Reader views (89)

 Add your view

The socialist cretins who've bankrupted out country, now want to slow our cars down to a ridiculous crawl and find ever-more "creative" ways of slamming us with fines.

And the dumbest part of all; my car will produce MORE C02 at 20mph, because the engine will be constantly over and under revving. But don't let that stand in the way of this brilliant "green" idea from the "green" Labour government ( you know, the one that's left our borders wide open for the past decade, leaving us with a population heading for 70 million. )

May 2010 CANNOT COME SOON ENOUGH.

- Adam, London

Ian, you've repeated the classic pro-speeding fallacy, that the only benchmark of the danger or anti-socialness of speeding is filled coffins. This is naive and dishonest. There does not have to be a death for speeding to be aggressive and threatening. That's your first mistake. Your second is that speeding causes few accidents. The robust rule is that a third of all RTA fatalities have speed as a factor. This is replicated worldwide. Third, speeding is not the exclusive factor in road safety, nor is it concentrated on to the exclusion of all other factors. I've no idea where you get this nonsense from, have you never in your life seen a traffic warden, a zebra crossing or heard of police breath tests? Public information films about watching out for motorbikes? Warnings to teenagers about the dangers of texting whilst crossing the road? Your post smacks of paranoid hysteria (who on earth proposed the banning of motorised transport- what on earth are you talking about?), and your remarks about raped women are tasteless and obscene.


Speeding fines persecute motorists in the same way shoplifting fines persecute shoplifters. Grow up, stop your paranoid delusions and just leave home earlier, why should other people suffer your obnoxious driving just because you overslept?

- Sally Pearsehouse, Bethnal Green

Dom: I did not expect to have to explain my point but, sadly, I suppose I will have to. Sometimes laws are just so bad that they must at least be criticised, if not ignored or broken. You must remember that we are discussing the laws on this forum, not breaking them. I have a clean licence. If you are serious about saving lives rather than mere slavish adherence to a law you happen to approve of, then it is clear that focusing on speeding addresses only a small minority of deaths and therefore focusing on speeding above a prescribed limit ignores the cause of the vast majority of deaths. The concentration on speed to the exclusion of all else is great for the government because they can make money out of robot enforcement and can be seen to be "doing something" while not having to make the hard and costly decisions. At the same time they gain the support of people who hate cars and ignore the fact that the country would grind to a halt without motorised transport. Do you actually believe the spin on speeding and casualties. If so may I assume that you also believe in weapons of mass destruction? It would be too cheap a shot to suggest that you actually approve of women being stoned to death for adultery but it is hard to avoid the assumption that you think the victims bring it upon themselves. I, by contrast, think that when laws are clearly bad they should be criticised.

- Ian, London, UK

Ian, every country has different rules. Whether or not you obey them, that is your decision. But if you get caught you face being punished. Simple. Do not want to get punished, do not break the rules.

- Dom, London

From Sally Pearsehouse:

"Speed cameras 'persecute' motorists?

Only the law breaking ones. The ones like me who keep to the law have nothing to worry about, or of being "persecuted" as you call it. I don't go shoplifting and so find I am not "persecuted" for being a thief either.
Simple."

Yes. Very simple. Now put yourself in Nigeria where a young woman can be stoned to death for committing adultery. If you don't break the law you don't get stoned to death. Do you think that law is OK too?

- Ian, London, UK

Jill, wake up. It does not matter whether the bumper is full of foam, air or feathers, the vehicle will weigh much more than a cycle & therefore the impact will be alot worse. If I was hit by something, I'd much prefer it to be a cycle than a car, there would be less damage. Try it Jill. Wlak out in fornt of a cycle, you'll survive. Then after walk out in front of a car. Ouch. You wont do that again!

- Dom, London

Not a single target by NuLabour in the past 12 years has been met regarding Road Safety. All the 50% and 40% child/adult RTA reductions never materialised. So what do they do? Cripple us with more cameras, insensible and innappropriate speed limits that will cause anger, frustration and more disqulaifications than ever before.

Expect no sympathy. NuLabour doesn't like us and doesn't hate us - NuLabour 'nothings' us. Which is why they extort money from us at every point of life, squander it endlessly on scams schemes and expenses.

Blanket constraints leave no room for adult interpretation of road conditions. It just means that even the slightest infringement will cost you dearly.

Points every where you turn, and then for 5 years after each penalty your insurance company will add to the pain by keeping your premiums high.

Yes the British driver is the most persecuted and nannied person in the world. NuLabs policies are farcical and ill conceived. An infant can see that.

