Well, the local council, which amounts to much the same thing.

A year ago, the council got a bee in its bonnet about introducing a 20mph speed limit on our estate loop road and all the roads leading off it. The main argument put forward was that this would reduce the number of accidents on the road, particularly around two junior schools.

I was opposed to this for a number of reasons, including:

• There have been no accidents on this road since at least 2001
• Speeds are already effectively restricted by road humps, and at the schools, one-car chicanes
• Traffic is controlled at the schools by crossing attendents at school entry and exit times
• Speed enforcement is impossible without either a police presence or the installation of police cameras
• A lack of clarity about the extents of 20mph areas

Nonetheless I expected to come home one day to find 20mph signs up at the end of the road.

Imagine my amazement to receive a letter a couple of days ago stating that although those opposed to the idea were in a 40:60 minority, the council had decided *not* to proceed; the limit will remain at 30mph. There was apparently an insufficient majority to justify the change. The council will be repairing the existing traffic calming measures, some of which are in a dreadful state and keep the local garages busy replacing wishbones.

I'm happy about this - not because I'm opposed to speed restrictions where necessary, but because there are, in my humble opinion, far too many cases where 'a lower speed limit' is seen as a cureall for symptoms which may not exist.

There are too many roads, for example, which have previously been derestricted but are now a hodgepodge of 40, 50, and 60mph limits without any rhyme or reason. It is as if the purpose of a road - to allow someone to get from A to B - has been forgotten...

So by all means support 20mph zones and the like where they're useful - where kids are playing in the street, on residential zones which are used as rat runs, where there are frequent accidents attributable to the higher limt (as opposed to accidents where the driver has been moving faster than the limit: if he won't slow down to a higher limit, why would he slow for a lower?) - but fight against creeping restrictions without benefit!

/rant

My road in Cambridge has a 20mph limit but people (mostly in “white vans”) regularly do 40+mph and I’ve never seen any enforcement. In these cases, I think the limit just gives a false sense of security.

I’m glad I was sitting down when I read the bit that your council actually listened to you

It was quite a shock to me, too!

Its nice to see a sensible solution and views taken on board rather than the metric "Speed kills"
Speed limits are as good as there ability to be enforced, adding ambaguity to the mix does not help but rather build a divide and resentment to the authority.

The council is supposed to be an agent to the people, seems that role was forgotten a long time ago

If the same council provided better protection for sort of pedestrians in the zone to which you refer, I would support your view more Neil.

It scares the life out of me walking around here with my kids - on and off the "ring" road. My toddler is never allowed to stray off of our drive and the teenagers and constantly warned of the dangers, when on the odd occasion that a driver has an exhaust quieter than mine

Drivers may see a 20mph limit as a better indication of the sorts of hazards that exist within them, especially if the "Speed Kills" and "School" signs obviously don't.

Is it your opinion that there have been no accidents or is that supported by council statistics as that surprises me? Again, given that I have witnessed several in the 10 months I have been back, albeit only one had an ambulance in attendance.

You must keep 'em all round your end, Rich!

I agree with you - there is a severe inconsistency in the way the footpaths are laid out. They don't go where the people actually want to go, at least around our way.

I think it’s probably the roundabout and the fact that people don’t too many houses coming up the slope.

Little do they know the school and park entrance is within 100 yards.

I’ll keep them round here for sure if it keeps your end slower and safer.

I don’t know what would help to be honest, but probably not a 20mph sign.

That was my main point in the objections: not that vehicles didn't need controlling speed but that a global 20mph limit was the way to do it.

20mph speed limits have in some instances increased the accident rate but that doesn't get much widespread publicity, I haven't managed to find any reference to it on the BBC but there is something here - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/12/17/20mph-limit-dangerous-costly-reverse-council-admits/

I'm finding it hard to believe that a man with a van and a spanner, to go around the zone removing 20mph signs, will cost £800k.

The blase nature of most public bodies - no idea the 'cost' of things or how to balance the books. TBF the material costs of loads of signs will be included in the £800k, but surely there is a stock of 30's which were removed for the 20's?

But the 30 is implicit; no need for signs. They need only remove any 20 signs, and perhaps burn some text off the roads. They can leave any road calming measures in place.

That is a good point, provided the 30 was correct for the roads initially and not artificially low to suit an agenda.