|
|
|
A FAIR DEAL FOR THE MOTORIST |
RESIDENTS REJECTED BOROUGH-WIDE 20MPH1
|
IN THE
CONSULTATION, 55% DID NOT SUPPORT THE
COUNCIL. OUR VIEWS MUST BE RESPECTED. THIS WEBPAGE RELATES TO A PAST CAMPAIGN. . |
|||
|
NEARLY BOROUGH-WIDE 20MPH or ‘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). (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.) LBH&F has now adopted a slightly
watered-down proposal, details below. 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 to be keeping 'a manifesto commitment'2 (‘20mph on all
residential roads’, including main roads, as these have dwellings) and 'listening'
(and thus going for a cut-down version)? Both could only be true if it is intending to goes
ahead with some roads first and the remaining ones later. The contradictions
were explored in a letter to the Council leader (Page 3), who has since stated “The cabinet paper provides full details of
exactly what the council will now do. That is exactly what we will stick to
and we will not do anything other than stick to that.” If he is correct, then
it falls short of the ‘manifesto commitment’. If the climbdown is 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’ The ‘Cabinet Paper’ is effectively several
documents,
including a Report
(spin warning on claims like 20mph limits could speed up journey times – a
resident has found the opposite!) and Appendices, such as a map. LBHF’s preferred approach (Option
Two) is to Impose 20mph
limits on all side-streets. Impose 20mph
limits, ‘at least on a trial basis’, 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). (While not covering all residential
roads, it does cover the odd ‘industrial’ road like Mitre Way W10 - and
presumably roads like Ariel Way W12 and Depot Road W12 as ‘side roads’.) 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 notes
there are costs for sign
maintenance ‘within the existing budget’. 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 March 2016
relating to a past campaign. Click here for the
‘saferhandf’ webpage addressing the original borough-wide 20mph proposal, and
here for
the interim webpage after the 26 Feb 2016 PR. 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. 2.
There
seems to have been some confusion, or at least inconsistency, in LBHF circles
in referring to the ‘proposal’, as correspondence
shows. Abridged for brevity and privacy. |
|
Campaign index |
‘Fair Deal’ home page |
How you can help |