- Chris Williams, Cardiff

Sally Pearsehouse: The figures that you quote from TRL421 arer a work of pure fiction. They are based upon extrapolation of incident data that takes no account of the weel known statistical element "reversion to the mean".
The sole purpose of the DfT report upon which you are basing your laughable claims was to justify the proliferation of "safety" cameras.
There have been a number of challenges to the data contained in that report, most of which the DfT has had to accept as correct.
The majority of pedestrian KSIs do not result from vehicles travelling at excess speed (speed over the limit), they result largely from pedestrians stepping into the path of vehicles travelling at or below the speed limit.
Your claims that a 2% average speed reduction would save 200 lives a year are complete nonsense, and again based upon the simplistic extrapolation of already flawed figures.
The overwhelming majority of KSIs result from careless and inconsiderate driving. In most of the KSI incidents that have speed as a contributory factor that speed is not excess, but inappropriate (i.e. too fast for the conditions, but not over the limit). Speed cameras will not stop these, only driver education and Police traffic patrols will. A properly educated driver does not need to be told to slow down around children or on busy streets, it is the natural response of those taught to take responsibility for their own actions.

- Keith Lonsdale, Doncaster

Why don't they tell us to get out the car and walk?

- Stan White, leeds

We seem to be looking at this problem from the wrong end. Pedestrians are often injured stepping out between parked cars. Drivers are going too fast because the congestion in London is so bad - a 'clear road' means put your foot down.Why not close off every alternate street for 'residents only' or designated spaces - you could increase the density of parking (perhaps charging extra for bigger vehicles and banning SUVs) and make the roads safer.

- Victhebrit, Nara, Japan

What took you so long? I visited some years back and the speed limit and driving were a nightmare. Everyone was in a hurry to get somewhere yet not knowing where they were going, eventually. We've had reasonable speed limits for years. Anyone with common sense knows that a car crashing at 90 mph is more devastating for the passengers than one travelling at 60mph. Wake up UK!

- Irene, British Columbia, Canada

Stealth tax coming - or are the cameras actually the first part of the network for road charging?

Either way scum Brown will have a tax waiting.

- Mike Jones, London

Clearly the cyclist lobby is putting its head in the sand !

The comparison is how many cars at 20mph have killed people compared to cyclists? The cyclist lobby has claimed 5, but injured many mor on a much reduced journ miles per year compared to other classes of vehicles.

To be reasonable a foam filled bumper is much softer than a bare metal handlebar at the same 20 mph.

However it looks like the cyclist lobby is making a stand to exceed 20mph because at no time have they said they will obey this limit AND will not agree to full registration / insurances status and of course, banning.

It never surprises me that cyclists see the shortcomings of otheres but never themselves

Disagree with that !

- Jill, London

This stinks. It will do nothing for public safety.
It`s just a revenue earning measure. You can bet it will be ruthlessly enforced against anyone traveling home at 4 AM in the morning.

Write to the minister and protest now. Start a petition on-line at the number 10 Downing St website.

- Andy Parks, London, UK

This mindless 'logic' is inexorable, if cars driven by zombies kill fewer pedestrians at 20mph then why not have an even lower limit, say 4mph? Then you could demand someone walk in front of every motorist with a red flag - can't be too careful . . .

- Ted_F, Weston Super Mare UK

Alan of Woodford makes a good point about integrated transport systems. The use of the car or for that matter the bike just isn't integrated with the public transport network. I just wonder how many people make a longer avoidable journey by car because there's no where to park a car or a bike at a nearby Underground or Railway station. So they just opt to use the car to get across town instead.

- Trevor, London

Sorry, sally, but your average speed statistics are just drivel. Nobody crashes because they average 22mph over a distance instead of 21mph - thats just ridiculous. They crash because they hit something and at that point in time and space they are going too fast relative to whatever they hit. That may be 5mph, 21mph, 22mph or 30mph, and the average speed is meaningless. The speed of impact and the speed before impact are likely to be totally different and neither are the cause of the collision. What matters is the reason for doing that speed. If you hit a child on a pedestrian crossing at 23mph that isnt because you were doing 23 rather than 20, its because you didnt see him and stop, which you had all the time and space in the world to do. Speed is only a cause if you CAN'T stop when you see him start to cross, despite trying to. With the visibilty guidelines on crossings you would have to be doing 50-60 at least to hit him at 30 or even 20. Thats where the 5% of accidents caused by speed comes from - its not a figment of anyones imagination it is there in the police STATS 19 reports of injury accidents.

As for TRL421 that is a contrived piece of nonsense that sets out to reach a conclusion and does so by dubious means - comparing accidents (adjusted for traffic levels) and speeds on different roads which is invalid according to the TRL themselves.

- Paul Hemingway, London E14

Sally P is missing the point. Roads are for vehicles, pavements for pedestrians, and the two should not normally have to interact on the road except at control points such as pedestrian crossings and islands.

If both parties obey the Highway Code, there will only be very occasional accidents through major vehicle failure. It's a bit trite to talk about pedestrians 'only' being hit at 20mph - they should not be hit at ANY speed if they show due respect to the road.

Sadly many contribute towards their own downfall by rushing out, being drunk silly or crossing glued to their mobile phone or Ipod.

