Drivers who opposed a default 20 mph limit repeatedly made the same distinction: lower limits near schools and other vulnerable places, but not automatically across every built-up road. The most-respected No case put it plainly: “A 20mph limit is often appropriate but why impose it everywhere?”
Yes voters answered with the risks of roads used as shortcuts and with a claim about consequences beyond the driving experience. One of the strongest Yes arguments said the Welsh trial “saved lives and shedloads of accident/emergency and health services resources”; another described children playing beside a cut-through where drivers were “doing over 30”.
The sides often talked past each other. Yes voters framed speed as a danger to people outside cars; No voters said the danger was better addressed through enforcement and local judgement. A sharp No argument asked: “Perhaps actually policing the roads now might help?” Others doubted the benefits and cast the policy as an imposition on motorists.
The debate’s defining distinction was between targeted limits and a blanket default, not between support for safety and indifference to it. Even a No voter who cited casualty reductions in Wales argued that 20 mph belonged near schools and care homes, while the strongest objections focused on applying it where voters saw no need.
The result favoured local discretion over a single national rule.
44 Opinions
Blanket policies like this make me nervous. A 20mph limit is often appropriate but why impose it everywhere?
Maybe outside schools, care homes, etc., but otherwise it's just another money-making scam for our councils. Where does all our money go anyway?
20mph is utterly dangerous u look at the speedometer more than the rd Another scam .
20 limits in housing estates and near schools are fair enough, but the limit should be set to suit the road conditions. There’s no need for every single road in a built up area to be a 20.
No, where it has been done - Scotland, Wales and some London Boroughs it has brought no real benefit at significant nuisance to drivers. Enough with the anti-motorist policies.
Perhaps actually policing the roads now might help? Remove the balaclava bikes, the forever 'L' plate delivery mopeds, and 40 in a 30 limit drivers, and it would help massively.
It's already in place in Scotland for many places and it feels much safer in those areas, I know it's a pain driving in second gear with a manual car but as we electrify they'll all go automatic anyway so you won't feel the difference
Having lived in a road which was used as a cut through, to avoid traffic lights, a definite yes. When you have children playing in what would be considered as a safe road, and you get drivers doing over 30, nipping through, it's dangerous.
This experiment has been run in Cymru and saved lives and shedloads of accident/emergency and health services resources.
People have to get to their destination, 20 in places like schools is good but generally 30 is a reasonable speed in a built up area, pedestrians have right of was this needs to be repealed, it's incredibly stupid