The City of London Corporation is looking at implementing a 15mph speed limit in the capital’s Square Mile to help with road safety and reduce pollution.
Experts say that if anything, it will increase pollution levels due to the stop & start nature of the traffic, but road safety charity Brake is backing the plans.
Planning & Transportation Chairman for the City of London Corporation, Chris Hayward says: “90% of collisions that result in death or serious injury involve a motor vehicle. We need bold ideas to make our streets safer”.
Horse and cart
There were 54 people killed or seriously injured on the streets of the City of London last year, and despite the lower 20mph speed limits, the number of these incidents hasn’t decreased, purely because of the record numbers of pedestrians in the City.
A spokesperson for the AA said that lowering the speed limit will have little to no effect on injuries, comparing the traffic speed to that of a horse and cart, and IAM RoadSmart Director of Policy and Research agrees: “There is no real road safety benefit in enforcing a speed limit which traffic seldom reaches”.
The experts also agree that in all likelihood, it will raise pollution levels, which are currently under scrutiny, and therefore used to tax the motorist further.
Practicalities will also play a part; how would they implement the lower speed limit, particularly concerning cyclists? It’s estimated that around two people are killed or injured every week as a result of an accident with a bicycle. The conviction of Charlie Alliston for causing bodily harm through ‘wanton and furious driving’ proves that there is an issue that needs looking in to.
Better investment
Experts say that rather than enforce an unworkable solution, that will cause further problems with pollution levels, that the City of London Corporation should look into making investments in better road safety infrastructure, such as pedestrian crossings, pinch points and speed humps.
A spokesperson for Brake said: “Speed is a critical factor in many deaths on our roads, we welcome any measure that can help make our communities safer; slower speeds save lives and make our streets a more liveable environment”.
In contrary to that, Hampshire County Council stated in June that they would be no longer implementing 20mph limits, as they’d noticed no discernible reduction in road accidents, which would fit with the theory from the AA.
“Changing the limit from a 30mph zone to 20mph reduces the speed slightly, but the majority of motorists travel at 25mph, so there has been a reduction in speed, but not significant”.
Pollution levels
Putting aside the speed vs injury debate, the other argument from the City of London Corporation is that there would be a reduction in pollution levels. Clearly, with traffic taking longer to clear the area, the start/stop nature of traffic, combined with an already overloaded road system, this simply wouldn’t happen?
A study by the Edinburgh Centre for Carbon Innovation (ECCI) in 2013 found similar results; the nature of stop/start traffic at low speeds means that there is an increase in acceleration and braking, coupled with the fact that at such low speed, any motorist would likely to be in a low gear, which would further exacerbate the problem. The optimum speed for minimising vehicle pollution and emissions is actually around 40mph.
However, that’s simplifying it too much, there are further points to be aware of.
If the traffic flow is smooth, then lower speed limits will help with reducing pollution, it’s only when you introduce the stop & start of city driving that it will negate the effect of lower limits. Due to further legislation surrounding emissions, car manufacturers comply with much stricter emissions regulations, and therefore, their products are tuned to give optimum returns under the majority of use – around 45 – 50mph in top gear.
Using traffic-calming measures can work under certain circumstances, but it gets back to keeping the traffic flowing smoothly – not accelerating away from speed humps or traffic lights for example.
Generation
While it’s undoubtedly commendable to try and reduce the number of injuries in a locale, there needs to be serious thought given as to how practical this can be, or whether it’s just another publicity/money generating scheme for the local authority.
Evidence and experts say that a 15mph speed limit won’t really affect either positively – it won’t reduce accidents, nor will it help with pollution, so just what is the purpose of lowering the limit? We know the cynical answer, but surely, it can’t be that blatant?
What do you think of a 15mph speed limit? Should more cities introduce it? Should the City of London stop wasting money on schemes to hit the motorist? Let us know in the comments.
Absurd. Not great publicity for attracting business either: “Invest in London, where your time will be spent crawling along at horse & cart speed.” Time is money!!!
Go the whole hog reduce it to 5mph and think there you go twat mayor of London , let’s really kill people with pollution
And require that every motorised vehicle be preceded by a man with a Red Flag and a siren to warn of their approach.
That way even idiots walking and concentrating on their phones might even wake up and pay attention to what is around them!!
Has anyone tried driving at 15mph? It’s Hard! No the answer is not lowering speed limits.