Motorists should be allowed to do up to 30mph on residential roads, though we should have more police patrols. The irresponsible minority who don't drive with due care will then be got off the roads.

- Brian, London

why not start at the top and reduce the top speed of a car Why do we have cars that can do 150mph (max speed on UK & most other roads is 70MPH) and accelerate to 60mph in 6 seconds and have crossed traffic lights before anyone else has realised they have changed

- Ljoldie, Girona Spain

Jill, how many people have been killed by speeding cyclists (not including the cyclist) & compare that to how many people have been killed by speeding drivers. There is no comparison. Get real & stop making excuses for motorists breaking the speed limit.

- Dom, London

This is an ecellent idea - councils should implement it as soon as possible.

- Anna, London

I really don't see the point. Most sensible motorists adjust their speed to the conditions already. I rarely go at 30mph through busy town as it's just not safe.

The people who cause most of the accidents that kill people don't obey the current speed limit so why would they obey a new lower one?

- Adrian, Surrey

Jill, re cyclists

Yes, I think you will find that several people disagree.

I am aware that cyclists have caused three deaths in the last 7 years, while motorists have caused 21,000 deaths in the same period.

A one and a half ton car is not a soft fluffy thing when it hits you at 20mph, it is still going to put you in hospital.

A bullbar bolted to a 1500kg car is always going to do more damage than a 1.5mm thick bit of aluminium tubing with the inertial of a alert, fit and slim cyclist weighing 70Kg.

Get a grip!

- George, London

Why not make it 10mph.
Or better still solve the unemployment proble by having someone walk in front with a red flag.

- John, Bromley

Isn't it obvious by mow people? HMG seeks to divide and conquer 'tough on motorists, tough on the causes of motorists'.
Meanwhile single issue zealots like Sally peddle half truths and fixed statistics. We all know that Motorways are the fastest roads and that they also happen to be the safest. So statistically speaking we should all do 70mph everywhere - er maybe not.
Sally is in all likelihood press officer for some single issue group or a Damien McBride type press officer for the Gov't.
They all have a 2.2 in socio Economic Marxist Theory from Nottingham Poly where as we only have real world experience and YEARS and YEARS of it. Make your own mind up who knows best and who is just blowing psuedo academic smoke.
We all know that HMG lies and the one third lie is the biggest fib of the lot!
My 2p.

- Ethan, UK

And all because we no longer teach our children to look before they cross. The left wing apologists will have us preceded by a man with a red flag next, then monitors to help us use zebra crossings, Nazi style commissars at traffic lights with whistles, attendants with rulers to measure our distance from the kerb and a whole new range of fines (or taxes as we know them) to cover misdemeanors, all of which will be sent to Africa to help countries where rulers abscond with the cash to Switzerland. Can't wait!

- John Billam, London, United Kingdom

TROUBLE IS THE SLOWER YOU GO, THE LOWER GEAR YOU ARE IN, SO YOU USE MORE PETROL THIS MEANS MORE POLLUTION AND THUS MORE GLOBAL WARMING.

THE REAL PROBLEM IS TOO MANY PEOPLE, TOO MANY CARS AND NO PUBLIC TRANSPORT.

FIFTY YEARS AGO I COUKD TRAVEL FROM BARKINGSIDE IN ESSEX TO SUTTON IN SURREY IN ONE HOUR, USING PUBLIC TRANSPORT. TODAY I WOULD BE LUCKY TO DO IT TWO HOURS.

ULTIMATELY IT COMES DOWN TO ONE THING THE GOVERNMENT HAS FAILED TO INVEST IN PUBLIC TRANSPORT OVER THE LAST DECADE. ADD TO THAT FAILURE TO INVEST IN LOCAL AMENITIES FROM LOCAL SCHOOLS, HOSPITALS, EVEN STATION CAR PARKS AND YOU HAVE THOUSANDS TRAVELING UNNECESSARILY EVERYDAY, ALL OVER THE COUNTRY.

ONE SIMPLE EXAMPLE. THEY CLOSED THE COMPREHENSIVE IN ONGAR, SO NOW THIS LARGE TOWN HAS TO BUS ALL ITS CHILDREN AT LEAST TEN MILES AWAY EVERYDAY. A TOWN LIKE BUCKHURST HILL NOW HAS NO SCHOOL AT ALL.

WE TALK OF LOWERING THE SPEED LIMIT. AVERAGE SPEEDS IN LODON ARE UNDER TEN MILES AN HOUR, SLOWER THAN IN VICTORIAN TIMES
.

- Alan Green, Woodford Green

Sounds more like a, ‘ Speed Cam / Revenue Scam’ to me. Just another method of increasing revenue streams for Gordon to waste. You can’t look at the speedo and the road at the same time, hence more accidents and deaths.

- Carl Barron, Christchurch, Dorset

On narrow roads with a single lane of traffic between cars parked both sides of the road, 20mph is reasonable, but to impose it on all roads just because they are 'residential', ignoring whether cars are parked, ignoring grass verges, ignoring road width, is sheer fanaticism and will only incite more contempt for the law.

