20's Plenty regularly publish FAQs, other statements, briefings and press releases. After the government publication of a full 12 months casualty data after implementing the default 20mph, 20's Plenty sent the following email to all local authority councillors in Wales. See below for Cymraeg version.

7th February 2025

Dear councillor

“Astounding reduction in casualties on Welsh Roads following the 20mph default is at risk of being reversed if speed limits are increased by 50%”

• Casualties are down by 28% on 20/30mph roads in Wales
• Insurance companies report a lowering of premiums in Wales
• Wales is being seen globally as a leader in road safety
• Many local councils are taking a sensible, cautious approach to reviewing speed limits
• Some may be at legal and political risk of a wholesale increase in speed limits

First may I thank all the local authorities for the work they did in implementing the default 20mph limit for Wales. With the casualty figures for July to September 2024 now available we have been able to compare the casualties on urban/village roads in Wales going back nearly 20 years. The year-on-year changes for any 12 months ending in September were as follows :-

We have shown the variation in casualties from one year to the next on the left for both those roads with 20mph/30mph limits and those with 40mph. What is noticeable is that (apart from the Covid lockdown year) the 28% reduction for 20/30mph roads in the 12 months after 20mph was implemented is more than double the previous largest annual reduction. And removing  2019/20 it is 6 times greater than the average year-on-year reduction from 2005 to 2022.

With 678 fewer casualties on 20mph and 30mph roads in these 12 months then that is 678 fewer people either killed or injured on Welsh roads. Wales is being seen as a beacon in road safety globally. This reduction on risk in Welsh communities has also led to insurance premium reductions as companies report a 20% reduction in damage claims and a consequential £50 reduction in premium for the average driver. For this I must congratulate Welsh drivers who through their change in driving are making such a difference.

At the same time, I am aware that some nuancing of the exceptions to the default 20mph was always expected. We know that many, indeed most, Local Authorities are reviewing their speed limits on each stretch of road in a diligent fashion to see whether an increase of 50% is both safe and justifiable.  They are at less risk of liability for subsequent casualties than if they had simply responded to demands from a minority of drivers to increase speed limits wholesale.

Only 10,500 (or  0.45% of Welsh driving license holders)  responded in naming roads they wanted setting to 30mph. I am sure that you will be aware that the new guidance on setting exceptions to 20mph does NOT mean that these should be excepted or even automatically considered for exception. There is very clear guidance in both the principle of setting exceptions only where higher speeds are evidentially safe in the presence of pedestrians and cyclists, and a number of place criteria which must be met before consideration. These guidelines ensure that as the Transport Minister, Ken Skates MS, recently commented “...we have empowered local authorities to make changes where it is safe to do so.”

My concern is that some authorities may be considering setting 30mph limits in places which do not meet either the principles or specifics of the guidance and have mis-read the signs from Welsh Government which imply support. It is local authorities who take responsibility, and will be held responsible, for exceptions and not central government. And in doing so they do need to take the guidance fully into account as well as other legal responsibilities beyond traffic management. We have therefore put a guide together which is useful for both councillors in  understanding the validity of any intended traffic orders, and the public in registering  their concerns during the TRO consultation process. This is available as one of our FAQs on our website at www.20splenty.org/w_faq11. This provides background, detail and examples of some of the objections we have made to early 30mph draft TROs in Flintshire and Wrexham.

The fact that Wales now has national default 20mph, with exceptions only where made by local authorities, does mean that all 30mph roads (except on trunk roads) will have been determined by local authority and not central government. Where future crashes and casualties occur on 30mph roads then insurance companies representing drivers in certain casualty situations may well wish to pursue liability with a local authority that had set a 30mph limit. Civil case law already exists on similar matters and are explored in our FAQ above.

We would therefore urge councils to be very vigilant in ensuring that all sites chosen for a 50% increase in speed limit do not breach guidance and that full due diligence has been taken in exploring the consequence and risk associated with such an increase. Setting a 30mph limit may well appear to be “reverting to what it was before” but in reality it is an exceptional limit and requires exceptional and evidential justification.

In conclusion.

Like the minister, we welcome 30mph limits where the roads have been made evidentially safe for any vulnerable road users. That is sensible. Wales has taken a huge step forward in safety on public roads, in the comfort and attractiveness of actual travel, and in reducing risk and insurance premiums in setting its national 20mph default. It would be a travesty for these gains to be diluted and lost in order to appease a small minority of drivers on roads where the saving in journey time from a life endangering 30mph limit would be measured in seconds.

Thank you for your time and interest. On the issue of road safety, the whole world is watching Wales and your influence and decisions on this matter over the months to come could save or deny so many lives not only in Wales but around the world. May your communities remain as safe as possible. If I can help in any way, then please contact me.

My best regards 

Rod King MBE

Annwyl gynghorydd

“Mae’r gostyngiad syfrdanol yn nifer yr anafusion ar Ffyrdd Cymru yn dilyn y terfyn cyflymder 20mya diofyn mewn perygl o gael ei wrthdroi os bydd terfynau cyflymder yn cael eu cynyddu gan 50%”

• Mae nifer yr anafusion wedi gostwng gan 28% ar ffyrdd 20/30mya yng Nghymru
• Mae cwmnïau yswiriant yn adrodd am ostyngiad mewn premiymau yng Nghymru
• Mae Cymru’n cael ei gweld fel arweinydd ym maes diogelwch ar y ffyrdd yn fyd-eang
• Mae llawer o gynghorau lleol yn defnyddio dull synhwyrol a gofalus o adolygu terfynau cyflymder
• Gall rhai fod mewn perygl cyfreithiol a gwleidyddol o gynnydd ar raddfa eang mewn terfynau cyflymder

Yn gyntaf, hoffwn ddiolch i’r holl awdurdodau lleol am y gwaith y maent wedi’i wneud i roi ar waith y terfyn 20mya diofyn ar gyfer Cymru. Gyda’r ffigurau anafusion ar gyfer mis Gorffennaf i fis Medi 2024 nawr ar gael, rydym wedi gallu cymharu’r anafusion ar ffyrdd trefol/pentref yng Nghymru ers bron i 20 mlynedd. Roedd y newidiadau o flwyddyn i flwyddyn ar gyfer unrhyw 12 mis a ddaeth i ben ym mis Medi fel a ganlyn:-

Newid mewn anafusion ar ffyrdd Cymru: blwyddyn yn diweddu 30/9 

Rydym wedi dangos yr amrywiad mewn anafusion o un flwyddyn i’r llall ar y chwith ar gyfer y ffyrdd hynny sydd â therfyn cyflymder 20mya/30mya a’r rhai â therfyn 40mya. Yr hyn sy’n amlwg yw (ar wahân i flwyddyn cyfnod clo Covid) bod y gostyngiad o 28% ar gyfer ffyrdd 20/30mya yn y 12 mis ar ôl gweithredu’r terfyn cyflymder 20mya yn fwy na dwbl y gostyngiad blynyddol mwyaf blaenorol. Ac o ddileu 2019/20 mae’n chwe gwaith yn fwy na’r gostyngiad cyfartalog flwyddyn ar ôl blwyddyn o 2005 i 2022.