In the City of London you have great public transport, so just ban private transport from the area as there is no where you can park your car anyway.
Yes, bus gates and restrictions on goods vehicles to certain times work well in other places – if you need to get to a city centre, take a bus! (provided it’s not an old smelly diesel bus…)
Reduce the speed limit to 15, still can’t enforce it for cyclists who get away with all but murder. If you want to make roads safer in cycling-friendly cities then you need to implement rules around making cycles identifiable along with requiring training has been carried out by the cyclist, just like cars.
Yes that’s right identifying cars, mandatory training for cars, that’s made such a difference to the accident rates. Cite the evidence. As you know it’s not true, my opinion is based on the fact I have a driving licence and drive a car.
A lot of cyclists don’t have a licence though and can legally use the road with zero training and no helmet on? They should be required to pass a CBT as for a moped rider and have third party insurance against damage and injury they cause just like any other road user.
RoSPA had a Cycling Profficieny course with a test at the end. If you passed, not all did, then you got a certificate. I took that course before starting a morning job as a ‘paperboy’ in the 50’s and was a requirement of the shop owners. Cyclists need to be identifiable by some form of sign and be required to have insurance as well as a RoSPA certificate.
What has a sodding helmet got to do with anything?
Nothing to do with pollution which is what the header item is about but a whole lot to do with further costs motorists bear when brain injuries are part of insurance claims and the insurance premiums go up for us all.
Oh, I see. You want us to wear helmets so that when, through your carelesss driving, you knock us off, your insurance doesn’t go up?
Maybe it would be better if you used your eyes more because everytime I’ve been hit by a careless motorist, (3 times,) the first words out of their careless mouths has been, “sorry, didn’t see you”.
Perhaps pedestrians should be forced to wear helmets to keep your insurance down too as they often suffer head injuries after being mown down by careless car drivers.
Is you car identifiable by its Registration Number in the case of a hit-and-run?
Is a bicycle?
Have people been KILLED by irresponsible cyclists?
The answer to your last question is YES and many times
Please remind me how many people have been “killed” by cyclists in the past 10 years? I’m surprise that a bicycle isn’t the terrorists vehical of choice, seeing as how they are so lethal.
It’s about one a year, whereas cows kill 10 people a year and biscuits choke to death 3 people a year.
Yes, that guy that removed his brakes to save weight
You obviously missed this in the article:
“Practicalities will also play a part; how would they implement the lower speed limit, particularly concerning cyclists? It’s estimated that around two people are killed or injured every week as a result of an accident with a bicycle. The conviction of Charlie Alliston for causing bodily harm through ‘wanton and furious driving’ proves that there is an issue that needs looking in to.
No, I didn’t miss it. It just didn’t seem worthy of comment, being as stupid as it is.
First of all, “estimated”? What, don’t they have reliable figures? Obviously not, as they say, “around 2 people”. What does that mean, 1,2 or 3? And to lump “killed” and “injured” together is ludicrous. What constitutes an injury, a barked shin? A small bruise on the arm?
Plus it doesn’t say how many of these “accidents” are the cause of the cyclist and how many the pedestrians.
It’s all too silly for words really and an indication of just how stupid the “anti-cycling” lobby is.
If “around 2 people a week are killed or injured as a result of an accident with a bicycle”, what’s the figure for cars?
If some idiot on a bike mows into someone and kills or seriously injures them then I would want to see that person punished to the full extent of the law. Truth is, it rarely happens. You stand more chance of injury or death caused by lightning;
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0169809500000831
Working in central London, it’s almost an everyday occurrence that a cyclist will speed past me on the pavement, avoiding traffic, lights, etc. If you don’t have your wits about you, you’ll get a nasty knock at least, as they have no regard for pedestrians.
Any yet I’ve never been nearly struck by lightening.
Yes, just like they do in the Netherlands eh? Because they have so much of a problem with all of the cyclists over there, don’t they?
Cycling Proficiency is still taught but it relies on adults to volunteer their time. There are two types of people in the world, one gives their time teach children life skills, and other just whinges and whines. So which one are you?
Absolute rubbish a 20 mph limit has been imposed in parts of Birmingham and it has added to congestion
With the modern development of GPS from satellites, that is in common use , with Satnavs, it is perfectly feasible to implement maximum speed control, in all modern vehicles.
The cost of such devices, fitted during manufacture would be small.
