Yesterday's coverage by the Edinburgh Evening News of Council plans to revise 20mph speed restrictions across the capital has received short shrift.
A curt letter from Transport and Environment Convener Lesley Hinds – sent after EEN reported a 'huge backlash' against the proposal – takes issue with the paper's repetition of various 'misconceptions'.
In particular, Hinds remarks:
- 'You inaccurately state that “almost half"' of the nearly 3,000 respondents to CEC's consultation in 2014 favoured the new proposal. 'In fact the survey found 60% supported or strongly supported the plans.'
- 'Claims that this is a “blanket” roll-out are simply untrue.' CEC worked painstakingly with key stakeholders to produce a robust set of criteria for selecting which streets should change to 20mph (residential/shopping) and which should remain at 30mph or 40mph (arterial).
- Police will continue to focus enforcement efforts on problem areas, and other measures such as Vehicle Activated Signs could also be used.
- Contrary to claims about their ineffectiveness, introducing 20mph speed limits elsewhere in Britain (and Edinburgh) has brought about significant reductions in collisions and casualties.
Yesterday's EEN article claims to have detected a 'groundswell' of opposition to the plan. This assertion it bases on an undisclosed method of sampling an unstated number of people via Facebook. From this it concludes that 83 per cent of its readers are against the proposal.
It doesn't sound very scientific. Nor does its porridge of uncontextualised negative speed-limit anecdotes from around the country.
Nor do the apparent concerns of taxi drivers in Portsmouth, courier company bosses, 'transport experts' and politicians at a loose end who appear at first glance to be against the proposal but on closer inspection turn out to be addressing some far narrower issue or missing the point entirely.
Sadly, populist campaigns by tabloids are often as much about boosting circulation as they are about clarifying the debate.
Still small voice of calm
In Edinburgh Council's rational effort to reduce vehicle speeds, there will certainly be challenges ahead in terms of driver compliance and police enforcement. There are also legitimate concerns that slower overall speeds could lead, in the short term, to increased pollution.
But the potential advantages – persuasively outlined here along with a zoomable version of the map above – are certainly worth aiming for. They read as a lucid alternative to the snarling intransigence of some (mostly male) drivers on social media, drivers from whom pedestrians, cyclists and responsible motorists quite reasonably aspire to reclaim this city.
The report (Item 7.2) goes before the Transport and Environment Committee today for approval.
Got a view? Tell us at spurtle@hotmail.co.uk and @theSpurtle and Facebook
-----------------------------------
@theSpurtle @dhothersall @LAHinds @allytibbitt 20mph limits "cause more collisions and casualties" http://www.roadsafetygb.org.uk/news/3716.html #RoadSafetyGB
Duncan Hothersall @dhothersall
@mik61scot @theSpurtle @LAHinds @allytibbitt What a ludicrous abuse of statistics. More roads are now classified as 20mph!
@theSpurtle EEN poll: included link underneath 'click here to share this on social media or to buy votes' ?! @LAHinds @allytibbitt
@dhothersall @theSpurtle @LAHinds @allytibbitt Edinburgh Council summary report uses %ages to hide only 1.04% pop surveyed! *old CEC trick*
@theSpurtle that letter published... in the Evening News. Council consultation also based on online survey
@mik61scot @theSpurtle @LAHinds @allytibbitt Opinion polling is done with samples of 1000 people from a population of 5 million. Why not?
@theSpurtle @marklazarowicz @LAHinds @allytibbitt 20mph limit good on balance but it will cause more congestion and increase pollution
@thesaucers @theSpurtle @marklazarowicz @LAHinds @allytibbitt 20mph limit essential on Broughton Street—road’s a death trap with speeders.
@thistlejohn @theSpurtle They ignored previous feedback.