A FAIR DEAL FOR THE MOTORIST

 

 

 

 

RESIDENTS REJECTED BOROUGH-WIDE 20MPH

  LBHF-20BeSlow-sm-2203.JPG

IN THE CONSULTATION, 55% DID NOT SUPPORT

THE COUNCIL. ‘SUPPORT’ HAS HAD TO BE HYPED.

 

 

WE CAN STILL STOP THE DAFT WIDE-AREA 20MPH SCHEME (AND

THE PROSPECT OF EVEN MORE DAMAGING SPEED HUMPS)

LB Hammersmith & Fulham (LBHF) ran a totally one-sided - and almost certainly illegal - consultation. Its propaganda drive was paid for out of money extracted from council tax payers. Even so, only 45% of those responding supported the proposal.

 

In 2015, a TV film crew that interviewed several people in the borough found nobody who would support it. Even every cyclist was opposed, and local views expressed were often quite strong!

 

Yet LBHF went ahead – interestingly with an Experimental Traffic Order – one that can be undone if enough people show their opposition. Officially objections were to be received by 5 March 2017, but with any subsequent modifications then out to similar public consultation. Every objection counts. Ideally please write in saying you want the 20mph scheme scrapped, and copy us in - for instance, emailing:

To:          nick.boyle@lbhf.gov.uk;

Copy:      saferhf30@btinternet.com

Subject:   Objection to Traffic Management Order no. 1283 (20mph)

 

NB You must write to the Chief Transport Planner for this. (If you prefer to do this by post/personal delivery, please use his full name and address: Nick Ruxton-Boyle, Chief Transport Planner, Transport and Highways, Environment Services, Town Hall Extension, King Street, Hammersmith, W6 9JU.)

 

 

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’.

— Make sure that ‘Traffic Management Order no. 1283’ is clearly mentioned.

— You might choose to adapt a few of the ideas below, but please don’t copy the text in full. Please use your own words for best effect.

 

 

Some immediately-relevant ideas:

 

— 20mph is an unnaturally low speed. 30mph is the legal speed limit for built up areas in most of the country.

 

— It is wrong to criminalise safe driving.

 

— It is unreasonable for drivers to get a fine for driving at a safe speed, even under 25mph. This already stands to happen on Shepherds Bush Green, Hammersmith Road and Old Oak Road, where there are cameras.

 

(Please note that we have never said that LBHF benefits financially. All speed camera fines go to central government. As local councils get wider funding from central government it is understandable that some make a connection.)

 

— If it’s safe to drive at 30mph on roads like Fulham Palace Rd, Wandsworth Bridge Rd and Scrubs Lane, then it should be as safe to drive at the same speed on roads like King Street, Peterborough Rd or Askew Rd.

 

— When approached, LBHF failed to provide accident statistics justifying a lower limit. Speed wasn’t a factor in even 1% of the accidents studied. Effort should instead have been put into addressing the real causes of accidents.

 

— Bad laws create disrespect for the law, which can’t be good for society. There is evidence that drivers are just ignoring the badly-set limits when they can. Rather than waste money on enforcing them with more speed humps and the like, LBHF should scrap the experimental scheme.

 

 

 

Some other things you might bear in mind:

 

— The extra 20mph and 30mph signs give a cluttered look to our streets.

 

— The funding comes out of money extracted from Council Tax payers. Even if LBHF claims it is from the GLA, it is still levied on our Council Tax bills. This is money that could be spent on things that the public actually wants like more police or keeping the price of our tube fares and travelcards down.

 

— The GLA claims to be short of money, and the Mayor has let some fares rise. It has also been reported that the GLA levy on our Council Tax bills is due to rise in April 2017.

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/transport/tfls-90m-income-shortfall-may-ruin-sadiq-khan-fares-freeze-pledge-a3462556.html

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/mayor/revealed-tfl-told-sadiq-khan-cost-of-freezing-all-fares-would-be-just-132-million-extra-a3447156.html

 

— Yet in an obscure document, LBHF says it’s getting ready to spend another £300,000 of your money out of £1,000,000 – yes a million – in total on a scheme that hardly anyone wants.

 

(Source: Cabinet Public Reports Pack, 5 Dec 2016, p155, section on

‘Integrated Transport Programme 2017/18’, 20mph extension project,

http://democracy.lbhf.gov.uk/documents/g4498/Public%20reports%20pack%2005th-Dec-2016%2019.00%20Cabinet.pdf?T=10 )

…further features to encourage compliance with the new speed limits.”

 

Traffic calming anyone? Vehicle and property-damaging speed bumps in your road?

 

Very strange from a ruling group that claims to want to be “fairer to motorists”!

http://gallery.mailchimp.com/f29e63ad0717fb2c8bb51fe61/files/5d4e2853-a38b-4ffa-ad4d-e87126e2425f.pdf

 

— The local police have been reluctant to enforce the new limits; many people would see far better uses of their time.

 

— The Highway Code requires drivers to drive according to the conditions, so the lowered limit should be totally unnecessary. Truly dangerous driving can be prosecuted at any speed.

 

— By forcing local learner drivers to crawl at no more than 20mph, the scheme will largely deny them the opportunity for (legal) full use of gears and ill-prepare them both for their test and driving in most of the country. Were their needs ever considered?

 

— Council Leader Stephen Cowan assured on 13 March 2016 that the scheme would go no further than the document that exempted about 20 stretches of road (current exemptions listed here). There must be no extension of 20mph limits on roads such as Fulham Palace Rd, Hammersmith Rd, Uxbridge Rd and Scrubs Lane.

 

— The scheme is politics-for-show, and more about appeasing the 20’s Plenty campaign than responding to any ‘demand’ from local people. It diverts effort that should be spent on educating some road users to take due care, particularly those glued to their mobile phone or headphones. Statistics showed that not taking due care - rather than speed - is a more common factor.

 

— The Cabinet Public Reports Pack (link above, p158) implies that the new 20mph limit has obviously not cured the casualties caused by pedestrians just stepping out around the street market in North End Rd. So LBHF's outline 'solution' to that seems to be to want to restrict traffic during certain hours – why not proper road user education instead of aggravating congestion elsewhere?

 

 

 

 

 

 

IF YOU DON’T WANT THIS, PLEASE OBJECT WHILE YOU CAN,

AND WATCH OUT FOR FURTHER NEWS AND CONSULTATIONS   

Click here for information on LBHF’s original proposal.  

 

Feedback and suggestions may be sent to saferhf30 ‘AT’ btinternet.com

 

 

 

 

 

ABD manifesto

Campaign index

 

Justice for over-taxed motorists

 ‘Fair Deal’ home page

 

 

Get involved

How you can help