- Mike, London

Clearly, nobody cares about Cyclists speeding.

Cycles are just as dangerous as motorists, if not more so(all that exposed metalwork revolving at speed). Outlawing bullbars did not require a re-design of handle bars, much more dangerous than a car bumper at 20 MPH.

Clearly the time has arrived for cyclists to clearly display a unique identifier for 20mph cameras to catch, fine and ban them. I beleve that a car at 20 mph is much safer than a 20 mph pedal cycle.

Anybody disagree ??????

- Jill, London

As I hinted at earlier, the statistics can be bent any which way ... so 66% of all accidents are caused by people driving at the speed limit or below, something like 80% caused by people who have no alcohol at all in their systems - what are we supposed to conclude from that?

What is needed is a sensible approach where the vulnerable (e.g. school children) are protected by lower limits timed around school start and finish. Away from urban areas it is possible to drive quickly at no risk to anyone. A blanket 20mph limit in urban areas is also far from green - most cars will have to use a lower gear end therefore more revs at 20 than they will at 30.

- Paul, London

"Coaches and lorries also keep getting stuck because their wheelbase is too long to turn in the new layout.

Well done, Hammersmith and Fulham!

- C, London, UK"

-------------------------

The same thing happened in Haringey, mainly because Haringey council's main consideration is inflicting pain on drivers, and no thought is ever given to the larger vehicles that also have to maneuver along these same roads. The road-narrowing, build-outs and assorted obstacles littering Haringey's roads cause more and more vehicles to become trapped and block the roads, sometimes for hours.

But for all the motorists who hate road humps, there may be some relief on the way. Mercedes has invented the hump-proof car, or at least that's one of the benefits of its "Pre-scan" prototype: the ability to imperiously sail over road humps at speeds of up to 93mph.

Mercedes say "The idea is to reduce the conflict between ride comfort and sporting dynamics," and adds that the system can also deal remarkably effectively with Britain's most popular road-calming measure.

Let's all get one!

- Kate, London

Wonder how many of the emergency runners figure in the death statistics????

- Tony Islander, Herts

Another example of namby pamby legislation. What next - a speed restriction for pedestrians

- Ian, London

totally ridiculous. The law of unintended consequences will come into play yet again. Cars are designed with a +/- 10% accuracy into he speedometer, which would mean that a vehicle would have to travel at a indicated 18mph to be sure they were not breaking the law. Where a speedometer reads 10% to high, this would mean a true speed of 16mph - or to put into perspective - the same as a milkfloat. I can just imagine the congestion that this ill though out revenue raising scheme will cause! another useless idea from a uselss government!

- Gary, amersham

Its funny how many comments there have been about how terrible this is for the motorist, how 'hard' it is to keep a modern vehicle under 20mph etc, especially when those same contributors just 'know' that the biggest evil on the road is cyclists who are killing babies daily with their red-light running antics.

The fact is that the 99% of the driving population haven't read the highway code since they passed their test yet 100% of motorists consider their driving skills to be 'above average'.

The majority of motorists break the law with the current speed limits of 30mph (yes, 34 IS breaking the law, is selfish, and is dangerous to non-drivers), so as people have been shown to be unable to stay within the law, it just got more draconian.

Would any driver here care to state that they have never sped in their life? Thought not.

- George, London

Ken Wood
GPS limited speed is dangerous in the extreme. If I have to overtake someone driving less than the posted speed limit ( an offence as well, you wouldn't pass the IAM test if you can't keep up to the speed limit), surely it is safer the quicker I can do it? If they are doing 25mph in a 30mph limit it will take forever to overtake them. Then we get a situation where everybody is driving as slow as the car at the head of the queue. And a queue there will be. Akin to walking in front of every car with a red flag. We have the safest roads, why is there so much desire to control every aspect of our lives? Marx is extremely dangerous!

- Allen, Woking

This '5%' myth is a lie pedalled by pro-speeding lobby groups. Worldwide research is entirely consistent, a third of all road accidents have speed as a factor, that's the real issue.

The reality- TRL 421:

For every I mph reduction average speed, crashes are reduced by between 2-7%. More specifically, the crash reduction figure is around

* 6% for urban roads with low average speeds
* 4% for medium speed urban roads and lower speed rural main roads
* 3% for higher speed urban roads and rural main roads

To put the dangerousness of speed into perspective, how many drivers care about or would notice a 2mph reduction in their average speed? Yet, averaged across the entire road network, a mere 2mph reduction in average speeds would prevent more than 200 deaths and 3,500 serious casualties a year. These proposals will save lives, stop whining and snivelling that you can't speed any more and just get out of bed earlier.

