If 85% breaks a speed limit, they should revise that limit because there is clearly something wrong with it.
Or, alternatively narrow and calm the road, because something is wrong with it. If a 20mph limit is set, there’s probably a good reason, but it’s not good enough to just put up the signs, you need to make people feel uncomfortable driving more than that on the road via calming measures.
This is definitely the wrong take. If the majority of people are going over the speed limit with no negative results, the speed limit is the issue
Speed limits don’t just serve for driver safety. Noise concerns might also be an issue, and then the speed limit is entirely justified.
Speed limits are set based on safety considerations. We don’t change safety rules based on what some people find convenient. If 85% of drivers can’t follow the law, then 85% of drivers can pay a fine / have their licence suspended.
@CorruptBuddha @emergencyfood A 20mph speed limit is based on momentum the human body can withstand without a high likelihood of death.
Every mph over the limit increase the likelihood of a human being dying in a collision.
Speeding in a 20mph zone is very specifically choosing to increase the likelihood of killing someone.
There is evidence that 20mph zones do save lives and injuries even if people don’t obey them. This is because they still drive slower than they would in a 30mph zone.
I would agree, however, that if the limit is set to 20mph then the road design needs to be changed to match that, making it uncomfortable for drivers to exceed the limit. Unfortunately the UK is quite institutionally poor at this kind of traffic calming design compared to some of its neighbours.