A FAIR DEAL FOR THE MOTORIST
This is the ‘saferhandf’ page in response to the original proposal
RESIDENTS REJECTED BOROUGH-WIDE 20MPH1
IN THE CONSULTATION, 55% DID NOT SUPPORT
THE COUNCIL. OUR VIEWS MUST BE RESPECTED.
WE CAN STILL STOP THE DAFT BOROUGH-WIDE PROPOSAL
LB Hammersmith & Fulham ran a totally one-sided 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.
LBH&F won’t respect the 55% who didn’t. In July, 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!
Opposition is likely to be even deeper than LBH&F realise. The decision is likely to be made by 8 February 2016. Every objection counts. 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: firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com;
Subject: No to 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 55% did not support the proposal.
Finally, to download a PDF of our appeal to circulate to your friends, click here.
Some residents have been receiving ‘interesting’ replies to their complaints against the borough-wide 20mph proposal. Click here for more information on this and our response putting the record straight.
SUPPORTING CASUAL LAWBREAKERS, CRIMINALISING SAFE DRIVING….
Amazingly supporters want to change the law to make life easier for those that couldn’t be bothered to respect road safety laws and who senselessly step out in front of traffic. However safe drivers could then be prosecuted for doing a speed – yes, 25mph or less - that is legal in most of London and the UK.
(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 WRONG ‘SOLUTION‘ TO THE ROAD SAFETY PROBLEM
Looking through LB Hammersmith & Fulham casualty reports (2012-14), very few seem related to excess speed. Most involve lapses of attention or judgment, and sadly there are repeated cases of cyclists and pedestrians not taking due care. Your money should not be thrown at tackling the wrong problem!
‘BOROUGH-WIDE 20MPH LIMITS’ - A FALSE SENSE OF SECURITY
Sometimes a 20mph limit is justified – for instance on a weak bridge or a newly maintained road with chippings. Unfortunately some campaigners confuse slower with safer, and there is a well-orchestrated campaign to impose blanket 20mph zones in our towns and cities – regardless of need. These campaigners are sadly offering a false sense of security. Pedestrians can be killed by traffic travelling legally at 20mph – or less!
‘CREAGHZY IDEA’ WOULD BE A LICENCE TO KILL?
In 2014, Mary Creagh [briefly Labour shadow transport secretary before she was ‘moved’] shocked by saying that she wanted 20mph speed limits across the country so that children were free to "roam wild”,
20mph zones have been ‘justified’ in case pedestrians suddenly dash out. But dashing out can be very dangerous to other road users, too - particularly if it causes a pile-up or a driver to swerve and collide with an innocent person.
It should not be encouraged – it would be better to educate them in proper road safety, particularly in using designated crossing places, to prevent them being hit at any speed, with all the grief to their loved ones.
The Highway Code is quite clear on this – and the need for parental responsibility (drivers also have responsibility to take due care over other road users and adjust their speed to the conditions). In short, everyone needs to act responsibly – and we’ll have a better society if we can all show respect for each other.
‘ONE SIZE FITS ALL’ OR REAL ROAD SAFETY FOR ALL?
Norfolk’s director of environment, transport and development, Mike Jackson, stated: “Within Norfolk at present, the commitment of funds to the implementation of ‘blanket’ 20 mph schemes would not offer good value for money compared to other measures to reduce casualties.” He added: “The council should continue to prioritise schemes that target reductions in killed and serious injuries and should not divert resources to area-wide 20 mph speed restrictions. (Local Transport Today, 4.10.13)
At a time when public finances are stretched, there will be better uses of council taxpayers’ money. Rather than impose a simplistic ‘one size fits all’ solution, regardless of local conditions, transport authorities should be looking at a range of tailored measures that will make a real difference to road safety.
Accident records in Hammersmith and Fulham examined suggest that many problems are due to drivers misjudging turns or lane-changing, vehicle users being careless in opening doors, road users misjudging space, cyclists and pedestrians not taking due care….
There is no one easy ‘silver bullet’ solution, rather reduction in casualties will come from a range of tailored measures, for example:
· Improved cycle training and road safety education in schools,
· Better signage on hazards
· Reviewing the provision of pedestrian crossings
· LBHF publicity materials such as posters reminding road users to take care
· Targeted messages aimed at those with mobile phones and headphones
· Targeted messages at drivers over keeping brakes and tyres in condition
· The ground-breaking ‘Mind Driving’ approach for road users
· Lobbying central government and the GLA to do more to create a culture of responsibility for road safety and consideration for others. This should both promote positives and crack down on the few really thoughtless road users.
SAY ‘NO’ TO LBHF AND DEMAND BETTER ALTERNATIVES….
LBHF’s consultation proposals are worryingly one-sided and fail to include important information on accident statistics and costs (you will be paying for it!). LBHF has relied on glossy imagery and suggestive language to try to get residents to just nod them through. Everyone deserves better…
FOR MORE INFORMATION ON ROAD SAFETY AND SPEED LIMITS...
- “No examples found where 20mph has led to a reduction in road casualties, after accounting for national trends and traffic volume.”
*The Alliance of British Drivers was known as the Association of British Drivers before 2012.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR INTEREST AND SUPPORT
Click here for information on LBHF’s updated proposal.
Feedback and suggestions may be sent to saferhf30 ‘AT’ btinternet.com
1. On borough-run roads; excludes TFL-run A4, A40 and A3220.