Jeremy Lewis: 20mph limits are a good idea on the right roads
SUCH is the unreasoned hysteria often to be found in Britain's only major growth industry – Health and Safety – that I invariably find myself knee-jerking a sarcastic response to its every new proposal.
The form book tells you there is an 11/4 chance it will be something completely loopy, like stopping kite flying on a Yorkshire beach, banning dodgem cars from bumping into each other and, in some school playgrounds, outlawing those wicked weapons of mass destruction, the conker and the yo-yo.
Even in the field of road safety, not necessarily an area for mockery given the desirability of reducing a national average annual highway death toll of 2,500, we get our fair share of excesses.
Like, in some places, a proliferation of official road signs so dense that they are a dangerous distraction to drivers and, in other places, the persecution of those responsible for unauthorised temporary signs – often the only signs on miles of rural verge – advising of an upcoming point-to-point or WI marmalade tournament.
It doesn't help when the roads of Derbyshire are littered with signs advising car drivers to "Think Bike!". Given the speeds achieved by anarchic motorcyclists in the Peak District on Sundays it would be smarter to address bikers with the exhortation: "Think Car!"
I was driving from Newmarket to Nottingham last year and discovered that in Cambridgeshire the finger-waggers were screaming at drivers not to "Think Bike!" or even to "Think Car!" but just to "Think!". Think what? Think keeping your distance? Think killer potholes? Think Socratic philosophy?
And don't get me started on police forces' favourite slogan: "Speed kills!" Actually, it doesn't – it's bad driving that kills. I don't need to be patronised with the argument that a pedestrian is less likely to be killed if struck at 20mph than at 30mph. The corollary is that we should eliminate all risk and invite commuters to get into their cars at 8am, and sit on their drives clenching their steering wheels for nine hours without ever sparking their motors.
No doubt you will now expect me to have a good chunter about proposals, not universally well received, to introduce 20mph limits to the residential streets of Sherwood.
I will do nothing of the kind. It's a very good idea, and one that should be considered for every residential neighbourhood ... not because "speed kills" but, putting the case less emotively, because accidents are less likely to happen.
One of the things police do get right when talking about road safety is that our speed should be governed not only by the law of the land but also by common sense in the circumstances.
There are roads in Nottingham where 30mph has always been too fast; indeed, roads on which 30mph is impossible to achieve. For instance, in the Sherwood area I regularly drive down Waldeck Road in Carrington – an all-residential street lined with terrace houses built before universal car ownership, so no drives and garages.
Now add one or two cars per property and there is bumper-to-bumper parking on both sides of the road, leaving just a narrow lane down the centre of the carriageway. Here is justification for the "Twenty is Plenty" slogan. In fact even 20mph is probably a little too much.
There are residential streets like Waldeck Road all over Nottingham and they would all be better places for a 20mph limit. The question is whether the highway authorities will be bullied by the safety Taliban into overdoing things in Sherwood (and anywhere else, for that matter).
A traffic manager is quoted as saying, "We have chosen Sherwood as the pilot area because it includes everything throughout the city which could benefit from a 20mph limit, such as residential areas, steep streets, major bus routes, industrial areas and wide and narrow streets."
Put like that it sounds like every road in Greater Nottingham is a candidate for a 20mph limit and that would be daft. While these limits would be sensible on minor residential roads they would surely not be appropriate in more important through routes like Haydn Road and I wonder what commuters (and City Transport passengers) will have to say if the council people have a complete nervous breakdown and opt to impose 20mph on Mansfield Road?
As always with health and safety issues, the trick is to protect a good idea from the stop-at-nothing nannies.
59 Comments
View all
by MarkXBSSensor
Sunday, March 18 2012, 2:16AM
“And as you refuse to confirm that you agree that all that the website in question is true in the UK and Europe.
Of British and European drivers.
That would indicate that you do believe that you think none of it applies on our roads.
Which would indicate that you think it only applies in the US.
Which would indicate that I was telling the truth about what you said and that it is you who are the liar.
Plus you are boring and childish.