As new cars appeared on our roads, fitted with such systems, they would each become mobile traffic calming vehicles, themselves; thus making expensive retro-fitting unnecessary.
This would make the damage-causing , humps and dangerous pinch-points unnecessary .
One wonders why governments don’t enforce such a solution.
Can it be that the powerful car- manufacturing lobbies are objecting ?
This technology was available more than twenty years ago, but the Government refused to implement it. The obvious reason is because it would stop drivers speeding, and therefore reduce revenue by £millions per year.
Let’s not forget the other side of the economic scales. It’s estimated each loss of life on Great Britain’s roads costs 1.7 million pounds. As speed related crashes are the biggest cause of fatality it’s no wonder it gets a lot of focus.
It has been proven that drivers can get to their destination quicker by driving slightly slower. The key is doing less stop start type driving. To do this requires looking and planning further ahead, keeping the speed steady and basically stopping less. This increases the drivers average speed, it’s more fuel efficient and it’s safer. It’s hard to do, requires self-discipline and a bit of a re-think on the way we drive but it does work. Lower limits can work if we can see the benefits and therefore have a reason to obey them!
If Brake want to reduce deaths, then the need is to fundamentally prevent pedestrians & cyclists coming into contact with vehicles, so speed is irrelevant. Trying to drive at 20 is hard enough, with constant looking at the speedo rather than what’s going on outside, so 15 is going to be even worse. It also seems yet again that it’s always the driver’s fault, no mention of improving pedestrian (looking at phones, listening to music) or cyclist (weaving in & out of traffic) behaviour & responsibility.
Could not agree more.
I can remember working in Canary Wharf a few years ago and seeing on to many occasions, where a door would open on a building, and a person would come running out, straight across the road without looking and straight into the building across the road. Road safety needs every body irrespective of mode of transport to play the game.
Yes. Some on here seem to have a weird grudge against cyclists but pedestrians fixated on their phones and/or wearing headphones are the real problem. It’s not that I’m overly concerned to protect them (frankly, I think there’s a good argument for letting Darwinian evolution take its course… if they don’t keep their wits about them it’s their own fault) – but my concern is that other innocent people suffer when drivers/riders swerve to avoid them.
Who are you kidding? Constantly looking at the speedo? Where I live, the number of drivers obeying the 20mph limit is very small. A lot of them don’t even keep to 30, never mind 20. Who expects drivers to keep to 15?
Perhaps Andy, that is the point. There are far too many hazards to take in while driving, and lower or changing speed limits are just one part of that. Add in various traffic calming measures, inattentive pedestrians, cyclists who do not seem to want to obey The Highway Code, other cars and motorcycles, and you have overload of even the most competent drivers senses. When there is too much information or rules people seem to just naturally lose concentration and switch off. I would almost guarantee that the drivers you refer to do not know what the speed limit is for the road they are on because they have missed seeing the speed limit sign. On that basis I agree with you entirely, who is going to keep to 15 miles an hour.
And it takes an ‘Expert’ to realise this?!
Great, the speed limit in the centre of London is set to increase, good news.
It doesn’t seem to be cars that are the problem. Surely it’s the cyclists who ride in excess of 15 mph? Family members gave narrowly missed being knocked down and serious injured due to cyclists, who then just swear at you if you dare to say anything to them!
More pollution from 15mph so not the answer.
No links to evidence cited, no thoughtful considered debate, no serious journalism. If nothing else this site is amusing, nice clickbait, nothing of merit worth further consideration.
Does the traffic in the square mile ever reach 15mph – I’d be surprised.
Speed limits in London are irrelevant. I commuted by motorbike into London for over fifteen years and it took roughly the same amount of time irrespective of conditions. Unless you’re sensible and ride a motorcycle you’re stuck with the stop-start and whether you’d be allowed to do 20 or 30 or 40 if it were clear is moot. They’re not going to redesign the roads to eliminate choke points and queues at junctions and traffic lights so that’s it, they’re stuck with it. Of course, enforcing a lower limit will at least bring in more fines, so…
I think vehicles in the city should have a person walking in front of them with a red flag. It would solve any unemployment problem and probably mean you would be travelling at 4mph. Oh sorry, that is already the average speed for vehicles in London! How much are we paying these idiots?
