‘My seven-year-old was hit by a car, I think a 20mph zone is a good idea’
A parent has said they think a 20mph zone is a good idea after their child was hit by a car. They shared support for the proposed 20mph scheme in St Ives, which is being considered by Cambridgeshire County Council, alongside other proposals for 20mph speed limits in Fulbourn.
The St Ives 20mph zone is proposed to cover the southern half of the town. In Fulbourn, a number of roads are proposed to have 20mph speed limits introduced, as well as a 40mph buffer zone on some of the roads heading into the town. The two schemes are part of a wider county council programme to introduce more 20mph areas with the aim of improving road safety.
The county council said the proposal to introduce 20mph speed limits in St Ives and Fulbourn is intended to “reduce traffic speeds to create a safer environment for all road users”. The authority added that the design of most of the roads meant the lower speed limits were expected to be “largely self-enforcing”.
Read more: 'More uncertainty than ever' around council funding in Cambridgeshire
Read more: 11 Cambridgeshire drivers face prosecution for ignoring sign
The county council said: “20mph schemes can have quality of life and community benefits, including encouraging healthier and more sustainable transport modes such as walking and cycling. There may also be environmental benefits as driving slower at a steady pace can save fuel and reduce pollution.”
The county council consulted with the public on whether the two 20mph proposals in St Ives and Fulbourn should go ahead, and received a mixed response. In St Ives one parent said they thought the 20mph zone was a good idea as their seven-year-old had been hit by a car in Knights Way. They said: “People drive too fast especially when there is a park with a lot of children.”
Others agreed with this with one person saying it was “concerning” how some drivers “carelessly drive faster than required around the area”. Another person added that they believed the 20mph speed limits would discourage drivers from using residential roads. However, some people in the town said they did not think the 20mph zone would make a difference.
Some argued the plans would be a “waste of money” and raised concerns that the lower speed limit would be ‘disregarded’ by frustrated drivers. Others claimed the 20mph zone would “just increase congestion” and would “only serve to increase the time on people’s commutes”.
Officers at the county council said traffic calming measures could be investigated to address concerns of non-compliance if this did occur, but said it was hoped it would be “relatively self-enforcing”. They added that it was accepted the journey times could increase, but said the lower speeds would have a positive effect on road safety.
Officers also said that 20mph speed limits “tend to promote a smoother driving style” and suggested this would actually benefit traffic movement at peak times. Similar concerns about whether the lower speed limit would be followed by drivers were raised by people in Fulbourn.
One person said that despite what the county council said they did not think it would be self-enforcing. Cambridgeshire Constabulary said it also had concerns about the compliance with the speed limits on a number of roads in Fulbourn, without further measures put in place to force drivers to slow down.
However, the force said it offered no objection to the lower speed limits and recognised that lower speeds did equate to fewer collisions. County council officers said that “ideally” the width and alignment of roads, together with on street parking would “encourage drivers to moderate their speed”.
However, they accepted that on straighter and wider roads “speeds are expected to be higher”. There was some support in Fulbourn for the 20mph speed limits proposed, including one person who said: “The 20mph speed limit should be introduced for a number of reasons, such as to lower speeds near schools, due to narrow village roads, to improve safety for cyclists and pedestrians and for environmental reasons.”
Councillors are due to decide whether the two schemes can go ahead at a highways and transport committee meeting next week (October 1).