On Sat, 5 Aug 2006 11:04:23 +0100, James Grabowski wrote
National speed limit yes, LOCAL speed limit, no
What I suggest is that given the option of having a 30mph limit (as would normally be the case) and paying for it out of local funds, vs having a 20mph limit as part of a 'traffic calming scheme' and having the government pay for it - it's fairly obvious that councils are going to jump at the opportunity.
Justifications based on SAFETY considerations will get thrown out of the window (or rather, will be skillfully made up from the statistics available) if it means getting it for nowt !
So you admit that whether speed limits are put in place or not is a financial decision ? Clearly, if the local council thought that the speed limit was worth paying for then they would have done it - the fact that they didn't suggests that whilst it may be beneficial, it wasn't considered worth the money.
Who's saying that people didn't want any limit ? There are always people wanting restrictions, particularly speed limits. I'm sure that there's a small but vociferous minority who still wouldn't be happy if they brought back the red flags !
A better analogy would be you looking at the front of your house and thinking that it could do with a lick of paint - but it can wait for the time being, it's not that bad. Now, if someone came along and offered to completely repaint it for you free of charge, but in a different shade of yellow to what you would have chosen yourself, then who is likely to say no ?
So I still maintain that most of these villages would still have no local limit, and a few would just have 30 limits, if it weren't for central government offering cash incentives. As such, they are political speed limits, not safety justified speed limits.
