20mph zones save lives

12:03pm Tuesday 20th March 2007

Comments (0)   Have your say »

I AM writing in response to your article (March 5) entitles proposal is an absolute joke'.

As you rightly state, Brake is supportive of the Bill which Mark Hunter MP has co-sponsored. The reasons for this are as follows: Analysis of existing 20mph zones has shown an average 60 per cent decrease in the total number of crashes, and a 67 per cent decrease in crashes involving children. The number of crashes involving cyclists also fell, by 27 per cent.

In 2003 the Health Development Agency called for a reduction in the speed limit to 20 mph on residential streets. It estimated that would reduce child deaths and injuries by a massive 67 per cent - or 13,000 children - each year.

Lowering the speed limit would save lives. It would reduce the number of pedestrians and cyclists being hit, and wouldincrease the chance of survival for those who are hit. This is a very powerful reason by the Bill that Mr Hunter supports should be introduced.

Your article, which from your title we might assume is not in favour of reducing the residential limit, appears to give the following reasons against a 20mph limit: 20mph limits are not enforceable It takes too much driver attention to maintain 20mph 20mph limits would introduce unnecessary bottlenecks in traffic, which exacerbate both vehicle and pedestrian safety.

In response to 1: There is no reason why 20mph limits should be viewed as less enforceable than 30mph limits or any other limit. The assumption you make appears to be that drivers will be more likely to break the limit if it is 20mph rather than 30mph, and that the lower limit will therefore require more enforcement. You do not give any evidence for this assumption. There is no reason to suppose that drivers will break the limit if it is 20mph any more than they will if it is 30mph. The issue of enforceing speed limits is a separate matter, and should not be used as an argument against reducing the limit.

In response to 2: Monitoring your speed and staying within the limit is a legal requirement for all drivers stipulated by the Highway Code. All competent drivers should be able to stay within the speed limit. If they are not able to do this and continue to give proper attention to the other aspects of driving , they should not be on the road. If 20mph became the residential norm, drivers would very quickly adapt to this and learn to reduce their speed to this level, in the same way they currentlty monitor their speed in accordance with the given limit on any stretch of road. The fact that crashes reduce in 20mph zones is proof that drivers are not so distracted that they cannot drive safely.

In response to 3: Evidence clearly suggests that crashes and casualties have reduced in 20mph zones. To say that 20mph zones will negatively affect vehicle and pedestrian safety is clearly in contradiction with the available facts.

Brake is completely supportive of the proposal to reduce speed limits to 20mph. The main purpose of this Bill is to reduce death and injury. We commend Mr Hunter for supporting the Bill and hope that those who read your article will see through the statements against reducing the limit, and will be able to see the potential benefits to all pedestrians and cyclist in residential areas.

Rachel Burr, Campaigns Officer, Brake