Our crazy Mayor of London is totally wrong if he wants to cut down on pollution open the roads let the traffic flow in the meantime he has brought all the bus stops out into the middle of the road every Two lane has turned into a one lane he has crippled our city we are losing billions of pounds every year on people sitting in traffic and not being able to do business keeping delivery back on time and traffic on a standstill that is what builds up pollution when a car travels on a road 20 miles an hour there is almost zero pollution but when a car sits in traffic for 20 minutes yes there will be pollution
What’s the Mayor of London got to do with it? His writ doesn’t extend to the City.
And for the bicycles they should be forced to use back roads they don’t have to drive on main roads
Ah, now wait a minute. 15mph means low gear driving. Low gear driving means more fuel being used (therefore more air pollution) BUT more revenue for the government in taxation !
At least cyclists will not have to ‘drive’ at 15mph or indeed obey any of the rules applying to motorised transport. There is no money to be made from cyclists.
Part of the problem is police are too lazy to enforce the laws on cyclist and pedestrians. If anybody reads RTA 1988 and other related legislation, you will not it applied to all users of the road. This is echoed in the Highway code.
The Police are not on the whole lazy, (there are some as there are in every profession), but simply there are not enough officers and police staff (insufficient funding) to enforce the traffic laws, investigate murders, assaults, burglaries, vandalism, tackle fraud and cyber crime, deal with hate and discrimination, patrol as a deterrent, etc., etc..
If someone was to break into your grand parents house and terrorize them in an aggravated burglary, what would your reaction be if the reply from the police was ‘Sorry, all available staff are out enforcing laws on cyclists and pedestrians this month’?
We need to slow all motorists down for the safety of pedestrians and cyclists and the benefit to our health and environment. Too many drivers accelerate and then break sharply in zones where people live, walk and talk. Driving slower should cut noise & pollution levels if drivers keep a more constant slow speed. We need to do everything we can to encourage more people to walk and cycle with enhancement to the environment and peoples health.
Yet the obvious fact that every cyclist is one less car on the road is lost on you?
May as well ditch the car. Electric bikes have a 15.5 mph assist limit, Is this a coincidence?
Ok 15mph it is, & like in Enfield Nth London where they’ve put in all these traffic calming fins & orcas between cycle lanes & car lanes which have been in operation for about a year slowing us down to standstill when a bus stops is fine as long as all buses & cars are electric then no fumes! But, none of this helps one eyeoter when London is full of cranes with great big engines sitting on sites like Crossrail & the like where our son drives, whoops sorry operates, (one must be PC im told, nuts!) drives a 100ton crawler crane, massive great big engine that ticks over all day, & yesterday he done one lift, lotta diesel sadiq, what you gonna do about that?
P.S. our son earns a fortune & still cant afford sadiqs so called “affordable housing”, & he still wont be able to afford to go to work when the ulez charge comes into effect, plus when the north/south circular ulez charge comes in its gonna cost us £12.50 just to go to our A & E @ our nearest hostpital (North Middlesex) cos the they closed Chase farm A & E that’s 10mins walk away. sadiq is just one big joke all round! But he’s not worried when he gets his fuel paid for, for his gas guzzling government car!
This Government cash cow just never seems to stop!
I’ve got a great idea! Reduce the speed limit to zero, then there will be no accidents! Oh, wait a minute…
The lower the speed limit the more time I spend watching my speedo and not watching the road, so I don’t brake the law and incur a penelty.
Whilst many won’t like this, it is a fact. Ergo, less chance of killing someone but more chance of not seeing someone and hitting them.
Whilst we are on the subject, how about keeping bicycles off the pavement and protecting the pedestrian that way. Whilst it is only a few, that few are just as dangerous as a speeding car!
Soon motorist will have to have a man with a red flag walking in front this will not not do anything except get more money from us motorist. Regarding cyclists I agree not all but a lot use the roads dangerously they should all be registered with a number plate if they want to use the roads perhaps this will get them in check if they can be prosecuted when they jump red lights, use their phones while riding etc.
Make cyclists wear a bright tabard on which is there personal registration details and if they break the law or don’t wear it, prosocute them. All should be equal under the law. After all, my car has to carry a registration plate, be MOT tested, taxed and insured. Oh, and I have to be responsible for my fellow man!
Surely lowering the speed limit to 15mph is possibly going to have an adverse effect on safety??
Drivers are likely to spend even more time looking at their Speedometers and they will spend far less time paying attention to their driving and to the road/pedestrian population around them.
It is already bad enough with the current rash of 20mph limits, some in places where drivers can’t see/appreciate any need, and always at times when the supposed need may no longer apply.
