Help with a letter about limit reductions in Bucks.
Discussion
Hi All,
My local paper is carrying a front page story about possible speed limit reductions in Aylesbury. I want to write in to them and complain!
My draft is below but its missing something - Any suggestions on how to improve it:
My local paper is carrying a front page story about possible speed limit reductions in Aylesbury. I want to write in to them and complain!
My draft is below but its missing something - Any suggestions on how to improve it:
Letter said:
It is with some displeasure that I feel compelled to write to you in reponse to your front page article "Hit The Brakes" once again a local counciller with no formal training who thinks they need to be percieved to be doing something are trying to lower yet more speed limits in the area. Speed doesn't kill people, bad driving kills. The roads in this country would be a lot safer if we removed cameras from the road and instead invested heavily in fully trained Traffic Police. A speed camera may be able to catch someone exceeding a posted limit but who's to say they are driving badly? A traffic cop on the other hand can deal with the following:
Drink Drivers. (Is someone drunk and travelling at 29mph safer than a sober person travelling at 35mph? You decide!)
Dangerous Drivers
Banned Drivers (who are also uninsured!)
Uninsured Drivers
Vehicles with safety defects such as tyres and brakes.
Unregistered Vehicles
Stolen Vehicles (who cares if there is a speed camera if its not your car!)
Cloned Vehicles
As long as someone is driving at 30mph or below a camera can't pick up any of these (and many more) dangerous occurences that are happening on our roads everyday. We need more traffic police both in marked and unmarked cars to deal with these offences.
Lowering a speed limit doesn't and won't stop accidents occuring, take the A413 from Buckingham to Aylesbury (a road that the limit could be reduced on) is a road well suited for the 60mph speed limit it has a wide smooth surface with open bends that allow high visability through the corners and has numerous safe overtaking opportunitys that allows traffic to flow well. A lower speed limit will lead to driver frustration and overtaking will start to occur in places not suited for a safe overtake.
Perhaps I should outline who I am, i'm Phill, i'm 23 and a Student at Bournemouth University, when i'm not at university studying I live in Wendover. I can hear your crys now - "He's only 23 he must be a Boy Racer" I assure i'm not. I'm a driver who enjoying driving and takes pride in improving his skills. I wonder how many of your readers or indeed Councillers have completed an 8 hour advance driving course? Personally I seriously doubt any councillers involved in his limit reduction plan have, but I have.
In the 6 years I have had a license I have driven well in excess of 100,000 miles safely and without a single speeding ticket, I was taught that to make progress where it is safe to do so. I have lost track of the amount of time I have safely overtaken a driver doing 40mph in a NSL zone (who then seem to take great pleasure to flash their headlights at me?) only to slow down to 30mph when I reach the next village. Who catches me up half way through the village still doing 40mph? Yes you've guessed it! Who's the safer driver? The one who does 40mph everywhere or the one who reads the road and makes a decision on the appropriate speed to travel based on the conditions before him?
Perhaps a better way of improving road safety would be to make roads safer would be to make the driving test harder or make Pass Plus (which I have also done) compulsary for new drivers. Also compulsary retesting every 5-10 years and an insurance discount for advanced driving qualfications would encourage people to think about improving their skills.
Don't get me wrong i'm not against 30mph limits in build up areas, they are there for a very good purpose, however I am against lower limits in other places which are purely for generating revenue. We should not be dumbing down driving to the lowest common demoniator we should be encouraging the poorer drivers on the road which cause accidents to improve their skills, which in turn will make the roads a safer place for everyone.
In should also be noted that according to the Governments own figures speed is a factor in only 7% of accidents. What are the council planning to do about the cause of the other 93%? Or perhaps it will cost them something to sort that out rather than make them some easy money.
I think your readers should also be made aware of the difference between inappropriate speed and excessive speed which are quite often confused when talking about speed limit reductions. Excessive speed is obiviously speed above the signed speed limit, where inappropraiate speed can be a speed below the posted limit. eg. 29mph in a 30mph limit outside a school at closing time is inappropraiate but still legal! Inappropraite speed causes more accidents than excessive speed!
The only thing that these changes we make will to futher push the divide between the general public and the police. We'll be carrying ID cards and reporting our neighbours for using their hosepipes next!
