This will lead to more accidents not fewer
AS your editorial (The Post, February 21) states, you have "...consistently backed the idea for 20mph zones in Bristol." ..and go on to repeat your reasons for doing so.
As someone who has consistently been appalled by the prospect, however, at first thinking it some sort of joke but gradually realising that the council were not only serious in its consideration but have now agreed and started implementing it, I can stay silent no longer – if only because your article says my own area of Knowle is to be one of the next on the list.
-

To me, this really does come under the banner of "you couldn't make it up". As if there are not enough restrictions in Bristol imposed by our "we're not anti-car" council already, this seems utterly, mind-blowingly, facile. To spend £2.3 million on a scheme (grant-funded or not) that cannot work, cannot be enforced and, moreover, has the potential to cause more accidents and injuries/death than presently occur in the current economic climate is simply bizarre.
You may imply from my words so far that I am a car driver. You may not realise that I am a driver of some 35 years who has never had so much as a parking ticket in his life and who believes that every human life is precious and has always thought that anything that can possibly save so much as one life (or one injury) has to be a good thing. Why then, you ask, do I take issue with this scheme so blatantly publicised as being in the public interest/interests of health and safety?
Business Cards From Only £10.95 Delivered www.myprint-247.co.uk
View detailsOur heavyweight cards have FREE UV silk coating, FREE next day delivery & VAT included. Choose from 1000's of pre-designed templates or upload your own artwork. Orders dispatched within 24hrs.
Terms: Visit our site for more products: Business Cards, Compliment Slips, Letterheads, Leaflets, Postcards, Posters & much more. All items are free next day delivery. www.myprint-247.co.uk
Contact: 01858 468192
Valid until: Friday, May 31 2013
Well, firstly, you have published letters and opinions from numerous people, both members of the public and "experts" in their fields, who are happy to state that speed is only cited as a contributory factor in a fraction accidents and that the effects of pollution will be greatly increased, mpg reduced, etc, all negative effects.
Secondly, as a very careful driver who rarely breaks the current 30mph limit, I have tried to keep to 20mph in the roads where it has already been introduced – most often where not a single pedestrian (let alone a child) can be seen and on very reasonably wide roads, and found this extremely difficult to do. I am prepared to try to do it, but the morons who currently do 40 or 50mph in 30mph limit areas are hardly likely to suddenly decide to slow down because the limit is 20mph. I am already regularly tail-gated, and even overtaken on blind corners, brows of hills, etc in the current limit. At 20mph this can only lead to more accidents, not fewer.
After that, as has been postulated already by others, the limits are totally unenforceable. Police time and resources should not, can not and will not be wasted to any great degree on this. At best, the odd mobile camera van will be parked on the odd street on the odd day (probably at 6.30 in the morning, at the bottom of a hill on a clear day – I'm such a cynic), to make criminals of more motorists straying slightly over this new limit (here I am, doing 23mph, and suddenly, I'm a dangerous, speeding driver), forcing them to pay a fine and higher insurance costs (and possibly leaving more people unable to afford such and therefore resorting to driving without).
I could go on – about the nanny state and the educating of people of how to cross a road safely, not slowing traffic to a crawl, being the best way to avoid accidents, and more – but in summary everything about this scheme seems to me, if unfortunately not to you, to be totally counter-productive.
As a final point, I would add that limited 20mph zones – in narrow roads or those with cars parked on both sides, on roads past schools, hospitals, public areas, whatever make perfect sense. A blanket limit, as I understand this going to be, on every residential road in Bristol, is not. If you want people to respect the law, laws have to be able to be respected; people need to understand the reason for them and see the benefit of them, not view them as pointless and unenforceable, if not downright dangerous.
I await with apprehension my visit to the displays that will presumably tell me which roads in my own area are to be subjected to this asinine project. What saddens me is that despite "full consultation" (I was never contacted to give my views as far as I'm aware), no regard at all seems to have been given to any objections – restrict it to narrow roads and busy pedestrian streets, restrict it to daylight hours maybe, other things that might make some sense of it all – but, no, it's happening, everywhere, get used to it.
