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