Gyda 678 yn llai o anafusion ar ffyrdd 20mya a 30mya yn y 12 mis hyn, mae hynny’n golygu 678 yn llai o bobl naill ai wedi’u lladd neu eu hanafu ar ffyrdd Cymru. Caiff Cymru ei gweld fel esiampl mewn diogelwch ar y ffyrdd yn fyd-eang. Mae’r gostyngiad hwn mewn perygl yng nghymunedau Cymru hefyd wedi arwain at ostyngiadau mewn premiwm yswiriant wrth i gwmnïau adrodd am ostyngiad o 20% mewn hawliadau difrod a gostyngiad canlyniadol o £50 yn y premiwm ar gyfer y gyrrwr cyffredin. Am hyn mae’n rhaid i mi longyfarch gyrwyr Cymru sydd, trwy eu newidiadau mewn arferion gyrru, yn gwneud cymaint o wahaniaeth.

Ar yr un pryd, rwy’n ymwybodol bod disgwyl bob amser gweld ychydig o wahaniaethau o ran eithriadau i’r 20mya diofyn. Gwyddom fod llawer, yn wir y rhan fwyaf, o awdurdodau lleol yn adolygu eu terfynau cyflymder ar bob darn o ffordd yn ddiwyd i weld a yw cynnydd o 50% yn ddiogel ac yn un y gellir ei gyfiawnhau. Maent mewn llai o risg o atebolrwydd am anafiadau sy’n dilyn na phe byddent wedi ymateb yn syml i alwadau gan leiafrif o yrwyr i godi terfynau cyflymder ar raddfa eang.

Dim ond 10,500 (neu 0.45% o ddeiliaid trwydded yrru yng Nghymru) a ymatebodd drwy enwi ffyrdd yr oeddent am eu gosod i 30mya. Yr wyf yn siŵr y byddwch yn ymwybodol NAD yw’r canllawiau newydd ar osod eithriadau i 20mya yn golygu y dylai’r rhain gael eu heithrio neu hyd yn oed eu hystyried yn awtomatig fel eithriad. Mae arweiniad clir iawn yn yr egwyddor o osod eithriadau dim ond lle mae cyflymderau uwch yn amlwg yn ddiogel ym mhresenoldeb cerddwyr a beicwyr, a bod nifer o feini prawf lleoedd y mae’n rhaid eu bodloni cyn ystyried. Mae’r canllawiau hyn yn sicrhau, fel y dywedodd y Gweinidog Trafnidiaeth Ken Skates AS, yn ddiweddar “...rydym wedi grymuso awdurdodau lleol i wneud newidiadau lle mae’n ddiogel i wneud hynny.” 

Fy mhryder yw y gallai rhai awdurdodau fod yn ystyried gosod terfynau 30mya mewn mannau sydd ddim yn bodloni naill ai egwyddorion neu fanylion y canllawiau a’u bod wedi camddarllen yr arwyddion gan Lywodraeth Cymru sy’n awgrymu cefnogaeth. Awdurdodau lleol sy’n cymryd cyfrifoldeb, ac a fydd yn cael eu dal yn atebol, am eithriadau ac nid llywodraeth ganolog. Ac wrth wneud hynny mae angen iddynt ystyried y canllawiau yn llawn yn ogystal â chyfrifoldebau cyfreithiol eraill y tu hwnt i reoli traffig. Rydym felly wedi llunio canllaw sy’n ddefnyddiol i gynghorwyr ddeall dilysrwydd unrhyw orchmynion traffig arfaethedig, a hefyd yn ddefnyddiol i’r cyhoedd wrth fynegi eu pryderon yn ystod y broses ymgynghori ar y Gorchmynion Rheoleiddio Traffig. Mae hwn ar gael fel un o’n Cwestiynau Cyffredin ar ein gwefan yn www.20splenty.org/w_faq11. Mae hwn yn rhoi cefndir, manylion ac enghreifftiau o rai o’r gwrthwynebiadau yr ydym wedi’u gwneud i Orchmynion Rheoleiddio Traffig drafft 30mya cynnar yn Sir y Fflint a Wrecsam. 

Mae’r ffaith bod gan Gymru bellach derfyn 20mya diofyn cenedlaethol, gydag eithriadau dim ond lle gwneir hynny gan awdurdodau lleol, yn golygu y bydd yr holl ffyrdd 30mya (ac eithrio ar gefnffyrdd) wedi’u pennu gan Awdurdod Lleol ac nid llywodraeth ganolog. Lle bydd damweiniau ac anafusion yn digwydd yn y dyfodol ar ffyrdd 30mya yna mae’n ddigon posibl y bydd yna gwmnïau yswiriant sy’n cynrychioli gyrwyr mewn rhai sefyllfaoedd lle bydd anafusion yn dymuno mynd ar drywydd atebolrwydd gydag Awdurdod Lleol a oedd wedi gosod terfyn 30mya. Mae cyfraith achosion sifil eisoes yn bodoli ar faterion tebyg a chânt eu harchwilio yn ein Cwestiynau Cyffredin y cyfeirir atynt uchod.

Byddem felly’n annog cynghorau i fod yn wyliadwrus iawn mewn sicrhau nad yw pob safle a ddewisir ar gyfer cynnydd o 50% yn y terfyn cyflymder yn torri’r canllawiau a bod diwydrwydd dyladwy llawn wedi’i gymryd wrth archwilio’r canlyniad a’r risg sy’n gysylltiedig â chynnydd o’r fath. Mae’n bosibl iawn y bydd gosod terfyn 30mya yn ymddangos fel pe bai’n “dychwelyd i’r hyn hen drefn” ond mewn gwirionedd mae’n gyfyngiad eithriadol ac mae angen cyfiawnhad eithriadol a thystiolaethol.

I gloi

Fel y gweinidog, rydym yn croesawu terfynau 30mya lle mae’r ffyrdd wedi’u gwneud yn amlwg yn ddiogel i unrhyw ddefnyddwyr ffyrdd sy’n agored i niwed. Mae hynny’n synhwyrol. Mae Cymru wedi cymryd cam enfawr ymlaen o ran diogelwch ar ffyrdd cyhoeddus, o ran pleser ac atyniad teithio llesol, ac o ran lleihau risg a phremiymau yswiriant wrth osod ei therfyn 20mya diofyn cenedlaethol. Byddai’n drychineb i’r enillion hyn gael eu gwanhau a’u colli er mwyn tawelu lleiafrif bach o yrwyr ar ffyrdd lle byddai’r arbediad mewn amser teithio o derfyn 30mya sy’n peryglu bywyd yn cael ei fesur mewn eiliadau. 

