April 24 Combined - Flipbook - Page 22
Hayling Herald Letters
20mph limit ‘is a distraction’
Dear Editor,
IN recent editions of the Herald there have
been a number of articles regarding a 20 mph
on Hayling Island.
It would be nice if you could publish an alternative view of the matter.
I find it very worrying that people make statements without an understanding of the facts
associated with road safety. As long as we as a
society choose to travel by some form of mechanical means, be it land, sea or air, there will
be accidents and casualties.
Our function is to reduce those causalities to
the lowest number possible.
Let’s look at some facts. There are 195 different
countries on this planet and the UK enjoys some
of the safest roads in the world. Our roads are in
the top five safest roads in the world.
If you take fatalities relative to per head of population then only Norway, Sweden and Iceland
has safer roads than us. France has a similar size
population to us, for instance in 2022 France had
3,260 road fatalities, the UK 1711 fatalities. This
gives some indication of the size of our problem.
Over the past 23 years, road casualties within
the UK have fallen dramatically. In the year 2000
the number of road fatalities was 3409 all accidents 317,000 injuries. The figures for 2022 was
1711 and 160,378. A dramatic fall but still too
many.
Let’s look at the reasons for accidents on our
roads. If you ask people what is the biggest single
cause of accidents most people will say speeding.
According to government statistics the number
one reason is failing to pay attention at 43% of all
accidents – roads are a dangerous place.
If we all pay more attention to what we do then
casualties would fall significantly.
Let’s look at costs and how we value saving
lives. A blanket 20mph on Hayling Island would
cost a substantial six figure sum. It’s not just a
case of changing the signs, there are other costs.
Who would pay for all this, the local taxpayers?
Look at the case in Wales, they have just spent
34 million pounds on a 20mph speed limit across
Wales.
In 2021 there were 92 road fatalities in Wales.
Also in Wales there were 322 deaths because of
drug abuse. There is a drug epidemic in Cardiff
and Swansea and people working to control this
problem cannot get funding.
Also, there were 472 deaths because of alcohol
abuse. 28% of children in Wales live in poverty
and it’s been that way for over 15 years. If you
had £34m to spend on saving lives, how would
you spend it? Not a speed limit, that is going to
make little or no difference. If you doubt any of
my figures, carry out a search for yourself.
At the moment within our area a 20mph is
sensibly imposed on high risk roads and I don’t
think any one would disagree with that.
But if I could help a child out of poverty or
rehabilitate a drug addict, that would be a better way of saving casualties, not a 20mph limit
which is itself a distraction and a potential cause
of accidents.
We only have a finite amount of tax payers
money and spending it on a 20mph limit is a
totally ineffective way of saving lives.
Yours sincerely,
Robert Busby,
St Catherine’s Road
20mph debate rages on Quangos / bureaucrats
Dear Editor
THE title of Richard North’s Herald
letter last month says it all, ‘Do the
majority of motorists actually want
20mph limits?’
20mph limits aren’t for motorists,
they’re for the over 50% who aren’t
motorists – children, the elderly, the disabled, people who can’t
drive, can’t afford or don’t need a
car. Plus the many motorists who
want to walk or cycle more often
to keep fit, and reduce traffic and
pollution.
With our poor health pandemic
and the strains on the NHS, we
need to encourage safe walking and
cycling. In Northney, people are
driving a couple of hundred yards
to church, because they’re scared to
walk.
It turns out the majority do want
20mph limits in residential streets,
according to the British Social
Attitude Surveys and the National
Travel Attitudes Study, by about
22
70-14.
The Welsh petition against
20mph that Richard quotes got the
support of 16% of Welsh adults,
slightly more than 14%.
Did you know it was signed by
people from all over the world?
And that you could vote multiple
times? And that it told untruths?
Every year, around 66 Londoners are alive and healthy because
of 20mph limits and low-traffic
neighbourhoods, who were killed
or maimed on their roads before.
We all like what we know. Initial opposition to 20mph and Low
Traffic Neighbourhoods almost
always turns to massive support
once people see how it makes their
neighbourhood nicer to live in.
Is a few seconds delay getting
to your next traffic holdup really
worth it, against all the benefits?
Yours sincerely,
Wilf Forrow,
Cycle Hayling
Dear Editor,
I EXPECT you have sometimes
wondered how many public sector
bureaucrats it takes to change a
light bulb.
The answer is that there is no
limit to the number – but they will
always screw it up.
Last month’s Hayling Herald provides a brilliant example.
We are not told how many bureaucrats were involved in swerving
the decision to repair the sea wall at
Langstone Pond, but we were told
that it involved the combined forces
of Alan Mak, Havant Borough
Council, Hampshire County
Council, Natural England and English Heritage. Chichester Harbour
Conservancy was not mentioned
but was presumably involved.
But the best bit was the formula
for resolving the impasse.
To quote the Hayling Herald,
‘Havant Borough Council is bidding for funds which will put the
community at the heart of future
decision-making’.
Or, to paraphrase, six public entities cannot agree on a way forward,
so the public sector resolution is to
gouge additional taxpayer money to
create a seventh.
Here is an idea for Havant Borough Council.
Why doesn’t its councillors – who
were all elected by the community,
unlike the officials at the quangos
they are negotiating with – spend
a weekend knocking on doors and
polling opinion on whether or not
to repair the sea wall?
They could return on Monday
morning and implement the preferred solution, thus triumphantly
putting the community back in
control without the need to bid for
more money as a prerequisite of
backing the people’s choice.
Regards,
Richard North,
Hayling Island