30 kmh Speed Limit

Bégles, a commune near Bordeaux has just introduced a 30 kmh soeed limit on all the raods within the commune.

It’s the first ‘large’ commune to impose such a limit and I think it’s a great idea. Here’s hoping it spreads to other parts of the hexagon.

I think Cognac is going that way too - their small town streets should be tackled with care, whether on foot on in the car… :shushing_face::wink::upside_down_face:

Cognac is ideal for 30 kmh, Saintes too imo. I reckon Angoulême too won’t be long in reducing speed.

1 Like

Will it make one tiny bit of difference, those happy to travel at 50+ will just continue doing so unless it’s policed and enforced.

1 Like

I said in another thread that speed cameras should be used in towns rather than outside to police the 50/30 kph limits.

The issue there is the margin for error is so tiny at 30KPH, the slightest downhill and you’d easy go slightly over the limit. Simply too slow and most of these places are completely devoid of people, exceptions being around schools, hospitals and old peoples homes. Youngsters soon learn the cameras positions and then just brake hard before booting it back after the camera.

John… which towns are you thinking of - why would town roads be devoid of people ??

In Manche and Calvados there are scores of sparsely populated conurbations bisected by fast but narrow N and D roads along which motorists and PL camions bowl at 80 kph with minds in neutral.

Most of these lived-in places have well-signed 30 kph restrictions reinforced by traffic calming features such as humps, chicanes and textured surfaces, as well as flashing signs. They seem always to be respected by through traffic, indeed trying to drive faster would be reckless and utterly reprehensible. Only a psychopath would fail to comply IMO.

I think it’s important to note that Bégles (with it’s 28,000 inhabitants) is in fact a suburb of the city of Bordeaux and lies almost entirely within the Bordeaux outer ring road. The entire Commune is a built up area previously subject to a 50kph limit throughout.

Because the Commune is so compact, and because there will be many junctions, traffic lights, and roundabouts that force a reduction of speed to well below 30kph in order to negotiate these hazards, the impact of reducing the general limit from 50 to 30 will only be a matter of a few seconds when making a journey from one side of the Commune to the other.

In such heavily built up areas there always tends to be a larger proportion of accidents involving pedestrians than in rural areas, and the difference between a pedestrian being struck by a vehicle travelling at 50 as opposed to 30 is often quite literally one of life or death.

Clearly a Commune wide 30 kph limit in a rural area where much of the road network is unpopulated country roads would not be appropriate, but in a heavily populated area it is quite literally a life-saving concept.

1 Like

Have they scrapped the pavements? What are all these people doing in the roads?

1 Like

:upside_down_face::wink::rofl: Despite what folk might think, speed restrictions are never put in place without lengthy deliberation about safety etc etc.

I do not know Bègles, but I do know Cognac well.
I suggest that the speed reduction is aimed to help pedestrians and vehicles alike.

Emissions at lower speeds increase, so either way you cannot have your cake and eat it.
Emissions have been found to increase in areas where speed bumps or road narrowing have been put in place.

As you suggest, one can’t always have everything one might wish for.:upside_down_face:

Emissions/pollution will have been high on the agenda for discussion when it came to decision-time.

It has been found that in experiments In areas where all traffic calming measures have been removed accidents have actually decreased.
Familiarity breeds contempt and pedestrians take more care when they have to think for themselves or take the consequences.

1 Like

Jane, as you and I both know - there are reports which will say one thing and reports which will contradict.

No council/whatever will invest in anything unless they really want it to work. I suspect that their situation must be bad already and doing nothing will not have been seen as an acceptable option. :thinking:

I suspect they will be trying to reduce the volume of traffic, as well as traffic speed. I have not read the transcript of their deliberations so can only hazard guess.

1 Like

I am sure you do @Stella - “oh go on then perhaps just a little one” she slurred!

1 Like

I’m partial to a home-grown Armagnac.

IMO Cognac tastes better after the 3rd glass… :upside_down_face::upside_down_face:

(actually that goes for most “strong liquor”) :rofl::joy::crazy_face::upside_down_face:

I would suggest that this is as a result of a badly designed/ implemented scheme.

The flippant reply to your question would be ‘Trying to get to the other side’, but seriously, there is obviously a problem with road safety in this particular commune or else the council would not have risked its popularity by introducing such a measure.

Where vehicular traffic flow is high, and there is a relatively high proportion of pedestrian road users, there will be a commensurate increase in the percentage of accidents that involve pedestrians. Often these accidents will involve particularly vulnerable pedestrians such as the elderly, the young, the partially sighted, the hard of hearing, the temporarily distracted (mobile phone or MP3 player), or simply those who have no choice but to walk in the carriageway because someone has selfishly and inconsiderately completely blocked the pavement with their parked vehicle.

The local authority has a duty towards public safety and therefore a duty to do something.
The most effective thing would be to completely separate the different classes of road users so that they can never come into contact with each other, but this is both impracticable and hugely cost prohibitive.
Therefore, accepting that there will be contact between the different classes of road users, vehicular and cyclists, vehicular and pedestrian for example, then it is appropriate to instigate measures to reduce the extent of the injuries caused by such incidents, and the most effective, and indeed the most cost effective way of doing this is by reducing the speed of vehicular traffic.

I suppose that I should declare an interest here and tell you that for many years I was a traffic cop in a large city in the UK, and that therefore I have been the guy who has to clear up the carnage at the scene of the accident and inform the parent that their child has been knocked off their bike and is now in the mortuary.

So I have a question for you, and indeed for every reader of this post, and it is this;
“Will you allow a minute or two extra time for your journey in order to save the life of a child ?”


Robert I do allow said time, not talking about me it’s others who do not slow no matter how many traffic calming measures there are. As an ex officer I am sure you know what I mean.