- Sally Pearsehouse, Bethnal Green

Sally
Be real. They only reason speed limits are reduced is to get motorists. Think about it. If on a perfectly safe 60mph road the stasi change it to 50, then they will catch lots of law abiding motorists who have been used to doing 60. Have you seen extra signs being put up to announce reduced limits? No, of course not! And why? To get more money. Unfortunately you are believing the spin. I have a perfectly clean licence, and passed my tests first time, car, motorcycle and IAM. And may I add that unlike the TV adverts showing a car skidding for 20 yards when apparently braking at 30mph, my car stops within 10 yards without skidding.

- Allen, Woking

Why is NuLabour's kneee-jerk reaction always to hit the motorist? Yes, there are always going to be errant motorists, whatever the speed limit, but to penalise all motorists with a 20mph limit seems excessive. Next, it'll be 15mph and then 10mph but why not do what they do in the US and outlaw jay walking, with proper end-of-block crossings? Too imaginative for anti-car revenue raisers I suppose.

- With Smoke Coming Out Of My Ears, London NW11

I do love the spectrum of opinion here. People complaining about the police over-enforcing speed laws whilst other people complain about total inaction. I would suggest the truth is somewhere in between.

As plenty of people have pointed out, if you are caught speeding, you have been caught committing a crime. It is not a case of a different law for you just because you happen to disagree with it. Motorists are not persecuted - law breakers are.

Keeping your car at 20mph is no more or less difficult than keeping it at 30mph, 40mph, or 70mph, and if you really do have difficulty controlling your car and keeping it at a constant speed, then I suggest that you hand over your keys and keep your unsafe driving off my road.

This move is a good, bold gesture - residential streets are precisely that - residential. When I was younger I was able to play in my street, ride my bike, and make friends - precisely because it was a quiet street with a low speed limit. I don't see many children being able to do that any more because of modern driving habits.

Driving at 20mph down residential streets will not clog town centres or ruin your journey to work - because trunk roads and city centres are not residential streets! Please, get a grip.

- Mark Lee, Vauxhall

What do they mean by a "residential road"? Virtually every road in London is lined with houses.

And have they considered the extra pollution that will be inflicted on all, by drivers forced to run their engines inefficiently in third gear, or even second, rather than fourth? I would not be surprised if it causes more damage directly to asthma sufferers and indirectly by worsening global warming, than the few lives it might save.

- Nigel, London

My opinion is that sat navs are much more dangerous than the speed limit. Your eyes totally leave the road when trying to find somewhere and input new directions. I'll even admit Ive nearly crashed the car twice fiddling with it...Until they freeze when the engine is running they should not be allowed...Oh and I saw someone reading the newspaper whilst driving today....So as you'll see folks its nothing to do with the speed limit!!!

- Dc, Ealing, London

Sally
Be real. They only reason speed limits are reduced is to get motorists. Think about it. If on a perfectly safe 60mph road the stasi change it to 50, then they will catch lots of law abiding motorists who have been used to doing 60. Have you seen extra signs being put up to announce reduced limits? No, of course not! And why? To get more money. Unfortunately you are believing the spin. I have a perfectly clean licence, and passed my tests first time, car, motorcycle and IAM. And may I add that unlike the TV adverts showing a car skidding for 20 yards when apparently braking at 30mph, my car stops within 10 yards without skidding.

- Allen, Woking

Most accident black spots are caused by the road layout not being fit for purpose.

Is the driver at fault, yes & no? It is up to the driver to act responsible, yet our roads are so cluttered with mainly unnecessary warning and other signage, that sorting what is applicable from what’s not becomes impossible. Along with cluttered contradictive signs the law requires that it is important to watch your speedometer and look out for speed traps. It then becomes a contradiction, instead of 100% of your time and focus being on the road and pedestrians ahead, the government requires you to take your eye of the task or pay fines. It is the laws and the irresponsible signage that is making it difficult for drivers to drive responsibly.

Then again if you have a black spot, why are the powers that be not acting to eliminate these?

- Ian, Reading, England

Before implementing such changes the Government/Councils should spend more time catching and prosecuting those who are currently driving/cycling dangerously at the current speed limit (speeding, on mobile phones, reading the paper, going through red lights, not stopping at zebra crossings, driving without insurance, poorly maintained cars, etc) - only when they have done this will can they determine whether a further speed reduction is required (those that currently drive down side roads at 45 are not going to suddenly slow down). Get policemen back on the street stopping them.

As a nanny state surely it would be better to bring back road safety lessons for children and fine parents seen to allow their children to play in the road/cross the road in a dangerous way (I've seen young mums literally drag their children at speed across busy roads - accidents only being avoided because of observant drivers)

- Andy, london

Does anyone seriously believe that people currently ignoring a 30 mph limit would take any notice of a 20 mph limit?
What would make roads safer would be to increase the use of speed cameras, particularly mobile ones.
Many drivers, young and not so young, believe a speed limit is only a limit where a camera resides and between cameras it is go as fast as you want. These people are the dangers and should be targetted.

- Dereck, London, England

And how will this proposal be enforced on Cyclists ????????

