claim of OR on the talk page for the chart. PeterEastern (talk) 18:33, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For inclusion, pictures and charts need to be relevant to the article content. Can you explain the relevance of this chart to this article, particularly the labels on it, and perhaps try and justify it - with RS support too, of course. -- de Facto (talk). 10:12, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest we await an outcome of the discussion on the matter on File talk:Killed on British Roads.png before coming back to its relevance to this article. PeterEastern (talk) 10:33, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why wait - is it relevant, or not? I think not. If it becomes relevant at a later date then we can add it, but for now it must be removed. If you disagree, please support inclusion, with reasons. -- de Facto (talk). 10:52, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Until a few hours ago speeds in mph where converted to km/h using the convert template. These have now all be converted to plain text to the nearest 10 km/h.[3] I have left a note of the contributor's talk page to find out their reasoning for the change. PeterEastern (talk) 02:31, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

These have now been reinstated. PeterEastern (talk) 06:07, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry - should have commented here as well that I'd undone the edits in question. Chaheel Riens (talk) 07:15, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Thanks for doing the revert. PeterEastern (talk) 12:57, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It was because whoever set up the converts had done them wrong, and it was producing inaccurate output as a result... and although I did try to find out how to do it properly, finding out the information for how to make wiki templates or tags work correctly can often be an exercise in self-flagellation (akin to trying to get helpful, rather than mocking responses from a linux help forum) so I just gave up and did it by hand. The conversion factor is pretty easy to find out and to remember (1609.3 metres to the mile) and if all else fails you can just type it into google, so I'm pretty assured of my own accuracy in that regard. If you've since altered the autoconverts to show unit-precise results, then I have no problem with that ... though I am sort of confused as to why it's necessary, as, e.g, 70mph isn't going to stop being equal to 113km/h (to 3sf/0dp) any time soon. 193.63.174.211 (talk) 15:21, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I find this table confusing:
The three RH columns are headed Speed limit if other than signed. I interpret that as meaning there is no sign, so the default, i.e. the national speed limit, applies. Not the figures given.
In column 3 the term " n/a* " appears. The explanation (below the table) of the star refers to motorways, but column 3 doesn't relate to motorways.
Maybe I'm thick, but other readers may be equally unable to understand what the table means. Apuldram (talk) 17:18, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

surely if you are not allowed to stop on a motorway, then the minimum speed limit is 1 kph? (less than 1 mph because 1 kph is less)--94.193.246.182 (talk) 21:42, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The lead image (50 mph) and also one further down in the article (70 mph) appear to be on the wrong side of the road for the United Kingdom, where everybody drives on the left. Are those really from the UK? Or is there something about speed limit signage that wasn't made clear enough in the article? ~Anachronist (talk) 06:46, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Anachronist: Speed limit signs in the UK are generally placed on both sides of the road. — Voice of Clam (talk) 08:48, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Despite some negative questioning of the impact of 20mph zones, is not the aim of safer roads an issue that still requires some more attention? Also, could it be that the streets that have only seen a limited reductions in speed have only seen limited enforcement of the new limits? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.166.178 (talk) 20:57, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]