COMMENT: We must reduce the speed limit on our roads

First published in News Wilts and Gloucestershire Standard: Photograph of the Author by , Reporter

TOO many people are killed on roads in the Cotswolds. It appears to be a phenomena of modern age people in a hurry and if the speed limit is 60mph then that is the speed people will travel regardless of the road conditions; bends, potholes, rain or ice.

The Cotswolds has the most dangerous roads out of the whole of Gloucestershire, with far too many accidents, injuries and deaths. Measures must be taken to reduce this death toll.

This week we launch a campaign to cut the dangerously high speed limit on the road by Waterland in South Cerney where a man was killed earlier this month.

Next week we will be reporting on another, equally important campaign to cut the speed limit on the ring road around Cirencester where there have been 37 accidents and two fatalities during the last three years.

People’s lives would not have to be cut short in this way if only we could drive more slowly. Yet it seems drivers will only do so if compelled by the law.

Please spread the word of this vital campaign. Write to your local county councillor, write to the leader of Gloucestershire County Council, Mark Hawthorne, and do your bit by signing the e-petition. Working together we can reduce the speed of our roads and save lives.

Comments (25)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

6:28pm Sun 3 Aug 14

Geoff66 says...

Surely it is down to the Police and the Highway Department to determine speed limits and consider whether these need to be/ should be increased or reduced. Many factors will need to come into play when accessing these, including looking at access issues and most importantly the number of accidents, and the causes of these.

Whilst i am not against speed levels being cut where these are a serious factor in ensuring people's potential safety, however i am not so keen on seeing limits being forced upon drivers, or imposed on roads and routes, where perhaps these are not necessarily in the best interests of all road users...i.e. both drivers and pedestrians.

In the case of the Cirencester by-pass (ring road) unfortunately i do not see the need to reduce the speed limit on this road. However, CDC and the Highways Department, need to look more seriously at the causes of recent accidents and incidents, and look at how they can prevent these occurring, by taking more meaningful and proactive action to prevent, pedestrian access, which should not be permitted, across these dual-carriage ways, or adjacent busy roundabout junctions.

Unfortunately many of these incidents which you have referred to, are the result of people simply throwing their own safety to the wind, and trying to cross over a dangerous and busy dual-carriageway, rather than utilising existing pedestrian measures, such as bridges or under-passes.

Where these have been provided, then unfortunately why are people failing to utilise these measures? and why are they then insisting on putting both their own life, as well as car drivers and their passengers at risk??

It is not simply a case of imposing a blanket speed limit on Cirencester's dual-carriage ways (ring road) it is about ensuring that people are utilising appropriate measures, providing new measures where these are required, and importantly ensuring that people cannot access inappropriate places to try and cross these roads, and securing these known, illegal points of access.

Simply reducing speed limits, whilst continuing to enable people to cross at illegal and stupid access points, which will still mean that lives will be lost and people and families lives will continue to be devastated.
Surely it is down to the Police and the Highway Department to determine speed limits and consider whether these need to be/ should be increased or reduced. Many factors will need to come into play when accessing these, including looking at access issues and most importantly the number of accidents, and the causes of these. Whilst i am not against speed levels being cut where these are a serious factor in ensuring people's potential safety, however i am not so keen on seeing limits being forced upon drivers, or imposed on roads and routes, where perhaps these are not necessarily in the best interests of all road users...i.e. both drivers and pedestrians. In the case of the Cirencester by-pass (ring road) unfortunately i do not see the need to reduce the speed limit on this road. However, CDC and the Highways Department, need to look more seriously at the causes of recent accidents and incidents, and look at how they can prevent these occurring, by taking more meaningful and proactive action to prevent, pedestrian access, which should not be permitted, across these dual-carriage ways, or adjacent busy roundabout junctions. Unfortunately many of these incidents which you have referred to, are the result of people simply throwing their own safety to the wind, and trying to cross over a dangerous and busy dual-carriageway, rather than utilising existing pedestrian measures, such as bridges or under-passes. Where these have been provided, then unfortunately why are people failing to utilise these measures? and why are they then insisting on putting both their own life, as well as car drivers and their passengers at risk?? It is not simply a case of imposing a blanket speed limit on Cirencester's dual-carriage ways (ring road) it is about ensuring that people are utilising appropriate measures, providing new measures where these are required, and importantly ensuring that people cannot access inappropriate places to try and cross these roads, and securing these known, illegal points of access. Simply reducing speed limits, whilst continuing to enable people to cross at illegal and stupid access points, which will still mean that lives will be lost and people and families lives will continue to be devastated. Geoff66
  • Score: 13

10:46pm Sun 3 Aug 14

corin22 says...