Diolch i chi am eich amser a’ch diddordeb. Ar fater diogelwch ar y ffyrdd, mae’r byd i gyd yn gwylio Cymru a gallai eich dylanwad a’ch penderfyniadau ar y mater hwn dros y misoedd i ddod achub neu beryglu cymaint o fywydau nid yn unig yng Nghymru ond ledled y byd. Boed i’ch cymunedau aros mor ddiogel â phosibl. Os gallaf helpu mewn unrhyw ffordd, yna cysylltwch â mi.

Cofion gorau 

Rod King MBE

Indeed you can. 

20's Plenty are fully in favour of 30mph limits being set in a targeted manner on appropriate streets in communities where vulnerable road users are protected. And we accept that some roads were not excepted in September 2023 that in retrospect should have been set at 30mph. However, an exception to the national standard for 20mph on restricted roads requires due diligence and evidence that it does not compromise the safety of vulnerable road users.

Many Welsh Local Authorities are taking an entirely responsible approach to nuancing some further roads to 30mph using the revised Welsh Government Guidance. The following provides some background for members of the public who may feel that it is inappropriate to set a particular road to 30mph.

We have set out a series of reasons you can use to object below, which might include pointing out how any order making such a change:

...contains inaccurate statements that misinform public and decision-makers and hence will compromise the reasonability of any decision.

...fails to meet the fundamental principle of Welsh Government guidance that "strong evidence" of maintaining safety is required to set a limit higher than 20mph where motor vehicles mix with pedestrians and cyclists in a planned and frequent manner.

...fails to meet the "place" criteria set by guidance and includes community, educational, medical facilities and residential density.

...would provide minimal benefits to journey times yet constitute a considerable risk to vulnerable road users.

...has not been conducted with the appropriate due diligence and process as required by both Road Traffic and other legislation such as the Equality Act.

In order to increase the speed limit on a road with a national 20mph limit to 30mph, your Highway Authority (HA) must make a Traffic Regulation Order (TRO). The HA must advertise such a TRO, it must specifically give a Statement of Reason (SOR) for the change and must consider objections. Increasing the speed limit by 50% from 20mph is no minor matter and the HA bears a heavy duty of responsibility for the consequences. As well as taking due account of Welsh Government guidance, it must comply with other Welsh and UK-wide legislation. Although the road may have previously had a 30mph limit before the national 20mph limit was set, this would not, on its own, justify such a change.

The fact that some drivers don't like a 20mph limit on a particular road has no bearing on whether a 30mph limit is appropriate. Across the whole of Wales, with 2.3m drivers, after huge publicity, only 10,500 drivers have requested changing a 20mph road to 30mph. That is the equivalent of 1 out of 200 drivers - an insignificant number. It is a flawed basis for consideration of what could impact the safety of millions of people. 

From looking at HAs that have announced plans, there are inconsistencies in approaches to changing speed limits:

• Flintshire is drafting a TRO for each group of roads that it intends to set at 30mph, using an identical SOR and with no specific reason for individual roads.
• Wrexham is drafting a single TRO for all roads that it intends to set at 30mph, with a single SOR covering all roads
• Newport has published a spreadsheet showing all the roads requested to be changed with an analysis of how they do meet or not meet their criteria. Out of 331 roads suggested for change only 16 are deemed to have met the criteria required to consider them for 30mph.

In all cases, members of the public can challenge a TRO on the validity of the process, its accuracy and whether the outcome would be beneficial. We have already submitted objections to Flintshire and Wrexham TROs:

Flintshire - Aber Road, Flint

Flintshire - Greenfield

Wrexham - Multiple Roads

We believe that the TROs in Flintshire and Wrexham fail to meet the due diligence requirements and exhibit invalid processes, inaccurate statements of fact, outcomes that would be bad for communities and potentially incur legal liability for the HA in a civil court.

So, what are the grounds for objecting to a TRO?

Although the Welsh Government (WG) updated its guidance on setting 30mph as an exception to the national default, it does not mandate any changes. The WG guidance is about roads where 30mph "could be considered" and not "should be set".  There is no checklist 'directing' a HA to set a local speed limit higher than 20mph. The  decision and justification to do so is entirely at the discretion (and the responsibility) of the HA.

The guidance provides two important considerations:

This guidance is founded on the Safe System^{[footnote 1]}, advocating for safe speeds that are appropriate to the features of the road, the function it serves and the physical tolerance of its users^{[footnote 2]}. 

In line with the Welsh Government’s aspiration to support the aims of the Stockholm Declaration a 20mph speed should remain where pedestrians and/or cyclists and motor vehicles mix in “a frequent^{[footnote 4]} and planned manner, except where strong evidence exists that higher speeds are safe”.

Footnotes:

[1] The Safe System is based on the principles that:

• people make mistakes that lead to crashes
• the human body has a limited capacity to tolerate crash
• road safety is a shared responsibility for those who design, build, manage and those who use roads and vehicles and those who provide post-crash care
• all parts of the system must be strengthened in combination to multiply their effect, so that if one part fails, another part is still there to protect. 

Read more on the The Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents (ROSPA) website.

[2] The ability of road users to withstand the forces of a crash without suffering serious injury.

[4] To be determined by the highway authority

The first "test" of the appropriateness of a 30mph limit is whether pedestrians/cyclists mix in a "frequent and planned" manner, except where strong evidence exists that higher speeds are safe". How can this be evaluated?

Does the road exist on the HA's planned walking and cycling route?

These have previously been identified by HAs and mapped by WG in the DataMap Wales Active Travel Network Map. These are based on HA submissions dating to comply with the Active Travel (Wales) Act 2013, explained here.  For example in Aber Rd, Flint you can see these detailed on the left(dashed lines) and the roads planned to change to 30mph on the right(green lines):

These maps show that the roads planned as current and future walking/cycling routes over the past decade are the very roads which Flintshire County Council wants to change to 30mph.

1. Cycling and walking already exists on these roads which include an industrial estate.
2. Cyclists and walkers travelling to work will mix with HGVs and vehicles with limited driver visibility.
3. Any increase in speed limit on the first or last hundred metres of a journey will make little difference to total journey time.

As the TRO provides no evidence of changes planned to increase safety for vulnerable road users, it has failed to meet the underlying principle of the guidance and...

