Council bosses begin public consultation on 20mph zones (From Andover Advertiser)

Reducing the speed limit to 20mph is just a trendy thing to do. It does little or nothing to prevent accidents and I am sure that drivers trying to stick to the limit will be so intent on watching their speedo they will be less than attentive about the road in front of them.
This is a bit like the speed bumps and so-called traffic calming measures that are a real pain in the proverbial. They cause damage to cars and make life a misery for anyone whose house happens to be adjacent to one.
More effective and visible policing would do a lot more than any fanciful, trendy scheme.

The focus on speed is because it's the easy option, police can use cameras, sit back and collect the revenues from legal motorists. Speeding is made the culprit when the reality is that inattentive driving is the main cause. The problem is that people who don't register their cars, are using their mobiles whilst driving, are drunk or drive cars that are dangerous won 't get caught out by cameras. That of course means lower crime figures, not because there is less criminal behaviour in cars, but because current policing methods completely fail to catch criminal drivers.

In Liverpool, the NHS is paying for residential 20mph. This is because it has been shown that 20 reduces injury... risk of serious injury drops 6% with each 1mph slower. Also people feel safer, walk and cycle their local journeys, thus exercise more and the NHS has less obesity, heart problems etc to deal with. So 20 saves public money.

The most likely way a UK school age child will die is in a RTI. Safety for car occupants has improved greatly in recent years but we are killing and injuring more pedestrians and cyclists and school kids (even those with parent **on the pavement**) are particularly at risk.

Above statements backed by statistics and studies.

I don't buy the argument about drivers watching their speedo and being more likely to crash. Surely that would be the case in 30, 40... 70 limits too? At lower limits, most drivers get a feel for speed from engine note and looking where they are going. Just need to check speedo periodically for reference.

It is ridiculous that police refuse to better enforce residential area speed limits. Police are big on antisocial behaviour (ASB) but the ASB that affects practically every family on a daily basis is drivers using inappropriate speed on streets past homes and schools. Who can truly say they do not worry about their child's safety if walking or cycling to school? Look at Holland with its safer infrastructure including 30kmph residential speed limits. Dutch parents gain a lot more free time by not doing the school run (kids over 8 walk or cycle independently to school there) than UK parents save by peaking at 33mph rather than 22mph in the last half mile on their journey home.

Btw, "Independent Road Safety Research" (Google hasn't heard of it) and Eric Bridgstock,are one and the same - he's a self-styled pro-speed lobbiest who likes his name in print. I do not want to be ad-hominem but readers should take his comments no more seriously than the comments on this part of the page.

if drivers can't drive safely at 20mph because they need to be watching their speedo, then they shouldn't be on the road in the first place.

I live in a city (Bristol) where the 20 zones are being trialled, and it's my experience that they make the roads safer. Not least for cyclists; higher speed limits encourage motorists to push past cyclists, often dangerously.

I see that Eric Bridgestock, of 'Independent Road Safety Research', is quoted in the article. Two minutes Googling indicates that Eric and IRSR are one and the same thing. So in the interests of balance, I'll call myself Our Gracie, of Really Independent Road Safety Research. Does it add gravitas to my opinion, do you think?

G Fields, Chairperson, RIRSR

@Huckit trendy or not, there is ample evidence, reported in reports from the depertment for transport, no less, that 20mph speed limits reduce the frequency of collisions significantly. Other evidence shows that it reduces the severity - a pedestrian hit by a car at 20mph has a 3% chance of death, while if hit at 30mph the risk rises to 45%.

The eye on the speedo argument is bunkum. At ANY speed you have a duty to keep an eye on the speedo to ensure you are not exceeding the limit, but you don't have to be glued to it at 20 any more than you do at 30, 40, 50, 60 or 70. If you are a competent driver you can judge your speed from visual and aural clues like engine tone, and only need an occasional glance at the speedo to verify.

And 20 limits are no more about "revenue raising" than those at 30 or higher. If you don't like paying fines, it's quite simple - don't break the law!

