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

Supplementary statement by Rod King MBE, 20’s Plenty for Us

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.