"You can challenge a TRO on the basis that it fails to provide "strong evidence" speeds higher than 20mph are safe"

Furthermore the TRO misinforms the public by claiming that a 30mph limit on these roads would

"meet the guidance"

and that

"The Authority continues its responsibility to consider the provision of the convenient and safe movement of motor vehicles and other traffic, and the proposed measures are aimed at ensuring that danger is minimised to road users as well as improving the amenities of the locality.

Since it is difficult to see how increasing a speed limit by 50% "minimises" danger to road users walking or cycling, or "improves the amenities of the locality"...  

"You can challenge a TRO on the basis that it misinforms the public"

In addition...

"You can challenge a TRO on the basis that it fails to meet the fundamental principle of the guidance."

The guidance includes several 'place criteria' which preclude setting a 30mph limit:

1. within 100m walk of any educational setting (e.g. nurseries, primary, secondary, further education and higher education)
2. within 100m walk of any community facility
3. within 100m walk of any medical facility, e.g. hospitals, GP surgeries etc
4. where the number of residential and/or retail premises immediately fronting a road exceeds 20 properties per km.

We have found numerous examples of where 30mph roads were being planned where they met one or more of the above. Often schools have entrances for pupils which may be closer than 100m to a road. Community facilities can be a wide range of establishments or facilities. This is taken from Supplementary Planning Guidance in Wales for Gwynedd and Anglesey (2.2.1):-

"Community facilities may be defined as resources which provide a range of services (public, private and voluntary) and which are important for the purposes of health, recreation, socialising and education. These could include schools, libraries, leisure centres, healthcare provision, theatres, village halls, cemeteries, places of worship, public houses and any other facilities which perform the function of serving the community. Community facilities can often be social hubs, thereby performing an essential function in sustaining prosperous neighbourhoods and creating a sense of place. Ensuring that there is a range of community facilities in accessible locations is essential in order to ensure that social, recreational, educational and cultural needs of society are met in the most effective way possible."

As you can see this is quite wide and includes "public, private and voluntary" resources. We note that in the above Aber Rd TRO, within 100m of the proposed 30mph roads there are "community facilities" at :-

• London Road Cemetery
• Probation Service Offices
• Jade Jones Leisure Centre
• Flint Bowling Club

"You can challenge a TRO which fails to identify and take account of such community facilities."

There are other grounds that you can object to a TRO. Some of these are detailed in our sample objections above.  These include :-

Common Law Duty of Care: "… highway authorities owe a duty to all road users (whether careful or negligent) to use reasonable care in the manner in which they exercise their powers"

This comes from a judgement  regarding Yetkin v London Borough of Newham . The Court of Appeal has held that a highways authority still owed a duty of care to a pedestrian even though she was careless in how she tried to cross a busy road. It could be argued that setting a speed limit 50% higher than the national default may not have been done with "reasonable care" and therefore could open the HA to civil liability. An insurance company could well use this case to mitigate the responsibility of both a negligent driver and pedestrian/cyclist and transfer liability to the HA.

It begs the question "What is reasonable care?". We would suggest that this be judged on the basis of:

Reasonable decision-making -  there is the Wednesbury case which is a foundation of judicial review. ASSOCIATED PROVINCIAL PICTURE HOUSES, LIMITED v. WEDNESBURY CORPORATION. KB 1948

“The court is entitled to investigate the action of the local authority with a view to seeing whether they have taken into account matters which they ought not to take into account, or, conversely, have refused to take into account or neglected to take into account matters which they ought to take into account."

In this matter it would require that the HA had taken full account of all the responsibilities when setting a 50% higher speed limit. These would include :-

Matters that ought to be taken into account

The WG guidance on setting 30mph Speed Limits and in particular :-

"The potential disbenefits of setting a 30mph speed limit for a road should be evaluated by considering the following factors:

1. impact on walking, wheeling and cycling safely: Raising the speed limit will have negative consequences on a range of important outcomes (e.g. safety, difficulties for pedestrians in crossing roads, potential to inhibit walking, wheeling and cycling and potentially leading to negative physical and mental health consequences), particularly due to the clear relationship between impact speed and the frequency and severity of casualties.
2. collision data: A high frequency of collisions and casualties (when the limit was previously 30mph) would reduce the justification for raising the limit. However, the absence of collisions previously should not automatically justify a higher speed limit, as pedestrians and cyclists may have been deterred by high speeds.
3. assessment of collision risk: The potential for collisions should be assessed by considering the number of pedestrian and cyclist movements, including for recreational purposes, and the risk of collision, taking into account traffic flow. 
   This can be determined mainly through factors such as whether there are destinations/trip attractors for walking, wheeling and cycling, and if the route is an important walking, wheeling or cycling corridor (such as a public right of way or a route which is identified on the Active Travel Network Map).
4. perceived safety and community cohesion: Higher speeds can create real and perceived dangers that may make places less attractive and hinder community cohesion and interaction.
5. air quality: Higher speeds have the potential to discourage walking and cycling leading to increased reliance on private motor vehicles (in turn leading to pollution and poor air quality).
6. noise pollution: Evaluate noise levels considering traffic flow patterns, vehicle types, and the proximity of residential properties to the road."

The policies of central and local government

1. Environment
2. Climate change and Carbon Emissions
3. Planning
4. Active Travel
5. Public health
6. Etc

Other statutory duties

1. S149 Public Sector Equality Duty  - Equality Act 2010 – (relevant to elderly, and disabled people, and also women – who are more likely to be carers in charge of children)
2. Active Travel (Wales) Act
3. The Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015
4. relevant duties in the Traffic Management Act 2004 )to expedite the movement of traffic including pedestrians and cyclists
5. the 1984 Act (duty on local highway authorities so far as practicable having regard to the matters specified in section 122(2) of the Act to secure the expeditious, convenient and safe movement of vehicular and other traffic, including pedestrians when exercising functions under the 1984 Act such as the setting of speed limits).
6. The Road Traffic Act 1988
7. S1 Public Sector Duty regarding Socio-Economic Inequality – recognising that speed limits affect and benefit some socio-economic groups more than others.

The underlying science

1. Newtonian mechanics / crash physics that you have already covered
2. Perception of speed (including the research by Catherine Purcell at the University of Cardiff on Looming that you already have covered )
3. Tyre Noise, speed and its impact on humans (such as sleep disturbance) and wildlife

Public opinion

1. But bearing in mind that children often don’t get consulted, nor the elderly or most vulnerable people in society. 

Not to take into account matters which that ought not to be taken into account

1. A small minority of drivers requesting 30mph on particular roads - just 0.5% of Welsh driving licence holders.
2. The loudest and most vociferous groups rather than society as a whole.

There are also other considerations :-

Casualty history at 30mph. You can look up casualty history for road on several "crashmap" sites. One of the most comprehensive we have found is Bikedata. This enables you to zoom into an area or road and see all the casualties since 1999. This includes details on each casualty and whether they are vehicle passenger, pedestrian or cyclist.