Excellent reposte Cyclestrian and Our Gracie.

Looks like Mr Eric Bridgstock of Independent Road Safety Research is not quite the expert the Chronicle would like to present him as. Why not just stop a boy racer on the street and ask their opinion? I'm amazed that in the search for 'balance' major organisations like HCC, the NHS etc are lined up against single-issue nutcases. Something like 7 million UK residents now enjoy living in 20MPH zones, and it's growing all the time. Many nations have 20 as their default residential speed now. The UK and Hampshire in particular are simply catching up with what will in a few years be considered the natural state of things.

Anyone arguing against 20MPH in residential areas is a selfish, anti-child, anti-family buffoon, in my opinion. Which is just as valid as that of Mr Eric Bridgstock, of Independent Road Safety Research.

Saying that being hit by a slower car causes less injuries is obvious, but speed is not the cause but a contributing factor in injuries sustained. Someone wasn't paying attention in the first place for the accident to happen and no speed camera will stop that. My concern is that the demonisation of speed detracts attention from the cause of the accident and also resources from tackling criminal drivers.

The real danger is the person at the wheel. Councillors who believe otherwise fool themselves. Speed limits have no effect whatever they are. 20 mph on an empty road is ridiculous. That speed when where there are many pedestrians is dangerous.

Councillors paid to do a job should do it not waste council tax payer's money asking their opinion. That is buck passing and very expensive.

On that subject what is the newly appointed Police and Crime Commissioner doing to ensure that police time is not being wasted on policing their offices, those that are not closed? The sight of a policeman on foot at the roadside with a speed camera from time to time would work wonders. Hiding to take surreptitious speed readings smacks of fund raising not crime prevention and is not cricket.

I suggest save expenditure and time on surveys and signs. Spend it on simple policing with proper punishment for offenders would work wonders as would getting Councillors off their backsides using the brains they have.

Spending our money is easy. Any fool can do that. Councillors and Commissioners were elected on their promises to serve we the electors.

Conducting surveys wastes money and brings no benefits. Ultimately the decision would still be what Councillors decide whether the electorate like it or not - just like Barton Farm and the long running saga on Silver Hill which seems to me to be a matter of the personal interest of Councillors overriding the interests of Winchester city dwellers whose home it is after all but business interests seem to take a higher precedence. Does Winchester really need to become just like many industrial cities when it is on the edge of the South Downs National Park? short sighted planners cut through with a motorway? Could it be that with foresight and imagination and a European Grant would repair that damage? Has anybody on the Council even thought about asking the question or are they too busy feathering their own nests?

Was that parsimonious planning decision on Twyford Down aimed at funding the remuneration of council officials' as well as their pension pots perhaps? Who decides on the size of the Council or is that a question that is banned? Could we save money and increase productivity by have fewer Councillors spending less?

Recirculating taxpayer's hard earned income especially for those on fixed incomes seems to be a dubious demand on council tax payer's funds. It seems to me there are too many people who have granted themselves the rights to raise taxes especially in planning fees in section 106 notices for instance.

If the road traffic was kept out of the city the question of 20 mph limits would not arise and building some nice homes in the city would remove pollution and the question about 20 mph speed limits. Some continental cities with planners having imagination and foresight have managed to take traffic away from their city centres giving the roads and footpaths back to its residents and visitors to enjoy the natural beauty without living in fear of fast moving traffic and its fumes.

City dwellers could save a fortune on not needing cars especially if public transport were to be rationalised as it could be if less effort was put into bickering about who did or did not cause the current financial problems

Only public transport taxis and service vehicles are permitted. It is within the power of a council with planners with the imagination brains and foresight to apply for restrictions to vehicular access for loading and unloading.

That of course requires the needs of the people of Winchester to be given a much higher priority than I have observed in my time with a home here since 1972 before Twyford Down was destroyed by short term thinking and planning. Is it true that was a breach of trust as I have heard? If so what part did Winchester planners play in that? Can they really be trusted to act in the interest of the public or is there a higher priority agenda that is not to be disclosed?

