Few want this 20mph limit

Dear Editor

Dunblane has previously expressed a view on 20mph limits, prior to the roll- out of these limits to residential streets.

A majority backed the retention of 30mph limits, the next highest support was for 20mph zones, and the lowest support was for 20mph limits, formal objections to the 20mph Traffic Regulation Order were also submitted, but the council decided to go ahead despite this.

In the Spaces for People consultation, Dunblane was the only community to provide minority (44 per cent) support for changes to be made as a result of Spaces for People, and the council should consider this before imposing another unwanted change on the community.

The money, time, and effort spent on the unwanted B8033 20mph limit would be better spent listening to the community and delivering changes that are wanted, such as improving the paths in Newton Crescent Park, and improving Bishops Walk.

The ERASER project identified road features that result in people opting to drive at a higher speed, including presence of a physical median barrier, and an open road environment, which this former dual carriageway has. According to ERASER this provides the road user with a feeling that the road should be driven at a relatively high speed, and that it is relatively unlikely that a lower speed limit will be observed due to perceived low credibility. Where it is desirable to reduce traffic to 20mph, then 20mph zones which include physical changes to the road layout are more effective in reducing the speed of traffic.

A zebra or traffic light controlled crossing near the Marks & Spencer’s, would be more effective in making this road safer, than an unwanted and ineffective 20mph limit.

If the council won’t listen to residents when it comes to the unwanted changes to the bins, then I would hope that they would at least listen to the community on this matter.

Alastair Majury Councillor for Dunblane and Bridge of Allan