Highway authorities are part of the local authority, and while they have powers to set speed limits, they remain part of the local authority and must contribute to meeting the authority’s wider policies such as on health, education (journeys to and from school), environment, economy and wellbeing, and discharging its wider statutory duties.  The HA must not operate in isolation or even as a rogue element, neglecting or refusing to take into account matters that they out to take into account.   A HA is not a liberty to make decisions solely on the basis of highway issues.  If it does so, and ignores all the other duties placed on local authorities by councils, ignores the council’s wider policies, and ignores its common law duty of care to road users, then its decisions could successfully challenged through judicial review.    

There are also professional codes of conduct that are relevant.  

And with regard to the Equality Act :

The duty under the Equality Act 2010 S149 – is to have “due regard”.  The meaning of Due regard has been explored in the courts, and means variously - an essential preliminary to a decision necessitating a substantial, vigorous and open minded approach; where consideration is given to measures to avoid adverse impact before fixing on a solution.  (Ali v Newham 2012)

Taking all of these into account there is a heavy burden of responsibility on any HA setting a speed limit 50% higher than the national default. It is certainly not a case of "putting it back to what existed before 17th Sep 2023". It requires due diligence in making such a decision which would endorse motor vehicle speeds 50% higher, since that could lead to mistakes by a negligent road user resulting in a serious injury or a fatality. Members of the public have every right to contest a TRO making such a proposal. Where decisions are made which implicate the safety of the public places that we call streets, then the highest standards are expected from councillors and officers making such decisions. If they are shown to be flawed then any such TRO should not be approved. To do otherwise would risk public safety, reputational damage, possible civil liability and possible illegality by the authority concerned.

Our advice to members of the public objecting to a TRO is:

• Thoroughly go through the above and check our sample objections
• Understand the Welsh Government guidance
• Check the casualty history of the roads in question. Identify if vulnerable road users have been casualties.
• Visit the roads. Observe whether it has pedestrian and cycling road users and whether there is any provision for their safety.
• Check that the roads do not appear on the DataMap Wales Active Travel Network Map. If they do ask what changes have been made to provide "evidence" of being safe at 30mph.
• Check whether roads fail to meet the criteria for 'place', in particular "being within 100m of community facilities"
• Check that the wording of the TRO and SOR are accurate and do not make generalised or incorrect claims, especially around "being safe" or "improving local amenities".
• Check that the TRO has stated that the full implications of the Equality and other acts have been met.
• You may also submit a Freedom of Information request to ask for any documents regarding the TRO and minutes of any meetings to discuss criteria, compliance with Equalities Act, etc.
• Put together and submit an objection which clearly states where the TRO is lacking due diligence, is incorrect and is not a basis for reasonable decision-making.

Please contact 20's Plenty for Us if you need further assistance [email protected].

Our starting point  is that the £33m is a one-off cost. And therefore to fairly compare spending that money we should look at a 30 year period.

Education and teachers

The average salary for a teacher £40,000 See StatsWales

Admin and other costs will add 40% to this to cover NI, sickness, pensions and other direct staff costs. Note that this excludes buildings, materials, etc.

This therefore amounts to £56,000 per annum for 30 years which totals £1.68m

So for the one off spend of £33m it would be possible to have 20 additional teachers in the Welsh education system.

There are 1,536 schools in Wales. This would therefore equate to 0.013 teachers per school or 1 additional teacher for every 77 schools.

And with there being 500,000 children in Wales then this would equate to 0.00004 teachers per child, or approx 1 additional teacher for every 20,000 children.

NHS and nurses

The salary for a nurse with 5 years experience is between £35,000 and £38,000, average £36,500. See nurses.co.uk

Admin and other costs will add 40% to this to cover NI, sickness, pensions and other direct staff costs. Note that this excludes buildings, materials, equipment, etc.

This therefore amounts to £51,100 per annum for 30 years which totals £1.53m

So for the one off spend of £33m it would be possible to have 21 additional nurses in the Welsh NHS.

Wales has 84 NHS hospitals, so that is 1 additional nurse on a single shift for every 4 hospitals and even fewer if you spread that over 24 hr care.

In conclusion

When looking at capital one-off costs across a whole country then the temptation to say "lets spend it on this good cause" may seem attractive, but when considering such an investment you need to compare over the life-span of the investment. The spending of £33m or £10 per head as a one-off cost to implement a 20mph limit for most urban/village roads does actually present great value. This is especially the case when set against the advantages of lower casualty rates, lower noise levels, better public health, greater mobility equality, and protection for our vulnerable young and elderly. It is not up to say which is preferable. But we have been able to make a valid comparison between the cost of those benefits and either 1 additional teacher for every 20,000 children or 1 nurse across 4 hospitals.

That's correct. Repeater signs are only required and allowed where there the speed limit on a section of road is changed from the normal national limit by the Highway Authority under a Traffic Regulation Order. Hence whilst 20mph repeater signs were necessary to advise drivers that the national 30mph limit no longer applies on lit roads, now that the national limit is 20mph then no repeater signs are required or allowed. 20mph repeater signs will only be found on unlit roads where the 20mph limit has been set by a Traffic Regulation Order.

Hence local authorities in Wales will be removing some, but not all, 20mph repeater signs. Note that all 20mph limits will still have a large 20mph sign as you enter the limit and one indicating when it ends. 

20mph default speed limit – review of exceptions guidance

The primary difference is that whereas the original guidance provided a flow chart for establishing which road could be excepted, the updated guidance leaves it more a case of balancing benefits and disbenefits of exceptions.

But the updated guidance does clearly state that any exceptions would be limited :-

1.3.3

We anticipate that most speed limit changes from 20mph to 30mph will be made on A and B roads, which are typically main or strategic roads. 

A 30mph speed limit could be set on roads if they are located outside city, town or village centres and away from places that attract frequent pedestrian and/or cyclist traffic or on roads with low housing density (less than 20 properties per km) and where if there are pedestrians and cyclists they are or could be segregated from motor traffic).

Consequently, there is no need to reassess all roads.

The updated guidance maintains the same guiding principle that aligns with the Stockholm Declaration that :

2.1.1

In line with the Welsh Government’s aspiration to support the aims of the Stockholm Declaration a 20mph speed should remain where pedestrians and/or cyclists and motor vehicles mix in “a frequent and planned manner, except where strong evidence exists that higher speeds are safe”.

This is exactly the same as the previous guidance with the exception adding a footnote that “frequently” is to be determined by the highway authority. This seems superfluous.

It also adds in a reference to the guidance being founded on the Safe System :

1.1.3

This guidance is founded on the Safe System, advocating for safe speeds that are appropriate to the features of the road, the function it serves and the physical tolerance of its users.

