Campaigners criticise new speed plans
Wednesday 24th June 2009, 9:00AM BST.
Plans for new speed limits could “deface the countryside” with signs, distract drivers and cost £300 million, the Campaign to Protect Rural England claimed today.
There could be as many as one million new speed limit signs in the countryside, with the Government encouraging local authorities to consider introducing lower limits, the CPRE added.
And in Shropshire there are plans for more than 120 villages to see their speed limits reviewed as part of a £2 million package designed to combat the menace of speeding motorists.
The CPRE said it preferred to see a reduction in the national speed limit for rural single-carriageway roads to 50mph but local authorities being given discretion to keep their safest roads at 60mph.
It added that it wanted to see powers to introduce 40mph zones on minor rural roads, based on the success of 20mph zones on residential roads.
CPRE senior transport campaigner Ralph Smyth said: “After deciding against a blanket 50mph national speed limit, the Government wants to encourage local authorities to consider introducing lower speed limits locally, which require repeater signs about every 300 yards.
“But it has not thought through the national costs and implications. We need to make rural roads safer and all the evidence points to reducing speed limits as the most important single step.
“We need a common-sense compromise between imposing a new blanket limit and a million new signs, which cash-strapped local authorities are unlikely to introduce any time soon.”
Hugh Dannatt, Shropshire Council’s group manager for traffic and highway engineering, said: “We are aware of the CPRE’s concerns regarding the number of signs on the side of the county’s roads and to some degree we share their concerns.
“However, we are required to review all the villages in Shropshire by 2011 and where appropriate consider 30mph limits. This in turn requires these limits to be signed in accordance with the regulations.
“Our policy regarding speed limits is intended to keep signs and other features to a minimum.”
A Department for Transport spokesman said: “It is vital that drivers know what the speed limit is but incorrect to say that this will mean signs every 300 yards.”
By Russell Roberts
Shropshire Star on Twitter
Keep updated with the latest breaking news and content on our Twitter feed.
Lifestyle
Interactive Dining Out map
Hundreds of reviews by the Shropshire Star and Express & Star's teams to help you decide where to eat.
Entertainment
All the film reviews
Before you plan a trip to the pictures, get our critics' verdicts on all the latest movie releases.
OUR NEW APP
Get the new Shropshire Star app
Download the Shropshire Star’s new app to your iPad or iPhone to get one week of access to our digital newspapers absolutely FREE.
shropshirestar.com
Popular sections
Useful links
I wonder how many of the people who will moan about this be the ones who drive in excess of the speed limits. If everyone drove sensibly then there wouldn’t be as many accidents and no need to reduce the speed limits by placing signs everywhere.
Is it crazy having speed signs all over the place. Absolutely. Are you largely to blame for them. Probably.
Report abuse
So here we go again.
The same old propaganda – and unfortunately many people are beginning to really believe it:
That is:
Speed is the only factor that is the cause of any incident – and so …. if we put up needless speed limits everywhere, it’s going to solve the problem.
BUT… as YOU say Julian:
“if eveyone drove sensibly” – so… WHAT exactly do you mean by sensibly ???
ARE you saying that to “drive sensibly” is just to drive more slowly??
After 44+ years and 800,000+ miles of driving experience, I WISH just for ONCE, the powers that be that decide on these things would ask US -the motoring fraternity with REAL experience, what we think.
There are new speed limit signs sprouting up all around, and on the OPEN ROAD (all covered with what looks like grey primer paint so you cant see the new limit) and in my opinion, they are just not neccessary.
Yes – of course people should “drive more sensibly” – but that doesn’t just mean “driving within the speed limits”, it means many more things than that, many of which are FAR more important than speed , and likely to reduce accidents more effectively !!
Report abuse
I agree with you. Driving slowly does not mean you are automatically driving sensibly. Couldn’t agree more. But the issue in the article above is about speed and the need for speed limit signs. Drive within the speed limit and the need for the signs is removed.
Report abuse
signs every 300yds? the aluminium collecters will have a great time.
Who thought of using huge bright luminous blood-Red pools of colour on the roads at entrances for villages as well?
Report abuse
It’s all very well to have nice new signs dotted around the place but who is exactly going to police this?
Will each sign be accompanied by a speed camera or Policeman with a speed gun?
After all, how many people do you see using their mobile phones while driving? Is that successfully Policed?
What a waste of money.
Report abuse
OK Julian …
But ..
The reason extra signs are being erected is because the existing speed limit is being reduced, in the belief that it will solve the problem. It won’t
The fact that some people drive outside of the speed limit isn’t really related to this issue.
Accidents occur for all sorts of reasons, and just blindly lowering speed limits in a blanket fashion isn’t going to help.
