Drivers don't want 20 limits that are not fit for purpose.

A BMW driver is threatening to sue her local council claiming plans for a blanket 20mph speed limit will damage its powerful engine.

Diane Greenwood, 47, says her £25,000 car struggles to cope in fourth gear at such low speeds and she will be forced to drive around in third, putting extra strain on the engine and creating more pollution.

Wise words. Cars are not designed to be driven around at 20mph and below. Keeping a vehicle in low gear will cause the engine to rev at unnecessarily high speeds, causing progressive internal damage and more pollution.

Let's get technical. When I drive my car at 30mph in fourth gear on the straight, it ticks over at around 1400rpm. At 20mph in third gear it will rev at around 1600 rpm. In a 2 litre, 4 cylinder engine, driven around town for one hour per day, an extra 200 revs will pump out an extra 1 million litres of exhaust gasses in one year.
(Cars and revs vary with engine size and age. I invite you to do the test with yours)
Apart from that, the extra revs will, over time, wear down the oil control rings on the pistons, allowing oil to enter the combustion chamber and be burned, causing even more pollution.

So what this woman is saying is true. Making her drive at twenty will cause more pollution, however her opinion is roundly rejected in the comments because the only thing people seem to be able to see is that she drives a BMW, so must be posh and therefore must be persecuted.

More than one commenter has said that she doesn't need a BMW to drive around town and should buy something more economical. The campaigners for the 20 limit are similarly unsympathetic.

However supporters of the new lower limits angrily dismissed her claims as selfish and ill-informed – and pointed out that they are already widespread in Germany, where BMWs are built.

I love that passage. Campaigners 'angrliy dismiss' arguments that don't conform? They call her selfish and ill-informed when her opinion, which is far more scientific than anything they have ever trotted out, doesn't match the dogma.

And look at that for science - Germany make BMW's and they have twenty limits. Ergo, you must be wrong. Now that's ill-informed.

'In fourth gear, my car tries to push to 22mph, so I have to change down to third, which uses more fuel and puts more of a strain on the car.
'It’s all very well saying I should get a smaller car, but I’ve only had my BMW for a year and it’s my pride and joy – why should I buy a small car if I don’t want one?
'If anything happens to my car, I’m going to sue the council and force them to cover the costs – it’s a matter of principle as far as I’m concerned.’

Why should she get a smaller car? Owning a big car is not doing anyone any harm so why should she be forced to change if she doesn't want to? I don't think the suing the council will get you very far though. Councils push on with their silly ideas regardless of public opinion and regardless of the unintended consequences. They never admit fault in anything either.

'I’ve been driving around this area for 30 years and seen speeds get slower and slower, and no-one’s been run over in that time,’ she said yesterday.

Yet it has been decided that all roads in East Lancashire residential areas will have 20 limits. I blogged at the beginning of last year that this decision was based on nothing more than lies.

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.

LCC thought the 20 limit would halt (not just reduce, but halt) the thousands of people killed or seriously injured on the roads. Their very own website provides figures that tell the real truth.

As usual, a click will embiggen

Number of people killed or seriously injured on East Lancashires roads:
955 in 2001
702 in 2009

Not thousands. In decline. So why the lies?

According to the '20’s Plenty For Us’ campaign, Lancashire is the biggest of 27 local authorities covering 7.4million people currently committed to making 20mph the default speed limit for residential areas.

I had a look at the 20's plenty website. There is a handy little Google style map where you can check out accident figures for pedestrians and cyclist in your area. I was going to check it out until I read this:

Of course remember that many roads may have fewer casualties for pedestrians and cyclists because road conditions are so bad that such users rarely go on them.

Less casualties equals worse roads. You couldn't male it up. Oops, they just did.

Campaign manager Anna Semlyen dismissed Mrs Greenwood’s objections, saying they were based on prejudice and not fact.

The facts speak for themselves. How about the prejudice?

'If she’s a BMW driver, she’s not that interested in the environment, is she?’ she said. 'BMW drivers generally have them for status reasons.

Now that's prejudice! The Pot - Kettle - Black ness of these people can be astounding at times.

According to the campaign’s figures, 20mph zones can cut casualties by more than a fifth while reducing emissions by 12 per cent and increasing journey times by on average just 40 seconds.

I would love to see these figures and how they are calculated, but of course there is no reference to their origin. They do seem to be bollocks though. If sticking to 20 only increases your journey time by 40 seconds then you are probably on a road where you can't do much more than 20 anyway, making a blanket rule pretty pointless. The reduction of emissions rubbish we have covered above.

However Department for Transport analysis of a voluntary 20mph scheme introduced in Portsmouth in 2007 found average speeds dropped by barely 1mph while deaths and serious injuries actually increased.

Really? So an actual study of a live situation by people who know a bit about transport, rubbishes all the crap that the campaign groups are spouting. Well I'll go t't foot of our stairs!

In Lancashire, a group of motorists are planning a 5mph go-slow protest to highlight what they say is the harmful effect of the £9million scheme.

Good luck but I doubt anyone will listen. They may take down you reg numbers for future ticketing opportunities though. And the biggest harmful affect of the £9million scheme is that it is going to cost £9million. Austerity anyone?

However Paul Binks, Lancashire County Council’s road and transport safety manager, said: 'People are much more likely to survive and have fewer injuries if involved in an accident at 20mph than 30mph.

That's largely irrelevant though. Any road could have it's limit cut by any amount by that reasoning. Surely it would be better to go back to teaching children road safety. You can't get killed or seriously injured if you are not in the road in the first place.

'The impact on the environment is likely to be neutral as the roads included in the scheme already have relatively low average speeds and a further small reduction will have a minimal effect on air quality.

If the speeds are already low, why bring in a law that will just set many drivers up for fines? But you are about to contradict yourself anyway:

'It is quite difficult to drive efficiently at 30mph on many residential roads as the busy environment requires repeated acceleration and braking – driving at 20mph encourages a smoother driving style resulting in lower emissions.’

On a lot of residential streets it is difficult to go over 15, whereas on some, 30 is fine. Why not just let common sense decide? As for the braking and acceleration, cars have a thing called a gearbox that helps keep engine revolutions to a minimum. If you force everyone to stop using the top two gears then revs go up and so does pollution.

Wider support for 20mph zones is understood to be a condition agreed by the Lib Dems in return for backing an increase in the motorway speed limit to 80mph.

The Lib Dems eh? What is Lib short for again?