Beyondbelief
He is correct - six objections were received to the formal TRO process for new 20mph limits in Dunblane in 2019 but he fails to mention that 11 letters of support were also received by the council despite the formal process only asking for objection to be sent.
In addition, support for the 20 mph speed limits were received from the community council and representatives from parent council and the Scout Association. Ref: www. stirling.gov.uk/news/2019/ october-2019/twenty-splenty-reduced-speed-limitapproved-for-streets-acrossstirling.
A survey of European best practice by the Commission for Integrated Transport found that towns and cities with extensive 20mph or 30kmh limits were strongly linked with higher levels of walking and cycling, and improved road safety.
In the late 1960s and
1970s when I was walking or cycling to school there was far less traffic on the roads. There were Morris Minors or Minis with 850cc engines, low top speeds and sluggish acceleration. The local athletic club could run faster than the electric milk floats. Heavy goods vehicles were not very heavy and on urban roads not much faster than a cyclist.
Today parents see their children walking and cycling beside enormous HGVs and SUVs with lightning acceleration, in comparison with a Citroen 2CV. Is it any wonder some parents want to wrap their children in the protective cocoon of a car? Or that elderly people find it harder to judge if they have time to cross a road and become isolated and dependant on others to get about.
We need to give today’s children and elderly people more protection from modern traffic while they are walking and cycling by increasing the length of the 20mph limits in our cities, towns and villages. Then in addition to helping protect those who are already walking and cycling we might get more people walking or cycling, with all the associated health and environmental benefits.
I do agree with Councillor Majury that an additional crossing near M&S would improve safety for vulnerable road users and would also agree that a major redesign of Perth Road is needed.
I would suggest that space taken up by the strip of grass in the middle could be better used, but in the meantime these 20mph proposals will have clear road safety benefits for vulnerable road users.
Andrew Abbess www.stirlingcycletraining.com
Dear Editor
One does wonder what on earth goes on within Stirling Council today.
Its proposal to apply 20mph speed limits - which barely work in the residential areas for which they may be appropriate - to roads such as the B8033 and A820 in Dunblane is beyond belief.
Other than the criminalisation of drivers, what are they meant to achieve? Was speeding a contributory factor to any of the accidents which have occurred on the sections of road in question?
Even if it was, how would a change in numbers prevent it? Aren’t the police against speed limits which do not match the circumstances in which they are being applied?
It has been said that “speed limits should be evidence-led and selfexplaining”, i.e. not based on whim, or the noise from a pressure group, as these proposals appear to be.
Most worrying is the indication that Stirling Council is unaware of the November 2018 Headline Report on the Department for Transport’s 20mph Research Study, which is the only major UK study of its kind.
Based on the evidence available to date, the study found no significant change in accidents, and no robust evidence to demonstrate an effect on walking or cycling. If you are concerned about this waste of your resources, there may still be time to express your views through: spaces-for-people-stirling. hub.arcgis.com/pages/ dunblane.
Let’s hope Stirling Council decides to take advantage of sound scientific research, rather than the emotive appeals from the uninformed. After all, that’s what its constituents expect. Andrew Fraser Stirling