Finally I'd like to point your readers in the direction of the following websites and links for them to read at their lesuire:
www.safespeed.org.uk/
www.abd.org.uk/speedobj.htm
Regards,
Phill Manson
Details on the limits affected are here - www.buckscc.gov.uk/traffic_management/speed_management/review/Public_Consultations.htm
My only suggestions would be to shorten it. Use only pertinant points and dont do all the work for them, make them want to look further into it rather than giving them a QnA sheet.
Also do a little research into Neighboorhood polcing in the area as that has alot to do with what is going on with speed limits.
Also do a little research into Neighboorhood polcing in the area as that has alot to do with what is going on with speed limits.
alfaman said:
needs to be much shorter and punchier IMHO
what are your main points ? what do you want them to do ?
consider asking them for EVIDENCE that speed limit reductions actually reduce KSI rates.
Yes, that is my point about the 85% rule. Ask if the scientific evidence is being considered.
I suggest you leave out the two 'personal' paragraphs and try to shorten the latter part of the letter.
Bucks CC are lowering limits everywhere. I respect you for trying to do something, but I'm sure it will fall on deaf ears. If the Bucks Herald is anything like the Bucks Free Press they won't publish anything that is remotely controversial or anti any minority. 'Free Press' my arse.
Edited to say, the last thing the BFP published of mine was a CO pollution related letter which was edited so much it made me look like a complete arse who didn't know what he was talking about. I won't bother again.
>> Edited by targarama on Thursday 6th April 15:07
Bucks CC are lowering limits everywhere. I respect you for trying to do something, but I'm sure it will fall on deaf ears. If the Bucks Herald is anything like the Bucks Free Press they won't publish anything that is remotely controversial or anti any minority. 'Free Press' my arse.
Edited to say, the last thing the BFP published of mine was a CO pollution related letter which was edited so much it made me look like a complete arse who didn't know what he was talking about. I won't bother again.
>> Edited by targarama on Thursday 6th April 15:07
targarama said:
Bucks CC are lowering limits everywhere. I respect you for trying to do something, but I'm sure it will fall on deaf ears. If the Bucks Herald is anything like the Bucks Free Press they won't publish anything that is remotely controversial or anti any minority. 'Free Press' my arse.
Yeah I know what you mean, I don't normally read it as it winds me up but I saw the front page and it just annoyed me!
I've taken a look at it and tweaked the content here and there (and edited it grammar for speeling and):
Any better? Comments, everyone?
I've tried to cut it down (though it's still rather long), but I've also tried to make it a bit snappier and punchier (and I've also used a lot more emotive language than you did...hell, if New Labour can get away with it then I'm damned if I'm not going to try).
>> Edited by Ecks Ridgehead on Thursday 6th April 16:23
Edited Letter said:
It is with some displeasure that I feel compelled to write to you in reponse to your front page article "Hit The Brakes" of the [include date of article]. Once again, it seems that an ill-informed local councellor is trying to lower speed limits in the area in a misguided attempt to be seen to be doing something.
Why?
Speed doesn't kill people, bad driving kills people. Even the Government says so: their own figures state that speed is a factor in only 7% of accidents [you will need to provide a reference for this figure]. Clearly far more dangerous than this is the other 93% of accidents that are caused every year by bad drivers, dangerous drivers, drunk drivers and drivers of unsafe vehicles.
Will a speed camera reduce the chances of a child being killed by a dangerous driver? Of course not. Will a speed camera encourage a driver to replace those worn tyres? Of course not. So why introduce speed cameras at all?
The simple answer is that the introduction of speed cameras is the lazy option, a visible palliative that makes the council look as though it cares (and coincidentally has the added bonus, for the council, of generating revenue). If the council really cared about improving safety on the roads, it would be proposing initiatives such as investment in greater traffic police presence, driver education, driver training and retesting.
Please don't assume that I'm against 30mph limits in built up areas - I'm not. They are there for a very good reason. I am, however, against unecessarily low limits in inappropriate areas enforced by cameras clearly intended to generate revenue. We should not be dumbing down driving to the lowest common denominator, we should be encouraging and helping those drivers who cause the majority of accidents to improve their skills, knowledge and awareness - this is the only thing that will truly make the roads a safer place for everyone.