- Jill, London

Rather than quote statistics based around vague percentages, the figures that need to be released are actual numbers of people killed on so-called 'residential' streets. It's interesting to note that only 5% of all deaths on the roads occur due to drivers breaking the speed limit. Now with 2/3rds of all road deaths happening in rural areas, that leaves about 1000 people dying on urban roads every year. If we take a ball-park figure of 5% dying due to excessive speed, that leaves 50 people dying up and down the country in urban areas in any one year due to drivers driving at an excessive speed. Then you have to ask where, really, did such deaths occur? On the quiet side street that sees 10 cars per hour, or the busy roads, such as the A406 or A10? Take a guess. The whole thing is, frankly, a smoke screen to punish the average driver who wishes to travel from A to B efficiently, and is another trick by this Government to use 'safety' as a pretext for taxation/extra fines.

- Richard, London

Not a bad idea except that I suspect that a considerable amount of the danger to pedestrians is actually caused by drivers who don't comply with the existing speed limits and laws regarding the use of mobile phones etc.

I would be more encouraged by a commitment by the government to ensure greater compliance with existing requirements, whether on residential streets or anywhere else.

- Andrew, Hampton Hill

I suspect that any drop in casualties is coincidental - motorists avoid 20mph zones as they often have speed humps which damage their suspension - even at low speeds. Constant acceleration and deceleration is needed, which will mean motorists have to continuously look at their speedo.

This means they will take longer routes rather than short cuts and Alistair will be happy that more petrol is consumed generating more dosh for the Treasury. The AA has already demonstrated the extra fuel consumption, which is hardly consistent with 'green' emissions targets.

- Jools, London

Peter of London...."We should also take on board the total lack of respect cyclists have for red lights because thet are "green" and the motorist is not. What would happen if pedestrians behaved in the same cavalier manner".

Got news for you Peter.....pedestrians and motorists do behave in the same manner....after saying that not all of the three above are disrespectful but all three do have some who couldn't care less so all three should be educated to respect the roads and each other...wow living in a dream world here with that comment aren't I...

- Sarah, London

To be honest, many road speed limits are out of date.

30mph IS now dangerous on many narrow & winding roads that are filled with parked cars on both sides - something they weren't when the speed limit was introduced.

But likewise, there are many, many straight, wide roads that are away from housing where the speed limits are absurdly low.

Speed limits do need changing, but it works both ways and it needs to be looked at sensibly...

(I also agree with Jim from Bristol re: eye and reaction tests - it's absurd these aren't done. I'd even go further than him saying they're for the over fifties, I'd say one every decade for the under fifties too).

- John, London

This is a silly law that penalises motorists yet again. When I was young I was taught common sense - LOOK before crossing the road! Simple. Pavements are for pedestrians, roads for vehicles. When peedestrians start LOOKING before stepping into the road we will see fewer accidents and deaths.

- Bob, Enfield

Will these proposals apply to A roads in London? My road is a distributor road and a priority bus route. The speed limit is 30mph. This is probably okay if more crossing points were provided and the speed limit were obeyed, which it isn't by a significant number of drivers.

Incidentally the road has just as many residential properties as there are on what are classified residential streets. There are also several schools on the road.

There have been several fatalities and injuries on this road, but little has been done to enforce existing speed limits. Meanwhile the council with money from the GLA has spent tens of thousands of pounds on traffic calming measures for side street 20mph zones where because of on street parking and road narrowness it was already extremely difficult for all but most determined idiot to exceed that speed limit anyway.

- Trevor, London

I live in a rat run which has occurred because all previous rat runs were blocked off. Two years ago Sutton council told us that they would be putting in speed bumps over the next 2 years, and on enquiring last year we were told that the work would be starting January this year, it's now nearly May and no work has started, not a sausage. What I find particularly funny is that our MP also lives in the same rat run and you'd think he might have chased it, but as per usual he's too busy with photo opportunities and getting Cheam it's own postcode (so his house price increases) than worrying about his constituents concerns.

- Bob, Cheam

About time - I am fed up with watching in terror as my 9 year old negotiates the two minute walk to his school, having to deal as he does with selfish drivers (mostly mothers) zooming along our suburban road at 45 mph, and of course driving up onto the grass verges whenever they feel like it. 20 IS PLENTY!

- Liz, London,UK

Let's hope this is a consultative "target".

I agree with Ross in that we are reaching the point of every accident involving a vehicle being the driver's fault - this is reminiscent of the fact that accidents involving a foreigner in Saudi Arabia (and upheld by the courts) are considered the fault of the foreigner - it would not have happened had he not been there! Pedestrians accidents would not occur were it not for cars.

We should also take on board the total lack of respect cyclists have for red lights because thet are "green" and the motorist is not. What would happen if pedestrians behaved in the same cavalier manner.

All pedestrians, but especially the young, need to be educated more in road safety and marshalled to specific "pedestrian/vehicle interface zones" (ie crossings).

