A little bit or a lot better or worse George?

Sunday 26th January 2014

Bristol City Council and the Mayor George Ferguson have riled me this week with their advertising campaign for the new 20mph zones put into action across Bristol this month - “A little bit slower. A whole lot better.”

It has been decided that 30mph is no longer acceptable for the suburban streets of Bristol. Instead we are now expected to drive through vast areas of the city at a third of the speed previously deemed safe for decades, despite the increase in car breaking efficiency and design features specifically created to decrease the risk of injury over that time. Now whilst I can not argue that less damage will be done to a RTA victim at 10mph slower I do have a couple of points to raise about the campaign slogan.



A third of something is not 'a little bit' of it by any standard I know of. A quick straw poll of family and friends suggests that the general consensus is that less than 10% is a much more accurate representation of what is normally thought of as 'a little bit'. If I had baked a delicious Victoria sponge cake and then consumed a third of it, would it be fair to say that I had eaten 'a little bit' of it? I would have eaten nearer to half of it, wouldn't you say? Lets look at it another way. If I was driving at 40mph in a 30mph zone would anybody call that 'a little bit' over the limit? I can't see that they would and the chances are that neither would the law. The Association of Chief Police Officers recommend that just over 10% discretion is reasonable when enforcing fixed penalty notices for speeding so it would seem even they concur that 33.3% is not 'a little bit'.

My second point to pick up on is that the phrase 'A whole lot better' is a deliberately provocative term used in this latest rhetorical campaign. Ignoring the obvious question of what 'a whole lot' means I'd like to focus on the other part of the phrase. Better than what exactly, and for whom? As I have already stated I am not denying the evidence that the speed limit reduction decreases the risk of serious injury in the event of a collision from 20% to just 2.5%, however it is also worth noting that at 20mph a car in motion generally runs much less efficiently than at 30mph, increasing fuel consumption and exhaust emissions. Is this payoff a whole lot better for Bristolians on the whole? Is increasing journey time by up to 50% better for our city too when it already has massive problems with congestion? What exactly has been made 'a whole lot better' for us citizens because I can only see the negative effects upon my daily life that this move has caused.

What worries me the most about this on the whole is as follows. It seems evident to me that pedestrians are no longer aware of the dangers they face when crossing the road. Reducing the speed limits in this way only encourages their feelings of supremacy and invincibility against motorists. I have noticed a massive decline in road safety campaigns aimed at young pedestrians since the 1980s when I was a child. Media campaigns have targeted the driver and focused around 'Kill your speed, not a child'. It now seems totally normal for the parents and carers I encounter on a daily basis to lead their juvenile charges out across the roads without any thought for teaching them the essential skills of 'Stop, look and listen'. This change in emphasis has shifted any responsibility for personal safety from the pedestrian to the driver and it now seems perfectly reasonable to most people that motorists should be expected to avoid them and not the other way round. This may simply be a reflection of the shifting cultural norms of our society as a whole but at when its ultimately yours or your child's life at risk isn't it just good old-fashioned common sense to take all reasonable precautions to avoid becoming a victim? Stop, look and listen should still be drummed into all of us when crossing any road, at any time and in any place.

The 20mph campaign looks set to roll out to an even greater area of Bristol later on this year, with no plans to reduce speed limits proportionally on the 40mph and 50mph roads of the city. I will not be surprised if pedestrian and cyclist deaths in these areas actually increase as a result of reducing speeds elsewhere because of a reduced ability to judge when and where it's safe to cross and the speed of approaching traffic. Wouldn't the money it is costing to implement the city wide 20mph zones be better spent on education which would continue serve the individual Bristolians wherever in the world they happen to be in the future for the rest of their lives? I doubt common sense will prevail and the rhetoric of the mayor will continue but for now I've said my piece on the matter and will abide by the law, no matter how nonsensical. I do however hope that I'm proved wrong on all of this.

You can find out more about Bristol City Council's plans here www.bristol20mph.co.uk