The Safe System very much relies upon Safe Speeds as one of its’ foundations. The guidance references the RoSPA Factsheet which states :-

Safe Speeds
Speed limits in a Safe System are based on aiding crash avoidance and reducing the speed at which impacts occur, to ensure that the body’s limit for physical trauma is not reached. The Safe System aims to establish appropriate speed limits according to the features of the road, the function it serves and the physical tolerance of road users present. The setting of speed limits should also be determined by the protective quality of the road sections and vehicles in use rather than the behaviour of road users. The Safe System also works to enforce existing speed limits and to educate road users to ensure that they comply with speed limits.

The updated guidance additionally makes reference (as we suggested) to other Welsh and UK legislation to be considered when setting exceptions :-

3.1.3

Highway authorities should also have regard to their wider duties and statutory functions, for example: 

• the Equality Act 2010
• Active Travel (Wales) Act 2013
• the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015
• relevant duties in the Traffic Management Act 2004 (to expedite the movement of traffic) 
• the Road Traffic Act 1988 (to prevent accidents)
• the 1984 Act (duty on local highway authorities so far as practicable having regard to the matters specified in section 122(2) of the Act to secure the expeditious, convenient and safe movement of vehicular and other traffic, including pedestrians when exercising functions under the 1984 Act such as the setting of speed limits).

We note that the previous guidance allowed “deviations from the guidance”:-

2.2.11 Where their decision deviates from this guidance highway authorities should have a clear and reasoned case.

This is repeated in the updated guidance with the statement in 2.2.2:

Highway authorities can deviate from this guidance. In such cases, they are advised to provide a clear and well-reasoned justification for their decision.

We do not see any substantive difference between these. Any Traffic Regulation Order to set a 30mph limit must have a Statement of Reason that is clear and well justified.

We note that the updated guidance specifically references in 3.1.2  that:

In certain situations, it may be feasible to reconcile seemingly conflicting objectives, by adjusting the road infrastructure. 

 For example, installing facilities for pedestrians and cyclists could effectively address both concerns. 

Hence providing such infrastructure could well be a condition of an increase in speed limit.

We also note that where an assessment supports 20mph then there may be a case for “bus priority” measures:

4.5.2

If the assessment undertaken largely supports retaining the 20mph speed limit, but evidence shows that there are significant impacts on bus routes, resulting in increased journey times and subsequent cuts to services or areas served, then the implementation of bus priority measures along the affected routes should be considered).

Conclusion

On balance we support this updated guidance. Th updated guidance is much more a nuancing that could help reduce any anomalies introduced previously rather than any roll-back. Such a review and update was expected and planned.

• It is very clear that responsibility for setting local speed limits that differ from the national speed lies with local highway authorities.
• It re-enforces the principle of the Stockholm Declaration and now includes the Safe System.
• It adds the reminder to consider other Welsh and UK legislation.
• It provides examples of where protection for walking and cycling can be maintained by either keeping the national 20mph limit, or providing infrastructure in a 30mph limit.

We also note that besides the guidance there are civil liability issues for highway authorities. This is specifically identified in the following “supplementary statement” that we submitted to Welsh Government during the consultation stage which we provide for reference.

Any increase in speed limit by 50% above the norm will still require considerable justification which, if absent, would make a Traffic Regulation Order challengeable at least and open to legal liability in extreme. As Cllr Andrew Morgan OBE, Leader of WLGA and Spokesperson on Transport commented :

“We welcome the way the Cabinet Secretary has engaged with councils to review the original guidance and enable councils to relook at some sections of strategic routes, including bus routes.

These are not easy decisions for councils and safety remains our priority. There will need to be a high level of confidence that, if and where the limit is raised back to 30mph, it will not result in the very risks the policy was designed to mitigate."

We are confident that this updated guidance will provide a good basis for appropriate decisions to be made on the small number of 20mph roads where an increase to 30mph is appropriate.

Supplementary statement from 20’s Plenty for Us to Exceptions Review consultation (April 2024)

We welcome the consultation, but feel that a statement provides an opportunity to add a useful perspective beyond the framework of questions and answers provided.

1. The guidance is only guidance

Whilst it is entirely correct that the Welsh Government should provide guidance on the setting of a local speed limit other than the national limit, it must be remembered that it is only guidance. Whilst national governments have the responsibility to set a national limit for “restricted roads” with powers devolved in The Wales Act (2017), this does not allow any variations based on the type of restricted road. The only way that a different limit can be set is through the Highway Authority responsible for a road. This is done through a Traffic Regulation Order that both removes the restricted roads and sets an alternative limit. The power to do this is derived from UK-wide legislation in the Road Traffic Regulations Act 1984.

The responsibilities of UK local authorities who have Highway Authority status is not just limited to reducing casualties, but embodies a far wider set of considerations. For Welsh local authorities include both Welsh legislation (Active Travel Act, Future Generations Act,  Equalities Act) and also UK-wide legislation. This means that guidance must be considered and applied within a wider context. A good example of this may be seen in the local authority historical implementations of authority-wide 20mph in England from 2006 onwards. The Guidance in 01/2006 stated specifically in para 81:-

“20 mph speed limits should be used for individual roads, or for a small number of roads”

Yet between 2006 and 2009 the local authorities of Portsmouth, Islington, Oxfordshire, Lancashire and Warrington all implemented wide-area 20mph limits over hundreds of roads. In doing so they were treating the guidance as “guidance” rather than “rules”. In fact the guidance was then changed in a DfT Circular in December 2009 stating :-

“We want to draw attention to the initial evidence from the trial of wide area signed-only 20mph limits in Portsmouth, and want to make clear that 20 mph limits over a number of roads may be appropriate elsewhere.”

Here was recognition of both Portsmouth not complying with the previous guidelines and also a change in guidance to align with developing best practice.

So guidance is only that. They are not “cast in stone rules” and it can be expected that local Highway Authorities should consider them alongside their wider local authority responsibilities. This also allow guidance to be developed and improved over time.

Indeed, if local authorities such as Portsmouth, Islington and other had not gone beyond guidance then the real benefits of wide-area 20mph limits as a norm may never have been realised. Now 20 million people in England live in paces where 20mph is the urban/village norm.

2. Civil Liability

There are two precedents in civil law which could influence highway authorities setting speed limits that are higher than the national default.

The High Court case of Rehman v Brady found that where a driver was exceeding the speed limit then the driver becomes 100% liable for the consequences and damages of any collision, even if a pedestrian behaved negligently. A child of 7 was walking with her mother, aunt and sister when she negligently crossed the road and was hit by a car travelling at an estimated 28 to 32mph in a 20mph limit. The court concluded that "allegations of contributory negligence will not be successful where it can be shown that the accident would not have happened at all but for the driver's negligence".