As Roberts points out the distraction of checking that a very low speed limit is not exceeded is iteself counter-productive.

There is also the economic argument to be taken into account which, although difficult to quantify, means that the more time we spend in the car the less we earn, the more impatient we get, the more risks we are inclined to take.

Let's not look at cheap-to-implement, tax-raising speed limits and consequent fines but at longer-term solution which is respected by all those affected.

- Peter, London

I think that the idea of the GPS speed limiter on cars would work for residential areas.

- Ken Wood, Sheerness ent

Lets take yet another pop at the poor motorist that just trying to get aorund. Ok in london they have public transport, in anything apart form the cities public transport is a joke and doesnt get you to work, so the rest of us HAVE to use a car for at least part of our journey. Then you lower the limit and it takes longer to getthere, ok it saves some lives so we are all for that. But the problem isnt the limit or the driving test (which we only have to take once in our whole lives). The problem is education.

Educate people not to walk out onto roads unless you can see and its clear. What happened to the green cross code and the loveable hedgehogs more recently? And why not educate people about driving rather than just hounding them with ever more complicated rules. The motorway limit has been a joke for years as is well documented and i agree with lowering the limits around schools and hospitals for instance.

But lets be sensible. Tests every 5 years for all to keep you up to date and stop those bad habits getting too embeded. Mandatory training in safe and economical driving. And thats just the start. Dont penalise us for getting to work, take bad drivers off the roads and let the good ones drive. And for those that get it badly wrong and cause a pile up or wantanly do 120mph down the motorway, lifetime bans from driving. It would make peoplethink twice would it not? Its a privaledge, not a right after all.

- Brett, Northampton, UK

Perhaps the government should go the entire way and go back to a 4mph limit.
If they also reintroduced a man walking in front with a red flag, it would aslo reduce unemployment.

- Alan Stepney, Bournemouth, UK

I'm so glad I got out!

- Colin, Cebu,Philippines

If they bring in the 20mph rule it will cause chaos and most towns and cities will be gridlocked. Why keep persecuting motorists, shouldn't pedestrians take responsibility for their own actions and children should be taught to cross the road by their parents and should be supervised when out at the roadside. by all means come down hard on motorists who are dangerous and do upwards of 30mph in built up areas and by schools, also heafty fines for people who park too close to school gates. Please leave us careful drivers alone we should not be held accountable for stupid pedestrians.

- Chris, Wolverhampton

Silly law. Then why not reduce it to 10mph or 5mph? If politicians want to implement silly laws to cut road deaths, they should ban pedestrians from crossing the street while on a mobile or listening to music. The speed reduction is clearly a stealth tax on London drivers. And can I add, I hope all MPs will respect the 20mph as they rush home to their second/third homes in the capital.

- Mike, London

Robert, if you are seriously incapable of obeying the speed limit without constantly staring at your speedo then it's time you handed your license in, you're not safe to drive. If you took your driving test and claimed you didn't see a child in the road cos you were distracted by your instruments you would fail, thank goodness. These are sensible proposals that will save lives, a third of all road deaths have speed as a factor, reducing speeds saves lives, lower speeds means fewer deaths and injuries. Too many apologists for criminal behaviour here.

- Sally Pearsehouse, Bethnal Green

It is a common belief among poor and careless drivers that "most deaths occur on the main highways", but the fact is that 60% of ALL road casualties happen in built-up areas. Reducing the speed limit to 20 mph in such areas will therefore greatly decrease serious injury and death. I anticipate a chorus of whining protests from drivers unable to master the basic skills of maintaining a set speed or planning their journey such that they don't need to speed.

- Mike, Leicester

Are pedestrians to be targeted?? Jaywalking cause a lot of accidents. It is as much their responsibility as the Drivers. How about a £100 fine for not crossing at a proper crossing points, or ignoring crossing lights?? Concentrate their minds as well. There are always two sides to every incident, proposal or story. Even playing fields please. Maybe pedestrians should have a licence to prove they have been taught how to use a pavement correctly and how to cross a road safely.

- Simon, KIngsbridge, UK

To be honest I'm not conviced this will make a big difference to most journey times. Such a large proportion of a journey is spent waiting at junctions or in queues, after all.

- Tim, London

I'm sitting in a 20mph zone on a residential street right now. LBH&F has redesigned the road layout to slow drivers down but it has not worked. I have seen more accidents and near-misses since the redesign than before, partly because everybody ignores the 20mph limit and the road markings.

Coaches and lorries also keep getting stuck because their wheelbase is too long to turn in the new layout.

Well done, Hammersmith and Fulham!

- C, London, UK

Perhaps they should introduce laws that prevent pedestrians from crossing anywhere other than at predefined crossings, and make it a fineable offence if they do so, this would immediately lower deaths as although i've never hit anyone, on many occasions the closest i've come is when teenagers or people who clearly have no sense have run across the road amongst traffic or at night! Make pedestrians more accountable for their actions as they are as much at fault as drivers.

