Oh dear. Unfortunately yet another ill thought out, knee jerk, blanket proposal to excuse bad driving. This, and the proposed 50 mph rural limit, cannot and do not address what they aim to do.
Road deaths are a tragedy and nobody would say we shouldn't aim to eliminate them everywhere we can but this logic must ultimately take us back 100 years and require us to drive preceded by a person waving a red flag unless we quickly and decisively accept the folly of it.
Road deaths are reduced by better driving standards and less distractions to the driver, not reducing speeds. Speed does not kill, bad driving does. Every government study that I've seen, and that's quite a few, concludes that speed alone is only responsible for between 3 and 5% of death and injury accidents on our roads. All the rest are down to bad driving where exceeding the speed limit may, or may not, have been evident. Research also shows that there are too many signs, road markings and obstacles on our roads taking a huge percentage of a drivers concentration away from the act of driving. Let's start campaigning against them... Too many are complacent about drivers using mobile phones while driving, even those who do not do so personally. Once people were complacent abut drunk driving - not any more (rightly). We need the same public attitude to those who drive with a mobile phone clamped to their ear.
Reducing speeds generically increases congestion (think fluid dynamics), bunches up traffic - therefore making it more difficult for traffic to cross or join the flow without a concertina effect, INCREASES both pollution and fuel consumption where a vehicles gearing means the reduced speed is taken below the peak torque revs (which this speed will), increases frustration in some (often inexperienced) drivers which, while not excusable, can make them attempt inadvisable actions and, when in fear of the consequences, one drives to the speedometer (typically reading 10% fast anyway so currently when a driver sits on an indicated 30 they are only doing 27) and not road conditions/traffic flow, takes another degree of concentration off the job of driving safely. And let us not forget, those drivers who exceed the current 30 mph limit when and how they can now, will ignore a 20 mph limit even more so. Therefore the pain/inconvenience is felt, as usual with these stupid ideas, by the conscientious, law abiding, driver not those who are the real danger on the roads.
How many road casualties does "Living Street" suggest this move will eliminate please? Percentages are all well and good but reducing the limit on residential streets will not reduce total traffic casualties by 60% as stated in the original post. It may reduce casualties on residential streets by 60% but how many residential street casualties are there in Stockport at the moment? 60% of not much, or 60% of how many?
?? I'm also keen to hear the answer to the rovers excellent question - what is a residential street? oh, and why has this "transition" now become 20 mph when for years it was 30? Having said that, why isn't it 10mph - I'd rather not get hit by a car even at 20 if it's all the same to you....
20 mph limits outside schools, possible also sections of (but needn't be all) "rat runs", and at a push dead ends, but 30 mph outside my house, without question nothing other than a residential street, is fine with me - I'll take responsibility for my 2 year old with no road sense thank you.