Why is it 100 people are asking for a review? Could it be that their imagination and foresight is superior to those who have been making planning decisions theoretically on behalf of us all?

Are the future Barton Farm dwellers assured of employment nearby or would they be driving through the city to access their routes to work and is it possible that water from drainage and sewage works would result in flooding in Winchester? I ask simply because I do not believe that planners have a broad view of the entire landscape which is justified by the fact that when the A3 was built it went through a tunnel but Winchester planners it seems thought nothing of cutting through Twyford Down. Perhaps the public should be more demanding of those that have been voted into office not allowing them to run things as they see fit but demand answers.

I have just had drawn to my attention an entry in the Hampshire Chronicle which states Simon Hayes wants to know what the public has to say about policing. Funny that. I have being trying to tell him since 20th November and lately he has been rejecting my E mail messages. Can his message be taken seriously when he has a cut off date of 18 January? I rest my case. .

As director of Independent Road Safety Research Winchester (not to be confused with Independent Road Safety Research St Albans) I can say that speed does matter. Reducing speed limits from 30mph to 20mph does reduce the number of accidents and the extent of injuries sustained.

Those keen to drive at 30mph through Winchester would also do well to consider the impact that their currently legal speed has on the immediate environment - stand on one of our many narrow footpaths when a car passes at 30mph 6 inches from your elbow and you will see. Safety is an important issue but it is far from the only one.

I note that even before making any attempt to fulfill the role of a police commissioner which as I understand it is to meet the needs of the public on how they are served by their police. he is already predicting a shortage of funds asking taxpayers to pay more.

It seems to me that if I had that job my first task would be to discover what the public has to say about their needs.

I do not think meeting numerous committees is the way to do that. First of all they are made up of people with their own political slants on things which are bound to colour their views. I was hoping to see a rotten system cleansed in the manner of cleaning out the Aegean stables. That I believe is what we were promised but what happened was political parties jumped onto the bandwagon which was bound to happen when a £5,000 deposit was at risk for anybody offering to serve.

That is half of my service pension so only party members prepared to take the party whip or rich people could possibly offer themselves or somebody sponsored some other way. Inevitably to represent an unspecified vested interest which is not likely to include those most in need of proper crime prevention detection and most importantly prosecution and punishment to protect the most vulnerable members of society from abuse some of which I have experience of and have learned more .

Simon Hayes offered himself as an independent so I was pleased to see him elected as I wrote and told him though I had not voted on principle seeing clearly that it was a sham designed to dupe the electors into believing they really were going to have a say in how their policing was going to be under their influence via a Commissioner representing them and their interests - sadly that was not to be as we now know.

The people living in council and other estates the police prefer to keep away from as long and often as they can are not likely to have their views heard via any self appointed committee which to my knowledge have been receiving hand outs from the police budget by what I believe were politically motivated arrangements made by the very body that the commissioner was appointed to clean up after.

However I am now of the opinion which fortunately I am still permitted to express in this free country of ours that the PCC is not the independent person he claimed to be when running for office but is already under the influence of a self appointed Police and Crime Panel (P&CP) which in truth is the old Hampshire Police Authority (HPA) under a different name which is discredited by virtue of the fact that it did not carry out its duties of control and supervision of policing but actually connived with the former Chief Constable Paul Kernaghan (PK) who was condoning the criminal actions of police officers under his command and control who took an active part in the illegal eviction of an innocent man from his home at about midday on 3 August 2006 which I reported to him the next day and he did nothing about. In addition the HPA applied to the IPCC who I had also complained to for PK to be absolved from any responsibility for the conduct of police officers under his command and control which was duly granted. Those who committed the crimes have not been investigated nor has there been any prosecution of the offenders. Naturally I hoped that the new PCC would take an interest in this report of perverse policing but I learn that he probably was on the HPA at the time of these events so may be somewhat compromised. He has shown a distinct reluctance to meet me and hear what I have to report so I conclude that he is not what he claims to be. I hope I am wrong. .

retiredoldgit wrote:
As director of Independent Road Safety Research Winchester (not to be confused with Independent Road Safety Research St Albans) I can say that speed does matter. Reducing speed limits from 30mph to 20mph does reduce the number of accidents and the extent of injuries sustained.