Dave Uppington
Bristol




8 Comments
by PotatoMan11
Monday, March 04 2013, 2:54PM
“"is it safe for me and my family to obey the 20mph limit?"
Erm, yes. You are surrounded by over a tonne of metal with crumple-protection, crash bars, seat-belts and airbags. Pedestrians and cyclists have, at best, a small bit of polystyrene strapped to their heads. Those are the people whose safety needs to be improved.”
by Geordiegraham
Saturday, March 02 2013, 5:44PM
“I note the correspondence and how you favour this change. I am personally in favour of lower speeds across residential areas. However my own good intentions and those of Bristol City Hall have to address the key action issue:
"Will the plans of Bristol City Hall change the behaviour of those car drivers who see it as their birth right to drive fast and above 30 mph whenever they choose?"
My own experience of the 20 mph pilot areas in Bristol is that they have become far more dangerous for a driver like me who wants to comply with the new speed limits. When going below 30 mph I have been overtaken on City Road by those doing well above 30 mph or continually flashed in St Werberghs for going in their words "much too slow". When I referred one mature "flasher" to the 20mph limit she clearly thought I was mad to obey the limit.
My own view is that Bristol City Hall has made up its minds whatever the evidence from the pilots. Without enforcement to me the roads are now more dangerous.
I suspect that knowing they will be ignored City Hall still want the new limits to send "a signal". I suggest this signal is mighty expensive (costing over £2m). It is empty gesture politics. It is designed to appease certain political support groups which are profoundly anti-car. I don't object to anti-car politics if this policy would make roads safer for all users.
I ask the political leaders to reconsider as I am convinced if we have more rules that are being universally ignored it reduces the power of all law. Politicians will have less influence. We all suffer as the rule of law is weakened.
.
As a driver who wants to comply with laws I have to ask is it safe for me and my family to obey the 20mph limit? If the most senior councillor putting forward this policy thinks it is safe will he/she agree to ride with me through a pilot area?”
by PotatoMan11
Friday, March 01 2013, 1:39PM
“Counterintuitive? If you hit someone going slower they are less likely to be killed. That seems perfectly logical and obvious to me.”
by Brandon_Hill
Wednesday, February 27 2013, 11:04PM
“finally, here's the recently published consultation results document:
http://tinyurl.com/bqehrj9
Looks like the majority (89%) are in favour of the roll-out in residential areas, and again, a majority of people (56%) are in favour of a 20mph MAXIMUM on arterial roads”
by Brandon_Hill
Wednesday, February 27 2013, 10:12PM
“The chances of being killed by a vehicle travelling at 20mph are significantly less than if it was travelling at 30mph..
There are many reasons why the speed limit should be reduced, this is just one of them.
Other reasons include improving the quality of life for residents, encouraging more cycling walking by having a less intimidating environment.”
by Brandon_Hill
Wednesday, February 27 2013, 10:08PM
“This letter smacks of desperation and selfishness. Sad and amusing in equal measure”
by lukecwheeler
Wednesday, February 27 2013, 9:07PM
“I 100% agree with Dave — great letter. It's another example of how our deluded 'deciders' think they can improve our roads. You only need to look at the changes they made to Talbot Rd last year to see that they have absolutely no clue what they're doing.
I whole-heartedly promise the council that they will not see an ounce of a change in the behaviour of our drivers, cyclists and pedestrians when this 20MPH scheme rolls out. In fact, I hope enough of us oppose this that they rethink their imbecilic intentions.”
by A_Mushroom
Wednesday, February 27 2013, 1:38PM
“I read this as saying that speed limits are unnecessary and uneforceable (as well as underlining what a great law abiding citizen the writer is). An alternative is to do nothing to try to improve road safety but that would be failing those who have, or who may, lose their lives or be injured on the roads.
Yes, having been used to 30mph limits, 20mph does initially feel very slow but are drivers really going to save worthwile amounts of time by driving 10mph faster? If you want to take different perspective, ride a bike at 20mph and see how vulnerable you feel without the safety of the metal jacket of a car around you.”