In fact – I think it will be a hindrance as it will increase the frustration factor as road users begin to realise their journey times are being increased/ speeds being lowered for no good reason.
Report abuse
askeric dotcom, It may not ‘solve’ the problem, but it will certainly help save a life or two. Even cretins who don’t obey speed limits may lower their speed to 50mph in a 40mph limit. If that limit becomes 30mph then they will reduce it to 40mph. If that is enough to save a single life then perhaps the argument is that the signs were worth it.
As I say, I completely agree with you that other issues beside speeding may account for far more road deaths, but speeding definitely results in deaths. Speak to any traffic cop.
Report abuse
Hi Julian.
I’m very interested in all this.
Every time I’ve had a conversation with traffic police, advanced drivers and the like, (And I’ve had many such conversations) speed has always come low on the list on concerns EXCEPT where “excess speed” is concerned.
Now – to define “excess speed” is difficult.
Someone doing say 70Mph along the A442 dual carriageway could hardly be seen as excess speed – (and in fact, whilst overtaking slower moving traffic on the inside lane taking less time to do so and clearing the path and visibility for other traffic), might be seen as safer driving technique…..
But – conversly -doing 30 Mph along a busy high street ona Saturday morning (with 30Mph limit) when there are many pedestrians etc about – could quite rightly said to be postively dangerous.
The first scenario above is “illegal” (i.e greater than 60Mph), but the second is not (30Mph)
It’s only in the second scenario I would say that the driving is “irresponsible”
Report abuse
[But - conversly -doing 30 Mph along a busy high street ona Saturday morning (with 30Mph limit) when there are many pedestrians etc about - could quite rightly said to be postively dangerous.]
You are so right and those doing 35mph to 40mph will be liable to cause death rather than injury. Therefore reducing the speed people drive at to 20 mph makes a lot of sense in busy pedestrian areas.
After all why should someone possibly lose their life or a reasonably healthy life just so someone else can get somewhere more quickly?
Report abuse
How about getting rid of all speed limits altogether, and erecting the occasional sign that says, “Think! Can you stop in the distance you can see to be clear? Adjust your speed accordingly.”
This, one would think, would allow speeds of no more than 10mph on a Saturday afternoon along Shrewsbury High Street yet, conversely, 110mph+ on the M6 Toll Road at midnight.
According to STATS19, and another very recent consultation paper published by the Department for Transport, exceeding a speed limit accounts for less than 14% of all deaths on our roads. So why all this posturing by local councils that purport lower speed limits to be the panacaea for all motoring ills?
Report abuse
Well said Winja. In one of the states of America they did away with speed limits on urban roads and the accident rate went DOWN!!!!
Report abuse
Julian,
Personally, I would like to see them concentrate on the other 95% of accidents NOT caused by exceeding a speed limit.
The numerous cases of bad driving and poor road surfaces which cause far more accidents and things like resurfacing roads is cheaper and far more effective without the pointless need of more road signs.
Report abuse
Eva,
Good point but this is rural speed limits under the spotlight here.
Report abuse
In consideration of today’s news from the DfT that road deaths in this country have now dropped to their lowest level for 30-odd years, can we now stop this incessant clamour and bluster for lower speed limits.
If existing speed limits play little part in road safety (as has been demonstrated over the last 16 years by the ineffectiveness of speed cameras), and road deaths fall with little increase in enforcement, then any claim for a decrease in existing speed limits is disingenuous.
In my opinion, anyway.
Report abuse
Winja (10) There were 2358 road deaths in 2008 – it may be that exceeding a speed limit accounts for less than 14% of all deaths on our roads, however that is still 330 people that died on the roads due to excessive speeding!If there were that many deaths from Swine Flu people would be up in arms demanding something be done.
Report abuse
tc,
In your quest to reduce the 330 deaths a year from exceeding the speed limit, your needless speed limit signs will do very little.
Why not concentrate on the 15,000 NEEDLESS cancer deaths a year, the thousands dying from asbestosis,MRSA, falls in the home?
People will always die on the roads whether it is from exceeding a speed limit or bad driving. Wasting money is silly on needless speed limit signs when it could be better channeled into schemes which are more likely to save MORE lives.
Report abuse
tc,
In your quest to reduce the 330 deaths a year from exceeding the speed limit, your needless speed limit signs will do very little.
Why not concentrate on the 15,000 NEEDLESS cancer deaths a year (today’s Daily Mail), over 3,000 old people dying every winter from hypothermia,the thousands dying from asbestosis, MRSA, falls in the home?
People will always die on the roads whether it is from exceeding a speed limit or bad driving. Wasting money is silly on needless speed limit signs when it could be better channeled into schemes which are more likely to save MORE lives.