Where a 20mph speed limit exists, liability for the consequences of a collision rests solely with the driver if they had negligently exceeded a speed limit which if adhered to would have enabled the collision to be avoided.

In the case of Yetkin v London Borough of Newham in the Court of Appeal, the court recognised that the correct management of the roads imposes a liability on the Traffic Authority, even in cases where a road users had been negligent. Whilst the particular case was about the management of raised beds in a central reservation obscuring the view of a driver approaching a negligent pedestrian, the judgement was more general:-

"The Highway Authority owed a duty to all road users, whether careful or negligent, to use reasonable care in the manner in which it exercised its powers when it created and maintained the crossing facility."

"The Local Authority had a common law duty of care towards the Claimant, notwithstanding her own negligence; that duty was breached; the breach was a cause of the accident."

From this we can deduce that if a Traffic Authority sets a speed limit which misrepresented the hazards involved then it is in breach of its common law duty of care towards both the driver and to anyone injured regardless of whether either road user was negligent. Raising the speed limit by 50% above the national speed limit may well misrepresent the hazards involved.

These Court of Appeal precedents are an important consideration for any Highway Authority setting or raising a speed limit. Each Traffic Regulation Order for an increase in speed limit requires a Statement of Reason which should lay out the evidence that a change is appropriate. This is referred to in the guidance as requiring “evidenced application of local factors”. Whilst the officers and councillors authorising any increase in speed limit may decide to ignore this guidance, they should be mindful of potentially breaching their duty of care to all road users when exercising their powers. Merely setting a higher speed limit “because there is a lot of traffic or being a main road” would not have fulfilled  that “duty of care” and may open the Highway Authority to subsequent civil liability in the event of a collision or casualty.

We consider that issue should be brought to the attention of Highway Authorities in any guidance provided by the Welsh Government.

3. Stockholm Declaration

At the 3^rd Global Ministerial Conference on Road Safety in 2020 the Stockholm Declaration was accepted by the 130 ministerial attendees, including Baroness Vere on behalf of the UK. In Resolution 11 on Speed management it states :-

"Focus on speed management, including the strengthening of law enforcement to prevent speeding and mandate a maximum road travel speed of 30 km/h in areas where vulnerable road users and vehicles mix in a frequent and planned manner, except where strong evidence exists that higher speeds are safe, noting that efforts to reduce speed in general will have a beneficial impact on air quality and climate change as well as being vital to reduce road traffic deaths and injuries;"

This was incorporated into the UN Road Safety Strategy 2021-2030 with its objective of halving road deaths over that decade. It provides a basis that countries around the world are using for their speed management strategies. Key to this is the presumption of a 20mph or 30km/h maximum legal speed where authorities allow motors to mix with vulnerable road users. This aligns with the idea of “restricted roads” within UK urban/village settings. And this presumption mandates that there is strong evidence for setting any higher speed limit.

It is entirely appropriate that this should be incorporated into Policy section of the guidance in para 1.2.3. This endorses the requirement for Highway Authorities to provide strong evidence of safety for vulnerable road users if setting a higher speed limit.

4. Local Speed Limit Guidance and Vulnerable Road Users

Throughout the UK in all guidance on speed limit setting there is reference to the needs of vulnerable road users :

England - Circular 01/2013 Mar 24 Update Para 33

"Different road users perceive risks and appropriate speeds differently, and drivers and riders of motor vehicles often do not have the same perception of the hazards of speed as do people on foot, on bicycles or on horseback. Fear of traffic can affect people’s quality of life and the needs of vulnerable road users must be fully taken into account to encourage these modes of travel and improve their safety. Speed management strategies should seek to protect local community life."

Wales – Circular 24/2009 Setting Local Speed Limits 2017 Para 3.10

"The needs of vulnerable road users must be fully taken into account in order to further encourage their mobility and improve their safety. Setting appropriate speed limits is a particularly important element in urban safety management, with significant benefits for pedestrians and cyclists. Similarly as vehicle speeds are generally higher on rural roads, collision severity and the risk to vulnerable road users are also greater. In both situations speed management strategies should seek to protect local community life."

Both of these include “The needs of vulnerable road users must be fully taken into account”. It is difficult to see how any arbitrary consideration by a Highway Authority, such as “the road is an A or B road”, or “the road is a bus route”, or “pre-speeds were above x” could dictate that a higher speed limit than the national default was automatically applied could credibly meet this requirement. Each decision “must” take full account of the needs of vulnerable road users.

This equally applies to the Public Sector Equality Duties whereby the Equality Act legally requires a robust consideration of the needs of those with protected characteristics. This is particularly relevant to children, elderly, mothers and those with disabilities. All are impacted by higher speeds. There are other legal implications in both the Future Generations and Active Travel legislation.

Looking at the “Statement of reason” in some of the Traffic Regulation Orders already enacted by some Highway Authorities on exceptions to the national 20mph default, it is clear that no such consideration is evidenced. Any revision of guidance should make reference to these obligations.

In conclusion.

It is entirely correct to review the guidance and the way that it has been interpreted and used by Highway and Local Authorities. But this should be done with the aim of making it clearer rather than having any pre-conceived idea of diluting the guidance to allow greater freedom to set higher limits.  Freedom to set higher limits already exists within current guidance but this does come with the responsibility to do so with due diligence, adherence to the principles of speed management, wider legal obligations, to be of benefit to vulnerable road users and meet a wide range of societal outcomes.

Rod King MBE – 20’s Plenty for Us

12^th April 2024

Update 20 April 2024

We now have the results of an FOI request for the daily signatures with Welsh postcodes. This shows that 97% of the signatures were gathered between 13th and 30th September 2023. During this period signs were still being installed and this would have meant many 20mph roads had 30mph signage and 30mph roads were assumed to be 20mph. In fact after the first two weeks of the 20mph limit being set daily signatures dropped hugely as shown by this graph of daily signings. In February 2024 the average number of daily signatures added was just 16. This is hardly a sign of rising anger but merely rising boredom by those that weren't triggered into signing in the first few weeks.

We also analysed the split of signatures by constituency. This was done by measuring the share of signatures in each constituency and comparing it with the share of electors. ie ((share of sigs/share of electors) -1). This shows that North Wales was over-represented in the petition by 21% compared to the national average. This is not surprising with Buckley being the N. Wales pilot area which was implemented with zero exceptions. Interestingly North West Wales in Arfon and Ynys Môn were under-represented at -45% and -9%.

The 432,875 signatures reported are lower than the 14th March results due to unverified postcodes being removed. The total represents around 14% of the population in Wales, in line with other opinion surveys on 20mph - around 1 in 7 people oppose with 2 in 3 people supporting.       

