Within the study, it was found that the biggest contributing factor to an accident was ‘failure to observe’, either as a pedestrian (17%) or motorist (37%), but the lower speeds should mean that a road user has more time to react to an incident – which in theory means a lessened chance of injury.

However, it’s that very reason that could also cause a problem – with road users having more time to react, it seems that complacency is increasing. Further still, and perhaps the biggest takeaway from the study is that there is a small amount of evidence that shows an increase in driver frustration and distraction.

The frustration part is purely from learned behaviour – that can change with time, but the distraction part could be down to the need for constant checking of the speedometer; ensuring that you’re driving below a 20mph limit takes concentration and a certain amount of skill, and with the influx of silent-running electric vehicles, that could be made worse – there will be no engine note as guidance.

With no significant change in accident rates, and no benefit to the environment, can the local authorities justifiably continue to spend the amount of money required to create such folly? It would seem that these 20mph zones are now purely about the perceived perception of a neighbourhood, rather than offering any benefit whatsoever, and in a time when councils are going bust, surely the money is better spent elsewhere?

Of course, there is always a need to back causes that improve road safety, including reduced speed limits where there is proven benefit, but an inappropriate blanket 20mph zone isn’t that. Perhaps we should be thankful that currently, many of these reduced speed zones aren’t enforced with speed cameras as a simple money-making hotspot, but the cynics amongst us would ask how long it will be before that happens?