Why can't you just grow up and admit you were wrong all along.”
by FormerlyW
Monday, March 05 2012, 9:55AM
“Actually, I simply pointed out that I have never held the offensive views that you ascribed to me, and that by ascribing them to me you were lying, making you a liar. Since you continue to refuse to withdraw your absurd claim, you remain a liar.”
by MarkXBSSensor
Monday, March 05 2012, 3:50AM
“Well, FW?
Do you agree that all that is true in the UK and Europe?
Of British and European drivers?
Or do you think none of it applies on our roads?
And if so, remind me why you think it only applies in the US?!?!”
by MarkXBSSensor
Monday, March 05 2012, 3:20AM
“Come on then, FW, or what about this:
"traffic laws that reflect the behavior of the majority of vehicle operators are found to be successful, while laws that arbitrarily restrict the majority of drivers encourage wholesale violations, lack public support, and usually fail to bring about desirable changes in driving behavior. This is especially true of speed zoning."
"Before and After studies consistently demonstrate that there are no significant changes in traffic speeds following the posting of new or revised speed limits. Furthermore, no published research findings have established any direct relationship between posted speed limits and accident frequency"
"Contrary to popular belief, speed in itself is not a major cause of accidents. In fact, there is a consensus of professional opinions that many speed-related accidents result from both excessively low and high speeds."
Agree or disagree?”
by MarkXBSSensor
Monday, March 05 2012, 3:19AM
“So, FW, do nyou, or do you not, agree with an official traffic engineering website when it says:
"Many persons still wonder why a traffic problem is so difficult that an engineer should be called upon for a solution. Why not just install a traffic signal, or raise/lower the speed limit, or erect more signs?
"One of the greatest obstacles a professional traffic engineer faces in applying sound principles of traffic engineering is the fact that "everyone is a traffic expert!" The unfortunate result of this attitude of expertise is the creation of traffic hazards when false theories of individuals or groups are put into effect."
"Whenever unnecessary or excessive traffic controls are installed, hazardous traffic conditions usually result."”
by MarkXBSSensor
Monday, March 05 2012, 3:14AM
“Saying you agree with the website WOULD prove me wrong.
Because if you agreed with the website you would hardly be saying it's content only applied to the drivers of the relevant state because they were less eveolved than European drivers (the offensive views you claim I that you have never held).
Now, it's an official traffic engineering website.
You say it doesn't apply only to less evolved drivers.
So why on earth would you be so reluctant to say you agree with it.
Unless you not only disagree with it.
But you STRONGLY disagree with it.
Which would indicate that your actual thoughts are in line with what I said.
Which simply makes YOU the liar.”
by Hollanda78
Thursday, March 01 2012, 10:16AM
“Oh BJ Mann!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I've missed you, you twonk!!!!!!!!!!! :) I will be composing a poem for you!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx”
by FormerlyW
Wednesday, February 29 2012, 9:50PM
“Saying I agree with the website wouldn't prove you were wrong.
I simply pointed out that I have never held the offensive views that you ascribed to me, and that by ascribing them to me you were lying, making you a liar. Since you continue to refuse to withdraw your absurd claim, you remain a liar.”
by MarkXBSSensor
Wednesday, February 29 2012, 3:54PM
“But, FW, your "declining to state whether or not I agree with the content of a website" is, in fact, trying to wriggle out of "proving" you're right by accepting the content of the website.
And by doing that the more you prove that as well as refusing to accept the website, you are also lying.
Prove me wrong by saying you accept that the website I referred you to was right.
Come, on: it's such a simple and easy thing for you to do.
Or it would be.
Except that in doing so you would have to agree that I've been right all along about traffic safety.
And you've been wrong all along.”
by FormerlyW
Friday, February 24 2012, 5:22PM
“My act of declining to state whether or not I agree with the content of a website is not lying, it is simply not stating whether or not I agree with a website. Therefore, I am not a liar
However, your act of attributing an offensive view to me that I do not nor have ever held is lying. Therefore, you are a liar.”