On Sat, 29 Jul 2006 22:42:49 +0100, Tommy wrote
Do you claim therefore that loads of villages round my way had no local speed limit until a few years ago ?
Do you claim that this was nothing to do with there being no perceived requirement for a local limit - or at the very least not enough of a need to warrant spending any money on it ?
Do you claim that central government did NOT offer cash to local authorities for 'traffic calming' schemes ?
Do you claim that there isn't-wasn't a corresponding rule that traffic calming could only be applied in a 20 mph limit ? Or at the very least it was a requirement of the centrally funded schemes.
Do you claim that this didn't give an incentive to local authorities to implement traffic calming as a means of imposing speed limits with central government paying all the bills ?
Do you claim that all the above had nothing whatsoever to do with so many of my local villages getting 20mph limits ?
buttuming (I believe correctly) that you can't honestly refute these statements, then it's clear that these 20mph limits were not imposed on safety grounds - though I am not claiming that there was no justification for some of the villages to have a local speed limit of some sort. The clear motive for a lot of them was simple - "if we apply this scheme we can have a speed limit and central government will pay". That's one hell of an incentive to put 20mph limits in place which makes then politically determined limits, not safety case determined.
And you accuse me of using falsehoods to support an argument !
