The Driver's Site for the East Midlands

Welcome to Drivers' Union East Midlands.
Our Mission: Better road safety at lower cost. No unnecessary delay or slowing of road transport. No unnecessary or unjust prosecution of safe drivers.

Motorists & Drivers' Union is at

For specific topics click the appropriate label (above).

Search This Blog

Sunday, 10 January 2010

30 for a reason? For this you lose a license?

This is a sample of a Statement of Reasons for a new speed limit. The whole of it is in the black type.
Ahead of the van is the claimed 'busy junction'

So blasé are the authorities, because they know you the public are not reading their notices to look at these things, this is all they do now to get speed limits through. And then have the cheek to say it's '30 for a reason'.

Now project this all over the country and what we have is a national speed limit policy based on nothing more scientific than a local parochial councillor's wish and for this you can be prosecuted? Lose your job? Your marriage? Your family?
Click image to enlarge.

When are we to get up and oppose all this big time?


  1. The statement of reasons:
    1. Investigations have been carried out...
    There has most probably been a detailed investigation by the highways engineering staff at the council. There is no reason to reproduce the whole report for the council chamber, a summary, as shown in 1. is quite enough for them. Do you believe that the council officials have concocted a story without the evidence supporting their statement on this briefing sheet? Hardly so.

    2. Introduce a 50mph speed limit to improve safety...
    Not an unreasonable proposal when the problem is at a junction. Slower speeds will reduce the potential energy that is given up in a collision and will give drivers more time to react if need be.
    It is likely that a reduction of 10mph in the speed limit will have a corresponding reduction in average speeds at the location. The science is well established.

    3. The CC has been consulted...
    Similar to 1 above, if there were issues these would be detailed. A simple statement here shows to the council chamber the procedures have been followed. There is no requirement for a lot of detail to be listed or annexed to the statement.

    It all looks to be perfectly normal and acceptable.

    Is there a conspiracy to defraud the council chamber or is it simply that the fear of the unknown and vested interest in wanting speed limits to be kept high that is influencing your interpretation here?

    The idea that there is skulduggery afoot in the council is quite fantastic and perhaps irrational.

  2. The statement and the conditions are real and speak for themselves Bob. I have not suggested 'conspiracy' or 'skuduggery' that clearly is in your mind. Now bear in mind that from this people can lose their licences, their jobs, their families, their kids over this, are you seriously trying to tell the readers that this is good enough? And what exactly is the 'special qualification' of a parochial councillor in driving or road safety for these officials to be complying to the aspiration? What is their qualification exactly? But it is not the fault of the Highways officials, they have no axe to grind. It is the public's fault for not following the adverts and notices and demanding much much more justification and honesty. I am glad you confirm that this is 'normal' well it bloody well shouldn't be Bob is the point. Finally when someone turns personal. attributes, falsely remarks like 'conspiracy' 'irrational' then that is someone losing the debate Bob.

  3. If you had been involved in council chambers when they have a speed limit to consider you would know it is incredibly difficult to have a speed limit changed. Changes, in my experience, are well founded and far from arbitrary and frivolous. I'm not saying that it is impossible for them to be so but they would be incredibly rare. The form you have illustrated is the normal level of detail shown to a politician for they know what work and process has gone on behind it; it is not an indication of scant or undue process.
    People can indeed loose their licences when they don't observe a speed limit then get caught, on more than one occasion (4 usually); why is that unreasonable? I would say we need to address the issue of drivers who repeatedly, not once or twice, fail to observe the speed limit. More importantly, that is their look out.

  4. Well, were the public to take note of the expensive adverts and survey the limits as I do, and no councillor does, then the Chamber would have even more difficulty. What expertise do councillors have of driving and road safety by the way? The fact is even the most outragious limits are being allowed through on the nod.

    Re your last point: The limits should be reasonable, (with reason) first. Yet time and time again there is not even any accident history at the site on investigation. All that unjustified speed limits do is actually create more 'speeders'because the 85%tile rule, which was scientific was based on a speed most drivers were comfortable with was dropped. However some speed limit orders will cause crashes elsewhere but that won't figure in the results at that site because they are elsewhere. But how many lives are lost in this country from the economic knock on effect of slowing transport for every one mile per hour? Our figures are about £2+ billion pounds for each 1MPH. Don't councillor's brains think that far because that should be raised too in the Chamber don't you think?