by chrisl » Fri Aug 14, 2015 8:07 pm
Alasdair,
Thank you for your thoughtful reply. Hope you don't mind me interspersing answers?
the problem is the contradictions in what he says - no-one on here believes that education alone is the answer (though conceptually it might be, but not in reality) - equally folks on here seem to suport 20mph limits - the issue is that he claims at one point that it is all about appropriate limits, but clearly at other points that they want a default 20mph approach - which is logically not sensible or practical...
At the moment, the default is 30mph and we argue about appropriateness from that point. Rod is arguing that the default should be 20 and we start the argument about appropriateness from there. This was confirmed earlier in the thread when I put it to Rod that his term "redefining the reference point" meant setting up a rebuttable presumption. That is not the same thing as a blanket policy, which of course would imply unchallengeable. Rod has also confirmed elsewhere that his use of the word "default" is deliberate and in contrast to the word "blanket." Unless he is truly acting in bad faith I think we should accept that he is using those terms as he claims.
I suspect that he started his campaign with a good idea - to look at encouraging more 20mph areas, however it doesn't appear to be a fully thought through campaign, and he seems at times to be lost in his own rhetoric... probably there is also a difficulty in stepping back from a very simplistic campaign to anything more thoughtful and detailed...
I don't think Rod has denied being focused on the issue of 20mph limits, but as I said above I don't think that is to the detriment of other potentially helpful things. Favouring a particular policy does not mean inevitably opposing others or that one is acting to their detriment.
it is a shame really because to have that energy working with a little more logic to the application could be very constructive - it would be awesome to for example map the country with volunteers looking at a wide range of options to make communities safer and more usable for all users - from road furniture such as chicanes etc. to speed limits, to road design, to warning lights, etc. etc. - there is a whole range of options
I agree a holistic approach would be beneficial. No one element has all the answers, but then focusing on one element does not imply the others have no value.
however this campaign seems to think that the only option is to make the country 20mph - only... there is no interest in education, it is all about oppressive legislation, and is very anti car - in everything he discusses it is hypothetical and from a non motoring perspective... while that rosy 1930s dream is very aspirational it is not at all realistic - we have a world where the motorcar needs to be used, we have to balance all users' needs - yet he lives in a world of ervy residential street / urban area full of 75 year olds and children continually popping backwards and forwards across the road...
That's one perception of Rod's campaign. I don't share it, but there may be ways that it could be expressed that would diminish the likelihood of that impression being formed.
during this week I have been primarily sat at my computer with a window over a large stretch of the high street in our village, I have seen less than half a dozen children (school holidays and a very family based village) on the pavement in 5 days - and two on bikes (on the pavement)... as I look out now there is no traffic, no pedestrians, no horses, no 75 year olds, no children playing in the road, no cattle, no livestock, no wild animals, can't even see a snail crossing... yet his campaign would make the default speed limit 20mph - why?!
Possibly. It depends on the definition of residential area, which I'm unclear on myself. Nevertheless, the framework that Rod has outlined leaves the default open to challenge. The practical possibility of that would be down to the local authority's policy on consultation, ultimately backed up at the voting booth next time or by judicial review.
The only way he can answer that 'why' is to say that xyz might happen - reality need not be relevant...
Collision and injury stats have formed one of the major planks of Rod's campaign. I realise in some of the answers above he was talking about strictly hypotheticals, but effectiveness or otherwise of limits, engineering, enforcement cameras and other interventions can only be extrapolated from previous results, but at least they do have some basis in reality.
Chris