Report abuse
Brian 2 (17) To a degree you are absolutely right but then following your argument to its logical conclusion we’d identify the largest killer, let’s say it is cancer (I’m guessing) and we would put 100% of public money into fighting that.
In reality public money is split into many areas to tackle many issues. Your argument (12) is much more sensible – spend the road sign money on other road related issues that cause more deaths.
But going back to the issue of speed. I don’t care what anyone says, speeding is bad and people should be stopped. Hide speed cameras I say. How many fines will people pay before deciding to change their driving habits?
Report abuse
Brian2 @ 11 > Are you sure you’ve got that right?
I know Montana got rid of rural speed limits, but I never heard of any state that ditched urban limits. Surely that would be madness? Limits in the countryside and then as fast as you want in the towns.
BTW, the Montana experiment was interesting. They *did* achieve a reduction on deaths on rural roads, but the main reason for this is that the police were given full discretion to decide what was dangerous and drivers soon learnt that although there were no limits, it was best to drive more even slower than the previous lmits dictated because police were interpreting almost anything faster than 5 MPH BELOW the previous limits as “dangerous” rather than “speeding”, so fines were much harsher and handed out more often.
Wouldn’t work here though; government and councils seem to feel that the best way to reduce speeding is to stick a highly-visible camera up on a post rather than actively manage speed-restricted zones. Lazy, I suppose – they get good revenue from them, so why bother doing anything else?
Time for us to have elected Sheriffs to aim local law resources at areas where the electorate want it and not where they don’t?
Report abuse
We have just heard we are to get a speed limit in our village of 30, coming down from 60. I think it’s great, life will be easier and safer. It’s a busy village with two schools and we see plenty of accidents because of bad and fast driving.
Report abuse
Jeff,
let’s hope that you speed reduction does stop bad driving and reduces the number of accidents that you see. What village would that be just out of interest?
Report abuse
More to the point, tc, of those 330 deaths “caused” by speeding, it does not differentiate between those deaths where breaking the posted speed limit was contributory, and those that were directly causative.
Bear in mind that, of the 14% killed by breaking the speed limit, some would have been as a result of thieves / burglars / joy-riders / insurance cheats etc trying to evade the police. So the actual figure of road deaths caused by normal, everyday drivers, breaking the speed limit could be as low as 5%. So that’s 118 per year.
Last year over 3,600 people died from “falls”. So are we going to start campaigning for all clothes to be fitted with front and rear airbags?
Sorry, but accidents will always happen and – considering the number of vehicle km driven each year in this country – 118 deaths is probably not unexpected nor avoidable, short of banning motorised transport altogether.
Report abuse
Brain 2,
Yes you are right that should have read as RURAL limits not Urban. I’m not sure which state it was as it was an article I read about a year ago. If I remember rightly, it said that when they scrapped the “no urban speed limits” the accident rate went UP again.
I also read a report from British Columbia, which stated that the drivers who have fewest accidents are the ones who drive slightly over the limit and the drivers most likely to have accidents are the ones who drive quite a bit UNDER the limit.
Report abuse
Administrtors note…Re comment 23, again “no urban limits” should read “no RURAL limits”
Report abuse
“Sorry, but accidents will always happen and – considering the number of vehicle km driven each year in this country – 118 deaths is probably not unexpected nor avoidable”
No they won’t and yes they are avoidable! There is always a cause for accidents and nearly all can be avoided. Speed is a factor in accidents – it is down to how they are recorded. For example if someone pulled out in front of me and I can’t stop and kill them – that will be the recorded cause of the accident. however my excess speed would be a factor. It is extremely disingenuous to say that speed isn’t the primary cause so should be disregarded.
Just as a point of interest – if one of those 330 deaths caused by speeding was your wife / husband or your child would you be on here opining that they may be dead but at least you can pay for the funeral because your taxes weren’t spent on trying to stop people speeding in the first place?? No – thought not.
Report abuse
In the US, the Police & Sherrif’s Departments are able to issue on the spot fines for excessively poor driving, including broken lights, failure to use signals, failure to produce Driving Licences (an arrestable offence in many states) & going even 1mph faster than the reduced limits (15 or 20mph) near schools.
It seems to do the trick in that it stings offenders of the small issues in the pocket, leaving the bigger things to be dealt with in Court, a civic authority that needs some pressure easing.
If we adopted a similar stance here, then we may see similar responses as there, not to mention it raises more revenue to invest in the regions they are collected in.
(And as for the under-aged drinking laws in this country, well US women consider it a compliment to be carded i.e. asked for photo ID. Establishments are often closed down if they break the rules here so again, something we could learn from perhaps)
Report abuse