It is not the speed in many cases ,just inexperienced or drivers that are to old to drive in today's conditions, no matter how slow the limit you will still get accidents. More tuition on driving in different conditions would help younger drivers and more tests for drivers over 70
It is not the speed in many cases ,just inexperienced or drivers that are to old to drive in today's conditions, no matter how slow the limit you will still get accidents. More tuition on driving in different conditions would help younger drivers and more tests for drivers over 70 corin22
  • Score: 10

11:27pm Sun 3 Aug 14

safetyaware says...

I agree with Geoff, how often do you see stupid people dashing (or not) across the dual carriageway because they are too lazy to walk 100 metres, in the direction they are going, to use either the footbridge or underpass built for their safety. The two most recent cases (I believe) involved a pedestrian crossing almost under the footbridge, at night in dark clothing, and the other, a pedestrian who had climbed over a fence to walk across the road rather than use the underpass, again, about 100 metres along. These fences have been rebuilt but are already being broken down by stupid pedestrians. Perhaps a 2 metre high electric fence is what is required to protect pedestrians from themselves. It is unfair to penalize the motorist every time. Perhaps another campaign to ban all personal electronic gadgets from vehicles, would have a greater effect in reducing casualty figures?
Perhaps Megan Archer, who is reporting this 'campaign', should make it her priority to find out what the causes of these incidents actually was from either the police report or the Coroner's Court and publish her findings so that people can make a balanced judgement. Let's work with the facts as the Highways people have to do, not just the rhetoric generated in these cases.
How about the latest case of a driver hitting the new footbridge by Tescos, was this speed related? A single vehicle collision? A mobile phone involved? Let's get the facts!
I agree with Geoff, how often do you see stupid people dashing (or not) across the dual carriageway because they are too lazy to walk 100 metres, in the direction they are going, to use either the footbridge or underpass built for their safety. The two most recent cases (I believe) involved a pedestrian crossing almost under the footbridge, at night in dark clothing, and the other, a pedestrian who had climbed over a fence to walk across the road rather than use the underpass, again, about 100 metres along. These fences have been rebuilt but are already being broken down by stupid pedestrians. Perhaps a 2 metre high electric fence is what is required to protect pedestrians from themselves. It is unfair to penalize the motorist every time. Perhaps another campaign to ban all personal electronic gadgets from vehicles, would have a greater effect in reducing casualty figures? Perhaps Megan Archer, who is reporting this 'campaign', should make it her priority to find out what the causes of these incidents actually was from either the police report or the Coroner's Court and publish her findings so that people can make a balanced judgement. Let's work with the facts as the Highways people have to do, not just the rhetoric generated in these cases. How about the latest case of a driver hitting the new footbridge by Tescos, was this speed related? A single vehicle collision? A mobile phone involved? Let's get the facts! safetyaware
  • Score: 8

7:34am Mon 4 Aug 14

Col Mustard says...

http://www.crashmap.
co.uk Enter Cirencester and be appalled ! Look at the Spine Road South Cerney !!!!!

The Police are invisible, GCC fail to maintain safe road surfaces, there is not the focus in schools that there used to be on road safety, low prosecution rates for bad driving and a useless MP more concerned with photo opportunities flipping hamburgers........