Yours
Phill Manson
Any better? Comments, everyone?
I've tried to cut it down (though it's still rather long), but I've also tried to make it a bit snappier and punchier (and I've also used a lot more emotive language than you did...hell, if New Labour can get away with it then I'm damned if I'm not going to try).
>> Edited by Ecks Ridgehead on Thursday 6th April 16:23
A response:
Dear Mr Manson
Thank you very much for your email, which has been passed on to me as the County Councillor for Wendover and Halton.
I hope I don't sound patronising when I say how reassuring it is to hear your views, as a young driver, on responsible driving. All drivers have a responsibility, not only to themselves but to other road users, to drive sensibly and safely and, sadly, it is often the young who get the blame for ignoring that responsibility.
I have now seen the article in the Bucks Herald that you refer to, which does not make clear the purpose of this review of speed limits county-wide.
May I first say that, although Councillors take the decisions on major issues such as this, those decisions are based on expert and very professional advice from Council officers and others. In this case, not only have our Highways experts been involved, but also the police, as well as local Councillors who have a specific knowledge of their divisions. The article also included comments from David Rowlands, who is chairman of the Buckinghamshire and Milton Keynes Fire Authority, in which role he hears at first hand the reports of road accidents in the County.
The purpose of the review was not to advocate reducing speed limits for the sake of doing so. Rather it was to rationalise speed limits, to make them more consistent and logical across the county. There are currently many locations where speed limits change without any apparent reason, and in similar locations speed limits can vary considerably. With a more logical approach, it is hoped that the driving public will understand the reasons for the speed limits, and will be more likely to obey them.
Other strands in the quest to reduce KSI include training for young drivers and for older drivers who have sometimes developed bad habits over the years, and widespread publicity campaigns - you may have seen the "For my girlfriend" publicity recently. There is also a focus in our Local Area Agreement, which brings many public services together to achieve shared goals, on reducing KSI.
Speed is frequently a contributory factor to the severity of an accident, even if it is not the cause. I am sure you have seen the advertisements on television recently highlighting the difference that even a small reduction in speed can have on the outcome of an accident. Anything that we can do to improve public awareness of and compliance with speed limits can, in my view, only be beneficial.
I hope this reassures you that these recommended changes are well thought through and logical. I will, if I may, make sure that your comments are passed to the relevant officers to be included in the public response to the current consultation on the changes.
Yours sincerely
Marion Clayton
Dear Mr Manson
Thank you very much for your email, which has been passed on to me as the County Councillor for Wendover and Halton.
I hope I don't sound patronising when I say how reassuring it is to hear your views, as a young driver, on responsible driving. All drivers have a responsibility, not only to themselves but to other road users, to drive sensibly and safely and, sadly, it is often the young who get the blame for ignoring that responsibility.
I have now seen the article in the Bucks Herald that you refer to, which does not make clear the purpose of this review of speed limits county-wide.
May I first say that, although Councillors take the decisions on major issues such as this, those decisions are based on expert and very professional advice from Council officers and others. In this case, not only have our Highways experts been involved, but also the police, as well as local Councillors who have a specific knowledge of their divisions. The article also included comments from David Rowlands, who is chairman of the Buckinghamshire and Milton Keynes Fire Authority, in which role he hears at first hand the reports of road accidents in the County.
The purpose of the review was not to advocate reducing speed limits for the sake of doing so. Rather it was to rationalise speed limits, to make them more consistent and logical across the county. There are currently many locations where speed limits change without any apparent reason, and in similar locations speed limits can vary considerably. With a more logical approach, it is hoped that the driving public will understand the reasons for the speed limits, and will be more likely to obey them.
Other strands in the quest to reduce KSI include training for young drivers and for older drivers who have sometimes developed bad habits over the years, and widespread publicity campaigns - you may have seen the "For my girlfriend" publicity recently. There is also a focus in our Local Area Agreement, which brings many public services together to achieve shared goals, on reducing KSI.
Speed is frequently a contributory factor to the severity of an accident, even if it is not the cause. I am sure you have seen the advertisements on television recently highlighting the difference that even a small reduction in speed can have on the outcome of an accident. Anything that we can do to improve public awareness of and compliance with speed limits can, in my view, only be beneficial.