Whilst kids are going into, or out of, school – fine. Outside of school hours? Why?
I would have expected Brake to consider ALL possible factors, not just rubber stamp someone’s ill thought out fantasy.
Remind me, is there a place outside London?
Of course there is…the Mayor and his cronies are closing businesses and/or driving them and people out of London. Before long London will be a ghost city…with property prices plummeting and the Mayors ‘rich’ group of friends (UK and foreign) snapping the bargains up. Think about it…London will soon be a fortress for the filthy rich who can afford those expensive ‘Chelsea tractors’ and Tesla’s.
More rubbish from BRAKE. Their goal is to get everyone out of their cars. I’ve been saying for ages that the way speed limits are being reduced more and more, we’ll be back to needing a man waving a red flag in front of every car. Mind you, that would cure unemployment.
So, there is a 15mph speed limit being talked about, how utterly preposterous, these people need to get a life in the real world of today. Next thing they will be asking for is someone walking in front of vehicles with a flag!!!!! Bring back the horse and cart.
Where I used to live apparently even the police said they wouldn’t enforce a new 20 mph limit on a road that just didn’t require it. When it was first introduced, people did try to stick to it for fear of getting nicked but we were all driving in 2nd gear, (some bigger engined cars were in 1st), with engine revs up at the 2000 area instead of the 1000 revs area, proof positive that 20 mph is more polluting.
Car engines have a system that increases the amount of fuel injected at revs under 1400 rpm. It’s called anti-stall. So it is better to keep revs just above 1400 and never let them fall below except when idling. That will save you fuel and reduce pollution too, but only a little bit. It is also why you should never coast but use engine braking instead.
Not quite sure how this is relevant to coasting. If the engine is out of gear, then there is zero load on the engine and it is effectively idling. Are you suggesting that turning the engine over at 1400rpm saves more fuel than idling?
To resolve any problem proactive consideration has to be made by all sides.If motorists concede by a reduction of speed pedestrians could help by wearing protective clothing and crash hats. And perambulating faster to smooth the overall flow.
Just as it is not safe to use a mobile phone whilst driving it is equally unsafe to use one whilst walking as attention is distracted.
Present day legislators have no interest whatever in safety. It is all about fund raising.
15 MPH WILL NOT reduce pollution. in fact it more likely to increase. Using a lower gear with the same RPM will consume more fuel per mile. Do these people think or what ? Any motorist knows that your fuel MPG goes down to damn near zero in towns.
In addition to more pedestrian crossings, zones like the City of London must become accessible only by fully electric or zero tailpipe emission vehicles, i.e. buses, cars and all commercial vehicles. This is neither rocket science nor new as when I was young milk and other provisions were delivered by battery operated vehicles e.g. milk floats and Londoners benefited from the largest fleet of all electric double decker buses in the world. They were called Trolleybuses. When will people in suits realise you can learn much more by “looking back”.?
But banning ALL vehicles will WHY don’t they do just that Scared of the repercussions from motorists I think
I notice an increasing number of pedestrians crossing side roads without looking to see whether a motor vehicle is turning into the road. The increasing use of headphones renders them deaf as well as (apparently) blind. Cyclists without lights, sometimes crossing roads between cars or even cycling on the right hand side of the road, are also scary.
Rule 170: Give way to pedestrians who have started to cross.
One would imagine that buses would also be subject to the slow down and hence increase travel time for passengers.
We need to look at our working lives, and consider a different hourly day 6am-7am-8am start for some office workers instead of 9 am in city’s, would alleviate some congestion and allow better flow of the now reduced traffic numbers.
The world has become a 24 hour stage and we have not moved on over the years to adapt. Yet many of us motorists will travel to holiday destinations in the early or very late hours to improve journey time and reduce the risk of heavy traffic exposure to both vehicle and family.
Shift heavy goods to night time only access, but to combat the increase pay to employ night time drivers allow the vehicles to be run on red diesel to offset those costs. The HGV’s can then be restricted for use at 9 pm to 5 am use only.
forget increased pollution by stop start…… do a little basic maths…. I burn 100ml of fuel every mile at 48mph to 70mph…. but I burn 600ml of fuel each mile below 18mph….
this isn’t difficult to work out…. at 48 to 70mph I am in 6th gear… at 15mph I am in 1st or 2nd gear
this extra burn goes somewhere… mainly, no, entirely as extra emissions.. POLLUTION
Obviously not enough money is being raised from speed cameras so dropping the limit will correct that.