Yes this what we have ! Write to all of of the above and ask them what they are doing to reduce casualty and fatality numbers in the Cotswolds and hold them accountable ! Also every driver can take more care themselves ...responsibility starts with the individual...
http://www.crashmap. co.uk Enter Cirencester and be appalled ! Look at the Spine Road South Cerney !!!!! The Police are invisible, GCC fail to maintain safe road surfaces, there is not the focus in schools that there used to be on road safety, low prosecution rates for bad driving and a useless MP more concerned with photo opportunities flipping hamburgers........ Yes this what we have ! Write to all of of the above and ask them what they are doing to reduce casualty and fatality numbers in the Cotswolds and hold them accountable ! Also every driver can take more care themselves ...responsibility starts with the individual... Col Mustard
  • Score: 10

9:16am Mon 4 Aug 14

The Cornish Northerner says...

It's cheaper to put up a road sign and then count the cash coming in from fines than to fix the potholes, improve lighting and continuously train car drivers to advanced standards.

Col Mustard has the answer...responsibil
ity starts with the individual.
It's cheaper to put up a road sign and then count the cash coming in from fines than to fix the potholes, improve lighting and continuously train car drivers to advanced standards. Col Mustard has the answer...responsibil ity starts with the individual. The Cornish Northerner
  • Score: 12

9:30am Mon 4 Aug 14

jcawte says...

Yes, the driver must take responsibility, but that can only go so far. If a pedestrian decides to cross the Cirencester dual-carriageway (speed limit 70mph for cars) without any warning then even the most alert driver will struggle to avoid them, especially given the conditions surrounding at least one of the recent incidents. If everyone took responsibility for their own actions, rather than relying on others to do so for them, it would make a huge difference.
Yes, the driver must take responsibility, but that can only go so far. If a pedestrian decides to cross the Cirencester dual-carriageway (speed limit 70mph for cars) without any warning then even the most alert driver will struggle to avoid them, especially given the conditions surrounding at least one of the recent incidents. If everyone took responsibility for their own actions, rather than relying on others to do so for them, it would make a huge difference. jcawte
  • Score: 10

9:46am Mon 4 Aug 14

Claire.M says...

I agree with most of the comments posted above. Lots of very valid points being made.

Yes, the Cotswolds does statistically have the "most dangerous roads out of the whole of Gloucestershire" in terms of the number of accidents. But sadly that's the nature of the beast with rural roads, where serious accidents are generally much more likely to happen. Plus, the Cotswolds has by far the largest road network (i.e. highest number of miles) of any district in Gloucestershire, so this will inevitably skew the figures.

I'm curious to know why the Wilts & Glos Standard has decided to launch this campaign – is there a hidden agenda in all this? Of course I would never question the impartiality of the Wilts & Glos Standard(!) but it seems to me that their campaign will almost certainly provide a platform for certain local politicians to gain extra coverage in the months leading up to the elections in May next year. For example, the Lib Dem parliamentary candidate for the Cotswolds, Paul Hodgkinson, just happens to speak for the Lib Dems on Highways issues at Glos County Council, so this campaign will conveniently be right up his street (no pun intended!). Also, our Lib Dem mayor of Cirencester has been campaigning for some time to reduce the speed limit on the ring road – even though many motorists seem to be totally against the idea. So it's interesting that the Wilts & Glos Standard now intends to throw its weight behind the proposal.

Maybe I'm just being a bit cynical!
I agree with most of the comments posted above. Lots of very valid points being made. Yes, the Cotswolds does statistically have the "most dangerous roads out of the whole of Gloucestershire" in terms of the number of accidents. But sadly that's the nature of the beast with rural roads, where serious accidents are generally much more likely to happen. Plus, the Cotswolds has by far the largest road network (i.e. highest number of miles) of any district in Gloucestershire, so this will inevitably skew the figures. I'm curious to know why the Wilts & Glos Standard has decided to launch this campaign – is there a hidden agenda in all this? Of course I would never question the impartiality of the Wilts & Glos Standard(!) but it seems to me that their campaign will almost certainly provide a platform for certain local politicians to gain extra coverage in the months leading up to the elections in May next year. For example, the Lib Dem parliamentary candidate for the Cotswolds, Paul Hodgkinson, just happens to speak for the Lib Dems on Highways issues at Glos County Council, so this campaign will conveniently be right up his street (no pun intended!). Also, our Lib Dem mayor of Cirencester has been campaigning for some time to reduce the speed limit on the ring road – even though many motorists seem to be totally against the idea. So it's interesting that the Wilts & Glos Standard now intends to throw its weight behind the proposal. Maybe I'm just being a bit cynical! Claire.M
  • Score: 3

3:30pm Mon 4 Aug 14

Harry_Collier says...