That's very anecdotal and vague. Where is the evidence for that? What were the causes of the accidents, what percentage were due to high speed and loss of control of the vehicle? Under what circumstances, weather, driver condition, vehicle condition? etc.etc.
.
Also, quoted "statistics" are often selective and present only a partial image of the full picture to support a single point of view. An example was the use of traffic light cameras in the USA. There were many statements about reduced numbers of collisions from cross traffic, but none about the higher incidence of shunts as people slam on the brakes.

Here you are, Cardinal. The BMJ report which states that "The introduction of 20 mph zones was associated with a 41.9% (95% confidence interval 36.0% to 47.8%) reduction in road casualties"

http://www.bmj.com/c
ontent/339/bmj.b4469
.full

...I think we can agree that this is a more reliable source than Eric Bridgstock. Odd that it should be he, rather than they, who gets quoted in the article. Being as how IRSR is, you know, a 'one man and his cat' operation.

G Fields - Celestial Empress in Chief, Really Very Independent Indeed Road Safety Research (Royston Vasey)

Interesting question:
When I drive at 20mph I find myself being overtaken by cyclists?
Will cyclists observe the new speed limits, if and when they happen and will they invest in speedometers so that they can do so??

Interesting question:
When I drive at 20mph I find myself being overtaken by cyclists?
Will cyclists observe the new speed limits, if and when they happen and will they invest in speedometers so that they can do so??

800Jimbo wrote:
Those keen to drive at 30mph through Winchester would also do well to consider the impact that their currently legal speed has on the immediate environment - stand on one of our many narrow footpaths when a car passes at 30mph 6 inches from your elbow and you will see. Safety is an important issue but it is far from the only one.

Agreed. It's even more terrifying when a bus passes.

This discussion on a cycling forum suggests that even very fit cyclists, the sort who like going fast, are unlikely to exceed 20 mph.

http://www.cyclechat
.net/threads/average
-speed-on-a-road-bik
e.13421/

...I'm reasonably fit, but would reckon my speed when cycling as somewhere between 12-15 mph. Do you really get overtaken when you're driving at 20 mph? -I know that I often overtake cars, but that's always because they're in a queue of other cars going very slowly.

I imagine that the sort of people who are capable of exceeding 20mph on a bicycle, already have speedos....

our Gracie wrote:
Here you are, Cardinal. The BMJ report which states that "The introduction of 20 mph zones was associated with a 41.9% (95% confidence interval 36.0% to 47.8%) reduction in road casualties"

http://www.bmj.com/c

ontent/339/bmj.b4469

.full

...I think we can agree that this is a more reliable source than Eric Bridgstock. Odd that it should be he, rather than they, who gets quoted in the article. Being as how IRSR is, you know, a 'one man and his cat' operation.

G Fields - Celestial Empress in Chief, Really Very Independent Indeed Road Safety Research (Royston Vasey)

As I said, speed is not the cause of the accident, it's inattentiveness and criminal behaviour. Lower speeds will of course reduce the injury when an accident occurs, but it doesn't mean there will be fewer accidents (although I will accept that you are more likely to be able to stop after doing something stupid if you are going slowly) The report also says that road deaths overall increased, then make the conclusion that this wasn't due to drivers being displaced onto other roads. That isn't a clear conclusion at all and actually suggests that drivers avoid the 20mph zones and speed more on other roads to make up lost time. In any case, doctors are not qualified to make conclusions on traffic behaviour, only injuries and that is a medical report.

Any cyclist with poor brakes will easily exceed 20mph going down Stanmore Lane;assuming the broken speed humps and pot holes do not throw them off.