Over the last few months there have been a series of letters in
First, the
membership magazine of the Local Government Association.
Limiting Speed2 May 2013
As I look out of my window I see three little girls riding their bikes along my street. It is a common occurrence here where people are aware of children playing and are careful, but in other streets it is unusual.
In the past, most children liked to play out close to home but are now more likely to be kept indoors because of the danger of speeding traffic.
Across the country, 44 councils have decided to implement 20 mph speed limits using signs only (rather than chicanes and road humps). The usual justification for this is to make our residential roads safer.
The Transport Research Laboratory found that approximately 98 per cent of pedestrians will survive a 20 mph collision. Their chances drop to around 93 per cent at 30 mph and 69 per cent at 40 mph.
However, putting in 20 mph speed limits in residential streets means more than just making streets safer. It is the beginning of a culture change where people on foot and on bikes, and children playing, take precedence over passing motor vehicles. It's about giving control of streets back to the people who live in them.
Councils can do ‘signs only' blanket coverage for a fraction of the cost of 20 mph zones, where there are physical measures such as speed tables to prevent drivers from breaking the law. With restraints, 20 mph zones still have their place but with reducing funds less of them can be implemented by councils.
Critics say that ‘signs only' 20 mph speed limits cannot be enforced, but then enforcement of any speed limit is difficult given reducing police resources.
If councils achieve a small reduction in speed it has a big effect on safety. ‘Signs only' 20 mph should be self-enforcing by drivers, by becoming the default speed limit, and exceeding it should become as rare as the non-wearing of seat belts.
Government advice now encourages traffic authorities to consider 20 mph restrictions not just in residential areas, but also on busier roads where the numbers of pedestrians and cyclists are – or could be – significant. A sure sign of a growing move to 20 mph.
Cllr Roger Symonds (Lib Dem) is Cabinet Member for Transport at Bath and North East Somerset Council
Cutting Speed Limit Costs
2 May 2013
Slower road speeds are popular. Speed limits of 20 mph offer safer streets, quality living and are key to increasing physical activity. They also benefit traders through higher footfall and profits.
'The Independent' found that over a third of local authorities had either agreed, or were considering, 20 mph limits without road humps. More than 11 million people live where 20 mph is, or will be, normal – in York, Liverpool, Oxford, Bristol, Cambridge, Newcastle, Camden, Islington, Brighton and Lancashire.
The UK is in transition to a 20 mph national urban speed limit for lit roads. Yet the Department for Transport appears to have no process for this. Signage regulations are rigid in assuming that a limit other than 30 mph requires repeater signs, despite many iconic cities wanting 90 per cent or more of streets at 20 mph.
Signs are a substantial part of the implementation costs of 20 mph speed limits. To maximise value for money, it would be far better to set a default limit and only sign exceptions. This releases funds for community engagement to maximise driver compliance.
Maximising cost effectiveness is my topic for the national 20 mph conference on 23 May in Coventry.
Cllr Anna Semlyen (Lab) York City Council
Star letter – Set limits on 20 mph30 May 2013
While canvassing for the county council elections last month, a car drove up and stopped adjacent to me. The driver said he would never vote for any party again that introduced a 20 mph speed limit. This resident was utterly frustrated by the extent to which these limits are being applied.
Both through roads in my ward have very extensive 20 mph limits. If these were just by our village school or central green, nobody would have minded and the lower speed would have been obeyed. But clumsy, ill thought out application has caused the 20 mph limit to stretch for miles.
Purely residential roads and possibly areas by schools are one thing but extensive application on through roads is another. It doesn't make roads safer, it just makes most drivers crosser!
The Government's own independent survey concluded that the 20 mph limit made no discernable difference to road safety. Why then are we spending millions to introduce it? Accidents may be more severe at 30 mph as opposed to 20 mph, but better by far is not to have the accident at all.
What's the main cause of accidents? It's not speed. Try catching people who make hand-held phone calls while driving: this is infinitely more dangerous. Stop this and you won't lose any voters, and you'll improve road safety.
Councillor Frank Andrews (Con) Fylde Borough Council
Limiting Speed Limits
27 June 2013
I agree with Cllr Frank Andrews (first 545) on 20 mph speed limits. In my ward, this stupid idea will be rolled out soon.
After looking into the guidelines, it is clear that any roads that have an average speed of 24 mph or more should not be reduced to 20 mph. So this exercise is for roads with an average speed of below 24mph. What a waste of money!
Cllr Gareth Fairhurst (Ind) Wigan Council
Speed causes accidents
11 July 2013
I agree with Cllr Frank Andrews about 20 mph speed limits and his views on the other reasons which cause accidents (first 545).
However, I cannot accept his premise that speed is not a main cause of accidents. The very reason for low limits is that, at 20 mph, it is unlikely that a pedestrian will be severely injured in an accident. So putting them in places where vulnerable adults and children congregate is a sensible move.
We put these limits in place, not for you and I, but for others, older or younger, without our skills and incredible reaction times.
We need to make speed limits appropriate, and to ensure they are obeyed. But we do need them for better road safety.
Cllr Peter Burgess (Con) Horsham District Council
Reaching a limit
5 September 2013
As someone who has been campaigning to get Devon County Council, as the local highways authority, to ensure that their 20 mph zones in Exeter are compliant and thus can be enforced by Devon and Cornwall Police, I would like to add my thoughts to the debate.
There are many causes of road traffic collisions: some related to speeding, others not. What cannot be denied is that the outcomes are speed-related.
When a pedestrian is hit at 20 mph, one in 10 accidents result in serious injury or death but at 40 mph the figure becomes nine in 10.
There is a 20 mph area in my ward where I often get comments about speeding. Yet it is a closed network of streets with only one way in and out. The majority of motorists driving around live there. Why are they speeding?
I haven't found the answer to that one, but it leads me to pose my own question: why aren't all residential roads 20 mph by default?
Cllr Paul Bull (Lab) Exeter City Council
Speed Limits31 October 2013
Cllr Paul Bull (first 550) has missed the point. While any accident is likely to be more severe if the impact speed is greater, the best solution is to avoid the accident altogether.
How do we achieve this? We need to raise the standard of driving, not produce ever more signage. We need fewer speed limits not more. We have 20, 30, 40, 50, 60 and 70 mph, and this is totally over the top.
Cllr Bull says the worst offenders in his 20 mph area are local residents. There is evidence to suggest this is so in my ward too. Many people are resistant to the 20 mph limit because they don't see the need. It is local residents who elect us so we ought to start listening to them.
It is well known that the Government's own independent survey of 20 mph speed limits found they made no discernible difference to road safety. Why then are we spending millions of pounds on this vote loser?
Cllr Frank Andrews (Con), Fylde Council
