Recently a "20 Is Plenty" scheme has been adopted within some areas of the Stroud District.

Whilst I entirely condone Road Safety for all road users and pedestrians I strongly believe that many of the areas where the scheme has been introduced are ill-conceived and poorly thought out.

Area's where there are roads going directly past schools make complete sense to have a 20 MPH scheme from perhaps 8:00 - 9:30 and then 2:30 - 4:30 as is the case in Australia where this idea works well, however many of these roads are not covered by the present allocation for crazy legislative reasons mentioned below.  Similarly, small residential estates where children are likely to be, and entitleed to be, playing safely should be covered as should accident black spots.

Equally, we live in an area where maintaining 20 MPH in a safe and consistent manner isn't always the easiest thing to do owing to many of the long, sharp inclines but this fact seems to have been ignored and, despite petty arguments to the contrary suggesting "dropping a gear" is the answer to all of this, you only have to observe driving habits in hilly 20 MPH areas to notice this isn't happening. 

A few other issues have come to light since this petition commenced as well which have raised eyebrows.  To list a few:

1.  Cllr Lunnon was given £10,000 of public money (you read that correctly) to use on a road safety scheme. Why local officials decided to spend this not insignificant sum of money on a scheme which is statistically shown to only lower speeds by an average of 1-2 MPH?  Walking and driving about recently, I would guess that 90%+ of drivers are simply not observing this. 

Gloucestershire County Council have growing evidence that 20 MPH zones alone in Gloucestershire aren't changing driver behaviour nor slowing down traffic unless accompanied by traffic calming.  In light of this, it seems daft to look to extend the scheme and practically it would be better to look at an alternative.

Give us some credit and if road safety is the target, give us a scheme that is proven to be fit for purpose rather than a token scheme that may very easily be construed as more of a  eco political fashion statement than being about road safety.

2.) Rather than spending the money quickly, why were other local council's not bought in so as the money could be shared and 20 MPH implemented in areas within Stroud District where the scheme would make sense and be of more benefit to people that need it?  This "cross-council agreement" would also mean a more consistent message for all road users across the Stroud District.

3.)  Why are there some areas that could use the 20 MPH limit (such as, but not limited to, around Parliament Street School) not able to have the safety zone owing to drivers currently driving too fast to be expected to adjust to 20 MPH.  This is madness (and it frustrates local Councillors as much as me to be fair) as it means that an area where people need road safety can't have it as it would be too big a change for the people driving quickly in the existing 30 MPH zone, whereas in areas where people are generally abiding by the 30 MPH limit, their roads can be reduced to 20 MPH as it's a smaller adjustment?  Simply ludicrous!

4.) Local councillors argue that drivers will be able to distinguish that 20 MPH isn't a safe speed to drive at in some residential housing estates despite it bearing 20 MPH signs (I for one believe that 20 MPH is too fast in some of these areas).  Surely, this is completely contradictory to her argument that us motorists don't possess the common sense to drive safely within a 30 MPH zone?

5.)  As a Father of two, I am frankly very concerned by the messages that are publicly being given out by our Councillors in all of this.  They say that drivers must be more aware and alert in order to offer pedestrian's and cyclists more courtesy and protection on the road.  Now, i'm sorry but surely everybody must be educated to have an equal share of respect for other road users be they pedestrians, cyclists or motorists.  To suggest otherwise will potentially lead us into a scenario of sterile complacency where cyclists and pedestrians unwittingly have it instilled in them that they can be less diligent and courteous on the road than motorists and if anything happens, it's likely the motorist will be to blame.  Sadly, in the long run, this may well have the reverse of the desired effect of increased road safety and lead to more accidents.

Within all of this, of course, Road Safety must be paramount.  I acknowledge that a pedestrian hit at 20 MPH is statistically far more likely to survive than one hit at 30 MPH. 

However this stastic hides an undoubtable and unfortunate truth.  As mentioned above, the implementation of 20 mph zones will increase the perception that, in residential areas, 20 mph is always safe. This is manifestly untrue, and many fatal collisions occur with impact speeds well below 20 mph. On any typical urban journey, maximum safe speeds will vary from close to zero mph to 30 or even a little above, a crucial point that is undermined by the “stick to 20” message.

It is a commonplace argument, but nonetheless containing much truth, that an alert driver who varies his speed up to 30 mph where safe to do so is likely to be safer than one who sticks rigidly to 20, but pays little attention to the driving task. By apparently reducing safe driving to a number, the widespread use of 20 mph limits is likely to erode drivers’ ability to select safe and appropriate speeds.

There is already some limited evidence that the average severity of pedestrian injuries from accidents in 20 mph zones is greater than that in 30 mph areas, suggesting that distraction and inattention are coming into play.  It should also be remembered that around 25% of child pedestrian fatalities result from reversing manouevres, where observation is the key factor, and the actual speed is likely to be under 5 mph. This is a sad reminder that no speed can ever be regarded as absolutely safe, and an over-emphasis on “magic numbers” such as 20 mph or 30 kph (as is the case in European countries that have adopted this scheme) may be counter-productive. 

Of course any speed limit is likely to be ignored by a small, irresponsible minority often characterised as “boy racers”. But this will happen whether the limit is 20 or 40, and surely this problem is better dealt with by targeted enforcement and re-education rather than by making the generality of responsible drivers suffer through restrictions that are in any case ineffective in deterring the offenders. It’s about as logical as banning alcohol because some people drive when drunk.

In summary, I firmly believe that, whilst well intended, this scheme has not been properly thought through by our Councillors prior to implementation and I would urge you to support this petition to amend it so as it only applies in residential side streets where children are likely to be playing, accident blackspots or in areas directly surrounding schools across the Stroud District rather than a blanket 20 MPH limit in areas where it is both impractical and serves no genuine purpose.