Update - 14 March 2024

It is now 5 months since we reported below. The petition seems to have run out of steam and when it closed on 13/03/24 the final count of Welsh signatories shows that it increased by less than 2% in the last 5 months with just 7422 new signings. 98% of signatories were made before the signage changes had been completed. During this time many drivers would have experienced 30mph signs within 20mph areas.

The monthly protests turning up outside Senedd have comprised about 20 people and at the close of the petition yesterday the usual people and numbers were there, being addressed by Natasha Asghar MS, whose late father was one of the original proposers of a national 20mph default as an Assembly Member in 2018. This is not a sign of "rising anger" but more boredom at opposition politicians attempting to weaponise road safety and community live-ability by creating a divisive culture war for the sake of a few votes

The fact is that  Wales and the Welsh people are getting on with life at 20 in villages, town and cities across the country. Its not perfect and there are some 20 roads which could be set at 30 and some 30 roads that could be set at 20. But all of this is in the hands of local highway authorities. A national 20mph default urban/village limit has made Welsh communities better places to live, walk, learn, cycle, shop and work, whether you are a resident or a tourist.  Well done Wales.

Note, final signatory numbers were:-

Here is what we wrote one month into the petition in October 02023

20mph limits for residential roads and where people are has always gained majority support. This has been legislated for in Wales over a year ago and implemented on Sept 17th 2023 with a national urban/village 20mph default with local authorities able to set exceptions. This aligns Wales with global best practice for motor vehicle speed where they mix with vulnerable road users. We have already documented the democratic route to legislation of this initiative that was launched 5 years ago with the support of Conservative, Labour, Plaid Cymru and Lib-Dem parties in Wales.

Yet we have a petition against the national default 20mph limit that is attracting a large number of signatures and shares.

This FAQ answer puts the petition into perspective and comes to the conclusion that whilst the number of signatures is significant, it is neither surprising nor is it representative of mainstream public opinion. 

The basis of Senedd petitions is that you can make a statement and ask people to sign with just a few clicks and entering their email address and postcode. Once signed the petition is easily shared to social media with a couple more clicks. If the petition reaches 10,000 signatures then the Petitions Committee will consider it for debate in Senedd.

The validity of a petition depends on what it states and the number of signatures. But what if the statement of the petition is false? How much credibility should be given to the results regardless of the number of signatures?

Lets look at the petition in question:

The petition was created on 13th September 2023 and is collecting signatures until 13th March 2024.

The rules for petitions are quite specific. It is our opinion that this petition breaks several of the rules, namely :-

• It contains potentially false or potentially defamatory statements;
• It contains language which is offensive, intemperate, or provocative. This not only includes obvious profanities, swear words and insults, but any language which a reasonable person would regard as offensive;

We break the petition down into its elements with a critique of each and how it could contravene  the petition rules.

The petition statement fails to meet any test of whether it is accurate or factual. It misleads potential signatories with anecdotes and comments which are false. It is difficult to see how Members of Sened could take this petition seriously.

Next steps

Once the petition reached 10,000 signatures, the Petitions Committee is able to ask the petitioner if they wish to close the petition and the committee can then make a decision as to whether this should be debated in Senedd. In this case we understand that the petitioner has requested that the petition run its full course and be available till March 2024.

Are the signature numbers significant?

To date (11/10/23) it has attracted 461,014 signatures. While this is, at first sight, a lot - indeed a a record - for a Senedd petition, it is not unexpected, particularly taking into account how the debate has been highly politicised on social media.

Of the 461,014 signatures, 27,139 were from outside Wales, including Canada (28), Falkland Islands, Ireland (50), USA (59), Northern Ireland (158), Scotland (984) and England (25,512). So how does this Welsh count of 433,865 signatures compare with the Welsh adult population? In 2019 the population was 3.136 million. Of these 500,000 were children leaving a net 2.636 million adults. Hence 16% of the adult population of Wales have signed the petition. We suggest that there are three reasons for signing:

A. Those who do not support 20mph for residential areas

What we know from successive UK-wide surveys on transport attitudes (see page 10) conducted by the UK Government is that 71% of people support 20mph for residential streets whilst 14% oppose it.  Hence it is reasonable to suggest that those 14% would be inclined to sign a "click and share" petition when a 20mph has been implemented as a "default" for built-up areas across Wales. This contingent would make up 369,040 (14% of 2.636 million) and would comprise 85% of the petition signatures received so far.

B. Those who do not support the current government.

A large number of the petition 'shares' on social media are politically motivated. They refer to the change specifically as "blanket" rather than "default". We know from the  2021 Senedd election results that a total of 289,802 people voted for the Welsh Conservatives, plus a further 8,586 for UKIP. Both of these parties now oppose the national 20mph default. While some may be included in A above, there will be motivation from many supporters of these parties to sign a petition that opposes what the Welsh Government has done regardless of the benefits to the population as a whole. Examples of partisan promotion of the petition are :

Note that whilst we are neither condoning or criticising the use of social media in such a manner it is a very clear example of the politicisation and division that is being promoted and specifically targeted at this petition.

C. Those who support 20mph but are unhappy with the way it has been implemented.

The national change involved many thousands of roads and signage, including both boundary signs and signs within communities. It would always have been impossible to make all of these changes co-incidentally without huge additional resources in local authorities. It was inevitable and unavoidable that some signage would be contradictory and result in drivers not being fully aware of the limit on certain roads. This in turn led to many drivers incorrectly keeping to 20mph on roads which had been excepted at 30mph. This would have led to many criticising the implementation of the 20mph default whilst at the same time agreeing with its intention.  We note that the police in Wales have said that they will focus on educating drivers, rather than issuing speeding tickets during the initial implementation phase. 

Conclusion

Given the scale and complexity of this change, the numbers signing the petition are not surprising. The scale of misinformation and falsehoods both within and surrounding the petition statement, together with the politicising of the issue devalues it to the extent that it is meaningless as a basis for considering public opinion. The petition tells us what is already known, that many drivers would prefer to drive faster than what is appropriate, safe or considerate for many of the under-protected on community streets - the very people who will benefit most from the national default 20mph limit. It could be said that this actually endorses the need for the speed limit change.

It provides a snapshot of driver opposition in a two week period in September 23 whilst signage was being changed. It reflects one side of public opinion on an issue that has majority support and minority, but significant and noisy, opposition. Given the total population of Wales and the petition statement flaws the number of signatures is neither surprising or indicative of a need to change policy. 

We believe that Welsh Government and Local Authorities should be congratulated for delivering this life-enhancing and life-preserving 20mph initiative for the people of Wales which does have wide public support. Members of Senedd should recognise the flaws, misinformation and lack of evidence in this petition when considering whether it is worthy of debate in Senedd.