I hope this reassures you that these recommended changes are well thought through and logical. I will, if I may, make sure that your comments are passed to the relevant officers to be included in the public response to the current consultation on the changes.
Yours sincerely
Marion Clayton
Marion Clayton said:
May I first say that, although Councillors take the decisions on major issues such as this, those decisions are based on expert and very professional advice from Council officers and others. In this case, not only have our Highways experts been involved, but also the police, as well as local Councillors who have a specific knowledge of their divisions. The article also included comments from David Rowlands, who is chairman of the Buckinghamshire and Milton Keynes Fire Authority, in which role he hears at first hand the reports of road accidents in the County.
Ask how these people are qualified to comment other than being Council officers. Ask who these "others" are. Point out that being a Highways "expert" doesn't mean that you are less likely to take the lazy route to solving a problem, which, as this highlights, is not necessarily the best way to solve a problem.
Marion Clayton said:
The purpose of the review was not to advocate reducing speed limits for the sake of doing so. Rather it was to rationalise speed limits, to make them more consistent and logical across the county.
Ask if any speed limits will actually be going up as a result of this "rationalisation".
Marion Clayton said:
Other strands in the quest to reduce KSI include training for young drivers and for older drivers who have sometimes developed bad habits over the years
Have you seen any evidence of this training? Also, ask why only young and older drivers are considered to have bad driving habits.
Marion Clayton said:
Speed is frequently a contributory factor to the severity of an accident, even if it is not the cause. I am sure you have seen the advertisements on television recently highlighting the difference that even a small reduction in speed can have on the outcome of an accident. Anything that we can do to improve public awareness of and compliance with speed limits can, in my view, only be beneficial.
Ask her if she would be happy for the voters in her area to know that she considers it better just to reduce the severity of accidents rather than actually prevent them altogether.
Just sent this in reply:
Letter In Response said:
Marion,
First of all thanks for your detailed response to my email and many thanks about the comments about my views. As you can tell driving and cars are a major interest of mine. I also feel that road safety and enjoying the roads go hand in hand.
However if I may I would like to ask the following questions:
1. You say that that the decision on major issues such as these are taken after "expert and very professional advice from council officers and others" - May I ask what qualifies them to comment other than being council officers? Who are these "other" people?
2. You mention that you use "Highway experts" this doesn't mean that they are less likely to take the lazy route to solving a problem which the article here highlights - www.pistonheads.com/speed/default.asp?storyId=13691
3. You talk about "rationalising" speed limits, will any speed limits be raised as part of this "rationalisation"?
4. Could I see some details about the training for young and older drivers as I have seen no evidence of this training? Why are only young and older drivers and not middle-aged ones?
5. If I may quote you here - "Speed is frequently a contributory factor to the severity of an accident, even if it is not the cause. I am sure you have seen the advertisements on television recently highlighting the difference that even a small reduction in speed can have on the outcome of an accident. Anything that we can do to improve public awareness of and compliance with speed limits can, in my view, only be beneficial."
So is your view that is better to reduce the severity of the accident rather prevent them altogether?
6. Can you provide evidence that speed limit reductions actually reduce KSI rates?
7. Have the council looked at all the research that has led to the 85% rule? As if this is ignored the council would be deliberately taking the risk of increasing the accident rate.
8. Will we see an increase in fully trained Traffic Police on Buckinghamshire's road targeting drink drivers, uninsured drivers, drivers arriving at roundabouts in the left hand lane then turning right, etc?
My personal view is that these changes are not logical and will not reduce the accident rate on Buckinghamshire's roads, if anything accidents will increase.
I'd urge you to contact Paul Smith of Safespeed or at the very least visit his website - www.safespeed.org.uk/ and look at the vast quantity of detailed research he has undertaken.
The other website that you should visit is www.abd.org.uk/
At the very least both these sites will show the amount of discontent felt by the general public towards speed cameras and why drivers feel they are being "picked" on.
Until safety camera partnership become transparent and stop "cherry picking" statistics which support their support their own money making vendetta, public perception of the police and council will not improve.
Please feel to pass on my views to the public consultation.
I look forward to your response.
Kind Regards,
Phill Manson
Gassing Station | The Pie & Piston Archive | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff