Every day, I drive through the Royal Borough of Greenwich to get to work, so I experience firsthand the frustration caused by the continued expansion of 20mph speed limits across the borough. I fully support sensible road-safety measures, particularly around schools, residential streets and areas with genuinely high pedestrian risk. However, applying 20mph restrictions so broadly across Greenwich is impractical, frustrating for drivers and, in many locations, unnecessary.

For thousands of commuters, residents, businesses, bus users and emergency services, these roads are essential routes through the borough. Reducing speeds to 20mph on roads that are capable of safely carrying traffic at higher speeds inevitably increases journey times and can contribute to congestion, particularly when combined with traffic lights and existing bottlenecks.

The constant cycle of slowing down, stopping, accelerating and braking is not only frustrating — it also raises legitimate questions about the environmental impact of the policy. When traffic is forced to move more slowly and spends longer in congested, stop-start conditions, vehicles can spend more time on the road and continue producing emissions for longer. A policy intended to improve our environment should not ignore the potential consequences of increased journey times, idling and congestion.

There is also a significant question about whether this is the best use of public money. Millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money are being committed to implementing and expanding these restrictions, including new signage, road markings and associated infrastructure. As residents and taxpayers, we should be asking whether this money could deliver greater benefits elsewhere, such as repairing deteriorating roads and pavements, improving public transport, tackling congestion or investing in measures that directly address dangerous driving.

The disruption does not end with the speed limit itself. Implementing these changes requires roadworks, new signage and alterations to existing roads, potentially creating months of additional disruption and congestion while the work is carried out. Residents and commuters are therefore being asked to tolerate both the financial cost and the immediate disruption of a scheme that many do not believe addresses the problems they actually experience every day.

We agree that road safety must remain a priority. However, a lower speed limit should not automatically be treated as the solution on every road. 20mph limits can be appropriate where there is clear evidence of danger, such as outside schools, in areas with high pedestrian activity or on roads with a significant history of serious collisions. The approach should be targeted and evidence-based rather than treating an entire borough in the same way.

Greenwich should also consider whether alternative measures could achieve better results. Improved road design, clearer signage, targeted traffic-calming measures, better enforcement and investment in dangerous junctions could address genuine safety problems without unnecessarily slowing traffic across routes where a 20mph limit may have little practical benefit.

As someone who drives through Greenwich every day, I want roads that are safe — but I also want a transport policy that is practical, environmentally responsible and represents good value for taxpayers.

We are calling on the Royal Borough of Greenwich to review the expansion of 20mph speed limits, publish the evidence and full costs behind the programme, reconsider restrictions where there is no clear safety justification, and focus investment on measures that genuinely improve road safety without unnecessarily increasing congestion, emissions and disruption.

Please sign this petition and stand with residents, commuters and businesses who believe Greenwich deserves a more balanced approach to road safety  one that prioritises genuine danger, uses public money responsibly and considers the real-world impact on the people who live and work here.