|
|
|
A FAIR DEAL FOR THE MOTORIST |
RESIDENTS REJECTED BOROUGH-WIDE 20MPH1
|
IN THE
CONSULTATION, 55% DID NOT SUPPORT THE
COUNCIL. LBHF FAILED TO RESPECT OUR VIEWS. THIS
WEBPAGE RELATES TO A PAST CAMPAIGN. . |
|||
|
WE CAN STILL STOP CREEPING BOROUGH-WIDE 20MPH LB Hammersmith & Fulham ran a
totally one-sided consultation in 2015. Its propaganda drive was paid for out
of money extracted from council tax payers (‘TfL money’). Even so, only 45% of
those responding supported the proposal (details here with
some arguments to balance the LBHF propaganda). LBH&F has now produced a
slightly watered-down proposal, details of which are below. A decision is intended
to be made on 7 March 2016. Please help by briefly letting our Council Leader and Transport Cabinet Member
know you are not keen a.s.a.p, copying us in - for instance, emailing: To: stephen.cowan… wesley.harcourt…; Copy: saferhf30@ Subject: No to (nearly) borough-wide 20mph! If you feel strongly, why not copy
your ward
councillors, too? (Councillors can also be reached by
post at: Town Hall, King Street, W6 9JU, and messages left for the governing
party on 020 8753 2018.) Please be as
concise as possible and avoid ‘getting personal’. You might mention
if you live, work or own a business in the borough. You don’t need to give
any reasons, but no harm reminding them that the consultation on the original
proposal was totally rigged. (It almost certainly broke legal
guidelines by denying residents balanced information on which to decide,
so is unsound as a footing for LBHF to go-ahead. An official complaint was made
to the Director of Transport and Highways.) IS THE REVISED PROPOSAL BOROUGH-WIDE 20MPH BY STEALTH? After receiving a barrage of
complaints from unhappy residents, LBHF released a revised proposal on 26 Feb
2016. The news
release was full of spin; and is again attracting critical comments from residents
– you can give your own views. How LBHF can claim both
to be 'listening' (and thus going for less than full borough-wide 20mph) with
other assurances that borough-wide 20mph is 'a manifesto commitment' and
'will be going ahead'? Both can only
be true if it is intending to goes ahead with some roads first and the
remaining ones later. The contradictions
are explored in a letter to the Council leader (Page 3). If both statements are
true, then it makes a mockery of the claim to ‘respect’ local opinion. If the
climbdown is only tactical, then it is only paying lip service. Whichever way
you look at it, it does not convey trustworthiness. THE REVISED PROPOSAL IS SUBSTANTIALLY ‘BOROUGH-WIDE 20MPH’ There are several documents,
including a Report
(spin warning on claims like 20mph limits could speed up journey times – a
resident has found the opposite!) and a map.
LBHF’s preferred approach is to Impose 20mph
limits on all side-streets. Impose 20mph
limits on roads that might be considered ‘main roads’ or thoroughfares (e.g.) King
Street, Glenthorne Rd, Beadon Rd, Paddenswick Rd, Stamford Brook Rd, Askew
Rd, Du Cane Rd, Bloemfontein Rd, Old Oak Rd, Shepherds Bush Green, North End
Rd, Stephendale Rd, Carnwath Rd. Goldhawk
Rd, Wood Lane, Uxbridge Rd, Shepherds Bush Rd, Hammersmith Rd, Fulham Rd,
Lillee Rd,
would all be mostly 30mph but have stretches with 20mph limits. Practically only Scrubs Lane, Fulham Palace Rd, Fulham High
Street, Dawes Rd, New Kings Rd, Kings Rd, Wandsworth Bridge Rd and Putney Bridge Approach, are kept
at 30mph (plus short stretches of Wandsworth
and Putney Bridges). MAKING MONEY OR COSTING US MONEY? Traffic calming is
not being imposed as yet, but might be later with separate ‘funding from TfL’
(i.e. from the money added to our council tax bills). This is money that
could be used to keep our bills or public transport fares down – or used on
better approaches
to road safety that address the wider causes of casualties. It is claimed in
the Report that there are no other costs, although this is dubious. It contradictorily
notes there are costs for sign
maintenance. Other local authorities have identified significant costs here, and
for monitoring – with a view to implementing traffic calming measures (Paras.
1.9, 13.2, 13.3). Tucked away in the Report (Para 4.4)
is the wording “traffic calming measures are costly to implement and
maintain, and they do raise concerns about ground vibration and driver
discomfort.”
Indeed LBHF has previously admitted there
was one claim for damage a year. As yet, a request for LBHF to supply annual
costs has gone unanswered in spite of assurances of an answer in January! LBHF admits
that ‘20mph
zones’ (i.e. with ‘traffic calming’) are to ‘discourage the use of
motorised transport’ – i.e. an anti-motorist measure to stop local residents
and businesses going about their daily lives.
We have never
claimed that LBHF is out to make money
from the scheme - it is central government (the Treasury) that profits from
speed camera fines. However drivers stand to lose in other ways – fines,
points on licence and higher insurance costs from a mean-spirited speed
limit. The new limit could also be enforced
by the Community Roadwatch scheme (speed traps). Safe drivers could be
prosecuted for doing a speed – yes, 25mph or less - that is legal in most of
London and the UK. |
|||
|
THE WRONG ‘SOLUTION‘ TO THE ROAD SAFETY PROBLEM Our original campaign webpage
covers other aspects of speed limits, such as Local casualty
reports The causes of
accidents, including at low speed The Highway Code
and what all road users must do More effective
road safety measures, and our money better spent Reference material
|
|||
|
No speed limit change is necessary.
The Highway Code regards the 30mph limit as a MAXIMUM. It always requires
drivers to adapt their speed to the conditions, and allows for the
prosecution of anyone who drives irresponsibly.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
THANK YOU FOR YOUR INTEREST AND SUPPORT This is a legacy webpage from 29 Feb
2016 relating to a past campaign. Click here for the
‘saferhandf’ webpage addressing the original borough-wide 20mph proposal. Some residents have been receiving
‘interesting’ replies to their complaints against the original proposal.
Click here
for more information on this and our response putting the record straight. Our website will be
updated in the light of developments. Feedback and suggestions may be sent to saferhf30
‘AT’ btinternet.com Data protection note: Safeguarding privacy, |
|||
|
Footnotes 1.
On
borough-run roads; excludes TFL-run A4, A40 and A3220. |
|
Campaign index |
‘Fair Deal’ home page |
How you can help |
