Hi,
I have just sent the letter below in response to the 20mph consultation. Why
don't you let them know what you think, either for or against. Cheers, Ben.
I have just sent the letter below in response to the 20mph consultation. Why
don't you let them know what you think, either for or against. Cheers, Ben.
----- Original Message -----
From: Ben Barker
To: <email obscured>
Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2009 2:05 PM
Subject: 20mph proposals
Hallo,
I'm both a motorist and a pedestrian living in 'Inner South Bristol'.
I very much welcome the proposal to reduce maximum speeds to 20mph and hope
that this is just the first stage of a process that will shortly cover the
whole of Bristol. A 20mph maximum will significantly reduce accidents and
their severity. Greater safety will encourage people to walk and cycle around
the neighbourhood thus reducing the number of moving cars as well as their
speed. Hopefully, this will improve air quality, or at least slow down the
process of it getting worse.
However, whilst supporting the proposal in general, I think that in one way it
does not go far enough. I cannot see the logic in keeping some roads in the
pilot area at 30mph. This may lead to some confusion for motorists, cyclists
and pedestrians as speed limits change during the course of a short journey.
It would be much better for the whole area to be designated as a 20mph maximum
zone.
It is also the case that some of the excluded roads have primary schools and
other public buildings on or near them. This factor should carry more weight
than the maintenance of so-called 'through routes' and is an argument against
keeping 30mph.
East, North, West and Cannon Streets are significant retail areas. BCC's
current Place Management project is intended to protect these as important
focuses for economic activity. Being able to cross these streets easily to
visit shops is important for their economic viability. Slowing the traffic
in these streets will add to both the feeling and the reality of safety for
shoppers. Marginal slowing of the traffic will be only a small inconvenience
to motorists passing through. Currently, it seems that BCC's proposal to
exclude these streets is in conflict with its policy to promote local retail
centres.
Another concern that I have is over the proliferation of signs. It will
clearly be necessary to inform people that they are in a 20mph area, especially
upon entry. But, I do not see that this will require hundreds of reminder
signs. This will be even less necessary if the scheme is simplified so that
the whole area is 20mph rather than broken up by excluded streets remaining at
30mph. It is important to involve the local community in promoting the idea
of 20mph and, where notices are necessary, local children, residents and arts
groups might be enlisted to make suitable permanent notices: 'the residents of
XXXX Street say 20 is plenty'. Who looks at official notices anyway?
Yours sincerely,
Ben Barker, 9 Osborne Road, Southville, BS3 1PR.
From: Ben Barker
To: <email obscured>
Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2009 2:05 PM
Subject: 20mph proposals
Hallo,
I'm both a motorist and a pedestrian living in 'Inner South Bristol'.
I very much welcome the proposal to reduce maximum speeds to 20mph and hope
that this is just the first stage of a process that will shortly cover the
whole of Bristol. A 20mph maximum will significantly reduce accidents and
their severity. Greater safety will encourage people to walk and cycle around
the neighbourhood thus reducing the number of moving cars as well as their
speed. Hopefully, this will improve air quality, or at least slow down the
process of it getting worse.
However, whilst supporting the proposal in general, I think that in one way it
does not go far enough. I cannot see the logic in keeping some roads in the
pilot area at 30mph. This may lead to some confusion for motorists, cyclists
and pedestrians as speed limits change during the course of a short journey.
It would be much better for the whole area to be designated as a 20mph maximum
zone.
It is also the case that some of the excluded roads have primary schools and
other public buildings on or near them. This factor should carry more weight
than the maintenance of so-called 'through routes' and is an argument against
keeping 30mph.
East, North, West and Cannon Streets are significant retail areas. BCC's
current Place Management project is intended to protect these as important
focuses for economic activity. Being able to cross these streets easily to
visit shops is important for their economic viability. Slowing the traffic
in these streets will add to both the feeling and the reality of safety for
shoppers. Marginal slowing of the traffic will be only a small inconvenience
to motorists passing through. Currently, it seems that BCC's proposal to
exclude these streets is in conflict with its policy to promote local retail
centres.
Another concern that I have is over the proliferation of signs. It will
clearly be necessary to inform people that they are in a 20mph area, especially
upon entry. But, I do not see that this will require hundreds of reminder
signs. This will be even less necessary if the scheme is simplified so that
the whole area is 20mph rather than broken up by excluded streets remaining at
30mph. It is important to involve the local community in promoting the idea
of 20mph and, where notices are necessary, local children, residents and arts
groups might be enlisted to make suitable permanent notices: 'the residents of
XXXX Street say 20 is plenty'. Who looks at official notices anyway?
Yours sincerely,
Ben Barker, 9 Osborne Road, Southville, BS3 1PR.