More than a third of motorists (36%) would welcome wider use of 20mph speed limits if it meant savings on their car insurance, new research indicates.

March’s new Startline Used Car Tracker based on a survey of 302 consumers also shows that more than half (54%) would be happy to see lower speed limits generally if it meant cheaper premiums.

The question was asked following a report from confused.com indicating that UK insurers are seeing lower claims rates in 20mph zones, leading to reduced insurance costs.

Paul Burgess, Startline Motor Finance chief executive, said: “We carried out research on 20mph zones in late 2023, just before their widespread introduction in Wales, and seven in 10 people were against them, so these new findings are interesting.

“What they show is that a significant number of motorists recognise the direct links between reduced speed and accidents and their insurance bill, and are happy for limits to be lower if they can make a saving.

"This applies to 20mph zones for about a third of people but more than half would be willing to go slower generally.

“Of course, the spiralling car insurance costs that most have seen over the last couple of years will probably be the key reason for these findings.

"While premiums are now stabilising or even falling a little, they have risen substantially and people are keen to find ways to bring them down.”

There has been a significant reduction in road casualties in Wales following the introduction of 20mph speed limit.

For the period covering July – September 2024 there were 100 fewer people killed or seriously injured on 20mph and 30mph roads compared with the same period the year before, a fall of 28%. 

A further 24% of people in the Startline Used Car Tracker said that 20mph speed limits are a good idea for safety reasons, whatever the effect on insurance, but 17% say they are just too slow and are happy to continue to pay higher premiums.

Burgess said: “There’s definitely a hardcore of people who really don’t like 20mph limits but it’s perhaps worth noting they are outnumbered by those who back their introduction on safety grounds alone.”