Post in 20mph speed limit?

Sep 07 10:33 UTC

That's the danger of trying to gauge public opinion by consultation - the
polar extremes with all respond, and the vast majority, happy with the
status quo, won't. It's nothing new, but it's just as depressing - and leads
to my suspicion that the only time "consultations" are undertaken is in
order to tick some box and carry on an agenda regardless.
I can't unfortunately display my views on the subject in a pithy placard
because I think it's a complex subject in which blanket solutions don't
help.
I've traversed London Road several times. I'm also young, fit, have 20-20
eyesight and a good eye for discerning relative speeds. And if I'd been hit
it would have been *my fault*.

There are going to be irreconcilable differences here. We're all trying to
balance safety against utility and for some (particularly often for those
with a personal tragedy) the balance can never be enough. Some things I'd
point out (applying mainly to the major roads here)

- It's a simple physical fact that a London Road with a 20mph limit will be
busier and generate more pollution.
- This might actually make it harder to cross the road.
- The safety stats are inconclusive at best. It's perfectly possible for 20
zones to kill a higher proportion of pedestrians but also a much lower
overall number (e.g. It is said that the German Autobahns have some of the
most horrific accidents you'll ever see - just a much rarer event).
- It's a totally blunt instrument. At 8AM, London road is barely doing
10mph. And at 4AM, returning X90s and Oxford Tubes will be slowing down for
who, precisely?
- England has some of the safest roads in Europe (partially because of
getting traffic onto safer A roads rather than less safe minor roads;
something that as has been pointed out, things like the Cowley Road runs
entirely counter to). Are we *really* sure this is a good use of resources?
Drink (and drug) Driving that we thought was a done deal is back on the
increase...

Now -

- I *totally agree* that some residential streets would benefit from 25 or
20 limits, or they're already at a defacto 20 limit. Anyone turning right
from Wharton Road onto Margaret Rd of a morning would be insane to be going
anything more than a crawl. Ironically this is a hazard created mainly by
parents dropping little Johnny off at school making their fears of roads
that are dangerous to cross a self-fulfilling prophecy.

- There's a problem here though that you put the efficacy of such limits at
risk by applying such areas everywhere, because it just breeds contempt.
It's already observable in other examples:
   * Unrestricted 'A' roads that enter villages; the 30 limit starting
hundreds of meters before the built-up area actually starts. So drivers
after a while notice this and no longer bother to slow down until much
later, 'guessing' at where the real hazards might start - they don't trust
the signage any more.
   * Mobile phone handsets. It's dangerous to talk on a handset and drive.
We already had a perfectly serviceable law - driving without due care and
attention - to cover this. But the 'precautionary principle' said 'we need
to send a message that this isn't tolerated - create a new law, then it'll
be really clear'. What has become clear is that drivers can (and have) been
issued fixed penalties applied for making a call while stationary in an
unmoving traffic jam, something that the public does not feel is dangerous.
So - net result is a contemptuous public and I still see just as many phones
on ears as I did before. An opportunity to do good has been lost.

So - here's the thing. I think I'm pretty close to the average view; neither
a boy-racer nor a risk-adverse parent; this could be good, if applied well,
but I'm just totally unconvinced that the council is neutral enough to do
it. And I think drivers traveling up London Road are going to be introduced
to a 20mph limit that they, plainly put, don't agree with. And this has
implications well outside that one section of road.

On Fri, Sep 5, 2008 at 10:12 AM, Stephanie Jenkins <