Just look at Oxford, Regent Street and Picadilly Circus on a friday night!!

With regards the actual speed limts it seems absurd that they are going to lower them more, the 60 to 50mph i am not too bothered about, but 20mph is just ridiculous unless by a school!!

- Ross, London, UK

Driving in 20mph zones I am constantly looking at my speedo for fear of exceeding the limit.
Does this mean I am driving with due care and attention ?

- Robert, Maidstone

Why not cut the speed limit to 5mph to eliminate road accident deaths? And bring back the law requiring a man with a red flag to walk in front.

- M Hartmann, London

I'm presuming the deaths that they are trying to cut is pedestrians? Rather than constantly attack the driver for road deaths, pedestrians should take more responsibility for their road-crossing actions. I was taught "Stop, Look, Listen" when I was at school, consequently I was never run over. If you don't want to get run over and risk your life, don't step out in front of a fast moving vehicle. Simple.

- Adam Lee, Leicester

Speed cameras 'persecute' motorists?

Only the law breaking ones. The ones like me who keep to the law have nothing to worry about, or of being "persecuted" as you call it. I don't go shoplifting and so find I am not "persecuted" for being a thief either.
Simple.

- Sally Pearsehouse, Bethnal Green

Where is the research to show how often people are hit when the limit is 20mph, rather than how badly they are injured? People cannot pay attention to the road and keep a modern vehicle below 20mph – eyes have be on the speedo nearly all of the time.

What’s better, 100 people with one broken leg or 1 person with one broken leg and one broken arm? I think the latter but the Government obviously thinks the former.

- St, London

Good idea. But how many impatient, speeding motorists will ignore these speed limits? Probably loads, as most motorists priority is to get to "B" as quick as poss disregarding saftey issues. Selfish.

- Dom, London

The fact of the matter is that road deaths and injuries in the UK have fallen steadily year on year but there comes a point where it cannot be reduced any further without banning vehicles altogether. Another example of the government blaming the motorist for all that's wrong. How about hammering pedestrians for not taking care when crossing roads instead?

- Cam, Edinburgh

save a few lives in the short term.but the extra polution created by having to drive in a lower gear and stop start driving will cause many more respiratory health problems for everybody especially the very young and pensioners.

- Peter Tracey, swindon uk

Am I the only one who remembers that the 30 MPH limit was a fuel saving measure (along with the 70 on mways) or that they were based on a 1964 Ford Anglia which took 75 feet to stop at 30 mph - my car does this in circa 25 feet !!
Strange how compulsory yearly opticians certificates for those over 50 isn't being implemented, nor is a reaction speed test for older drivers (over 50) both of which would cause an instant reduction in road deaths, but rather a cash raising measure. (Oh yes I am over 50 myself)

- Jim, Bristol England

Speed can kill, but only in about 6% of accidents, though that is of no comfort to those involved. After all where will it stop? I know the tree huggers want us all back into caves making straw open sandals but this new limit used as a broad brush tactic is really not going to work.

- Ayliff Mcnab, Spain

So, speeds to increase then?

- Hilary, Cartmel, Cumbria

HSE gone mad. If drivers took responsibility, and police were free to chase their own leads, then everyone would cohese better. Sounds like a tax scam under the guise of safet. All for it near schools, and city centre. But Every residential street? Streets should ne nominated by the people who stay there, that would make a better & safer community. That would encourage people who live next to each other to speak, and care about their neighbours, benefits would be instant.

- Jake, Aberdeen

Allen, speed cameras don't catch motorists, they catch criminals! If you want to pick and choose which laws you obey then ok, just stop whining about getting caught! Don't do the crime if you don't do the crime.

- Sally Pearsehouse, Bethnal Green

Never any camera's or cops around to catch what is the real danger on the road's - bad driving! I agree speed attributes to deaths, but bad driving is the cause, not speed. And arrogance.

- Jason, Derby

Of the 4000 who were killed or seriously injured in London - how many of these were killed in residential streets? I suspect a very small proportion - most deaths occur on the main highways.

- Andy, london

For 'safety measure' read 'more tax revenue'
The ONLY reason this corrupt marxist government is reducing speed limits is so they can catch more motorists and increase tax revenue. The safety reasons quoted are merely spin.

- Allen, Woking

It's all well and good cutting the speed limits but will they be enforced. The 30 Mph outside my house is used like a race track and the police won't do anything about it because as yet we have had no deaths.

- Ken Wood, Sheerness Kent

Fine. But what about increasing the speed limit on motorways?! This must be the only country that has the same speed limit on plane dual carriage roads, as on motorways. Oh no, I forgot: It's all about speed cameras and fines.

- Acibeb, London, UK

Oh dear now it's going to take forever to get anywhere -people driving so slowly will get board and lose concentration much quicker than before and we'll have just as many accidents

- David, London

Add your comment