Are there any speed cameras that have Type approval for enforcement at 15mph, I very much doubt it
When will we learn to work smarter than this? Do we need offices in the 21st century? Broadband speeds have increased and we still insist on travelling to a City to work in a manner from the Victorian age. Switching phones and working from home could stop pollution by a half. Leaving the city to the tourists. Sad to say, but London is tired of its people and tired of life. The answer to all this traffic has bothered experts for decades, no-one has found a solution worth considering. I worked there for many years and I thought the speed limit was lower than the 15mph proposed. At least the accidents are still people walking into the road still with their minds on other things than their own safety. I have travelled in a black cab and felt the tugging of the safety belt when the cabbie braked hard. Perhaps the city should fence off the walkers from the traffic except at crossing points? But that would cost too much, we no doubt will foot the fuel bills from the delays. When will the cost of fuel decrease? But that’s the Citys business, isn’t it?
“The City of London Corporation is looking at implementing a 15mph speed limit in the capital’s Square Mile to help with road safety and reduce pollution.” It does neither of the 3, the 15mph , reduce pollution or road safety, the 20 mph areas have proven that it does not work and also factor 4 the pedestrians tend not to look before crossing the road, hence more run over, more pollution for stop starting
Councils are the main contrabutors to pollution. With lowering speed limits (vehicles have optimum speed for better combustion) a car travelling at 64-70 produces LESS than if travelling at 20mph. The second factor is traffic lights especially timmings between sets they dont allow 2 or 3 sets to be cleared at a time its normally clear one then have to stop at next one. Yes do gooders have alot to answer for.
left wing *IDIOTS*.
In Wales they reduced speed limit to 20MPH and number of accidents INCREASED.
Moreover, at 15mph there will be MORE pollution not less because engine will run in very inefficient manner.
Don’t know what all the fuss is about. The average speed around West Yorkshire urban locations is about 12 mph, if one is lucky and has been for decades! J24 of the M62 is about 1.5 miles from where I live and 15 minutes is a typical time taken to get there.
I say hit the cyclist instead tax em £100 to use roads n cycle lanes/bus lanes and the super. Highway as only cyclists can use I’m fed up as a motorist forking out so hit all cyclists over age 16 £100 -£150 per year and also enforce all cyclists to have compulsory insurance so enforce tax n insurance on all cyclists over 16 on jan 1st 2019 .
That grup od idiots “Brake” should be made illegal and disabanded!
Man with a Flag in front of every vehicle was mandatory more than 100 years ago.
Things have moved on!
Might as well ban traffic all together, , oh wait they won’t make any money, DUH silly me
It is now well known that 20 mph limits tend to increase the risks for both pedestrians and motorists. With those the driver’s attention is often taken away from the road ahead to stare at the speedo – and not the risk ahead. Make that 15 mph and that effect gets far worse. Most will need to use third gear, or even second in some cases, so the vehicles will cause considerably more pollution than if they could proceed in fourth gear. Drivers attention will be less on the road ahead so the dangers for people, especially children, will be greater and pedestrians will assume they will not be injured they are more likely to drift out in front of traffic – more so if they are staring at the mobile phone as well!
It is a daft idea and should be thrown out as being too dangerous.
They should ban ALL passenger vehicles, walking is healthier but imagine two people reading their phones and colliding at a closing speed of 8 mph which could still cause serious injury so perhaps pedestrians should face penalties for inconsiderate perambulation.
It seems to me that brake will only be happy when we walk or cycle everywhere (presumably they will then change their name!) Unfortunately the country will be bankrupt.
“If the traffic flow is smooth …” says it all, a 15mph would only work if it is not ‘stop start’ traffic. A similar pollution problem is created with so called ‘chicanes’ – these are fine on a race track which by definition is a ‘one-way’ street, on a two-way highway they are a pollution disaster forcing traffic in one direction to stop, wait and restart!
This won’t be popular but I suspect accidents are caused by pedestrians. I know myself that I will try to cross the road when the lights are red against the pedestrian for instance.
Maybe all pavements should be fenced except at specific crossing points?
To drive at 15 mph is pretty near impossible – plus polution will be terrible as a very low gear will need to be selected.
Time to get the man with the red flag out again. What goes around comes around!