There are numerous small side streets full of housing on either side here where it's almost impossible to safely break 20mph anyway, so on routes like that, I have no issue with a reduction at all. I find most such streets built within the last few years have become so narrow and twisty for this purpose anyway.
Where I do have a problem is when it's implemented outside schools - which sounds to general for my linking. Not every school is situated on a small residential backstreet. We have two here alone, which are situated on main arteries to and from town. Imagine a 20mph crawl along two arrow straight routes, initially designed with 40mph speed limits...
We already see too many questionable 50mph on rural trunk roads and it grows pretty much by the month now. Some of them, due to junctions and blind bends I'm willing to accept it's a good move, especially on those with genuine
safety problems, but there are plenty of others out there I do personally question the reasons behind.
I can think of one example within five miles of me which has been reduced as such (two Sections of the A41) and as a regular user, I've never witnessed any accident or near misses along either. I'd like to know exactly where do the statistics come from and who pays the wages of the 'information gatherers'. I'll accept that I'm probably cynical here, but I do think some of them are rather warped to suit what's an unpopular plan with many motorists.
We should be trying to promote the use of non-motorway alternatives to make better use of the network we already have in place. Lowering speed limits will just continue to push traffic away from them onto faster and no doubt, more congested routes.
This is why for a long time I've campaigned for a fully independent review into every reduced speed limit introduced over the last twelve years, to see if they really have been justified or not. Any proven not to be, the limits will be reverted without question.
The only reason why local council members and a majority of road 'safety' officers do not don't agree with the Tories ideas is because it'll end up reducing revenue for such areas and actually make them earn their generous salaries. The Tories ideas would probably go towards improving safety rather than increasing the revenue stream - which is quite clearly the practice we see at the moment and have seen for some years. Lockwood sums this up perfectly.
A lot of road 'safety' campaigners no longer stand for what they were supposed to do. Speed appears to be the only safety issue today. It's their only focus. Poor driving/training/attitude, lack of concentration, tiredness, poorly-maintained vehicles, poor weather conditions, badly maintained roads, alcohol and drugs (please add if you feel I've missed any) rarely get a mention, consideration or reason for the cause for accidents any more, so I can only presume that these no longer comply and driving a few mph over a (sometimes already reduced) low limit is far more dangerous. It's only recently we've heard mobile phones brought into the equation again as a cause of accidents.
I think it's long overdue that the motorist, who pays an ever increasing amount to actually use the roads deserves to get something back. Maybe to have their voices heard and accepted. Just for once. At the moment, all I see is endless 'punishment' for the problems caused by the minority and of course, ever rising bills (from all angles) considerably above the rate of inflation. As far as I'm concerned, motorists have never actually get anything back (or very little...) from the taxes they pay for a long time.
This is all I'm willing to say on the matter, here. I'm going to lie down in a dark corner for a bit.
Mark Hewitt wrote:
about 17-30 year olds being the most likely to crash
I see the usual '25' limit (which I'm only four months off) has been quietly extended by five years then... Here's to another five years of scandalous insurance premiums...!