A BLANKET 20mph speed limit is not the answer to solving the problem of Lancashire’s danger roads, according to the RAC.
Lancashire County Council said that the project would halt the thousands of people killed or seriously injured.
As stated here, thousands of people are not killed or seriously injured on Lancashires roads. The term "Lancashires danger roads", even coming from the opposition, are scaremongering at best.
But the RAC Foundation, one of the country’s top road safety organisations, poured scorn on the project.
Professor Stephen Glaister, director of the group, said: “This is a bold move but raises questions. Just how practical will the scheme be to police, and what will the true benefits be?
“It must be remembered that not all residential areas are alike with casualties amongst child pedestrians much higher in deprived neighbourhoods than in more affluent districts.
These are the wrong questions. The real question is why is the council lying about accident figures to further this agenda?
“The evidence suggests there is a strong case for targeting speed limit changes rather than introducing blanket cuts.”
THERE IS NO EVIDENCE. There is no need to spend 9 million quid when the country is broke, on persecuting drivers even more.
County Coun Tim Ashton, who is in charge of highways, said he wanted to tackle the critics ‘head-on’ He said that the scheme would be policed by neighbourhood road watch teams to make speeding ‘as taboo as drink driving’.
As one commenter noted in my last post about this, there is a big difference between speeding and driving dangerously. If you lower the speed limits you create even more speeding drivers. You then create more reasons to issue fines, but don't do anything to solve the problem you are targeting.
He said: “It is quite radical but we need to do something drastic to reduce the number of deaths on our roads.
What we don't need is more legislation that will penalise sensible drivers and we certainly don't need to throw 9 million pounds at this non-problem.
 |
| Tim Ashton: "I just had a happy wank" |
Go here to have your say.
11 Comments:
Microdave - Going up then. It's still poor considering the comments on the article.
Not that I've tried this personally, you understand....
Here in Sheffield, there is a small village on a moderately busy road where the locals had been campaigning for some time for the limit to be reduce to 30 from 40 to make it safer crossing the road to and from the bus stop.
The village itself is about 500m from end to end and it would have cost bugger all to change the 8 road signs showing the 40 limit to a 30 limit.
It would have also been an insignificant change to motorists using the road as the distance is so short and would have met with all the residents wishes without inconveniencing anyone at all.
They even have a speed camera already installed in the middle of the village which could have been set to enforce the new limit, again at bugger all cost to the tax payer.
So, what do the council do?
They go and spend £130,000 installing a pelican crossing in a position which no one actually uses and, better still, put it right in the middle of the old bus shelter which meant the bus stop had to be moved 50 yards down the road to avoid the bus stopping on the zig-zag lines at the new crossing.
The residents of the village still have a fast road to cross unless they wander off out of their way to the new crossing and have to stand out in the rain or face missing the bus if they go and wait in the old bus shelter (a large old stone thing which can't really be moved).
Simply brilliant!
I'd say it's because they are worried the tap is about to run dry. But sadly, there's no sign of that yet...
Anon - It is scary. That must be the percentage of righteous who think they do no wrong.
Julia - More likely they are justifying thier jobs in order to make sure the tap keeps running
Post a Comment