" if the speed limit is 60mph then that is the speed people will travel regardless of the road conditions; bends, potholes, rain or ice."

Really? Is there the slightest evidence anywhere that people always travel at the speed indicated on the little roadside panel? My impression driving round the Cotswolds for the last several decades is that most drivers potter along at 42 mph. Apart from the demon racers, of course; but they don't read speed limit signs anyway.
" if the speed limit is 60mph then that is the speed people will travel regardless of the road conditions; bends, potholes, rain or ice." Really? Is there the slightest evidence anywhere that people always travel at the speed indicated on the little roadside panel? My impression driving round the Cotswolds for the last several decades is that most drivers potter along at 42 mph. Apart from the demon racers, of course; but they don't read speed limit signs anyway. Harry_Collier
  • Score: 6

5:30pm Mon 4 Aug 14

safetyaware says...

Update. Col Mustard, the GCC Road Safety Partnership has it's own website: www.roadsafety-glouc
estershire.org.uk where you will find our local map. Look under Menu - Data - Camera & Collision Map. Lots of useful information and even tells you where the Safety Cameras are!
Fact: Exceeding the speed limit and Travelling too fast for the conditions were causation factors in less than 4% of all injury collisions in Gloucestershire in 2013. Do you still think reducing the speed limits will make a significant difference? Apart from inconveniencing law abiding drivers?
Update. Col Mustard, the GCC Road Safety Partnership has it's own website: www.roadsafety-glouc estershire.org.uk where you will find our local map. Look under Menu - Data - Camera & Collision Map. Lots of useful information and even tells you where the Safety Cameras are! Fact: Exceeding the speed limit and Travelling too fast for the conditions were causation factors in less than 4% of all injury collisions in Gloucestershire in 2013. Do you still think reducing the speed limits will make a significant difference? Apart from inconveniencing law abiding drivers? safetyaware
  • Score: 8

7:37pm Mon 4 Aug 14

Rex Cooper says...

Claire.M wrote:
I agree with most of the comments posted above. Lots of very valid points being made.

Yes, the Cotswolds does statistically have the "most dangerous roads out of the whole of Gloucestershire" in terms of the number of accidents. But sadly that's the nature of the beast with rural roads, where serious accidents are generally much more likely to happen. Plus, the Cotswolds has by far the largest road network (i.e. highest number of miles) of any district in Gloucestershire, so this will inevitably skew the figures.

I'm curious to know why the Wilts & Glos Standard has decided to launch this campaign – is there a hidden agenda in all this? Of course I would never question the impartiality of the Wilts & Glos Standard(!) but it seems to me that their campaign will almost certainly provide a platform for certain local politicians to gain extra coverage in the months leading up to the elections in May next year. For example, the Lib Dem parliamentary candidate for the Cotswolds, Paul Hodgkinson, just happens to speak for the Lib Dems on Highways issues at Glos County Council, so this campaign will conveniently be right up his street (no pun intended!). Also, our Lib Dem mayor of Cirencester has been campaigning for some time to reduce the speed limit on the ring road – even though many motorists seem to be totally against the idea. So it's interesting that the Wilts & Glos Standard now intends to throw its weight behind the proposal.

Maybe I'm just being a bit cynical!
No - you're not being cynical - just paranoid. It took some imagination to try and score a political point and implicate the local paper in a piece about road safety !
There is no doubt that excessive speed is a cause of more accidents and more serious accidents. Quite where"safetyaware" is coming from in claiming that speed is not a factor is anyone's guess.
And as for politicians pulling stunts before elections - let's see which parties are best - and worst at this. By the way did you mean to say that because " many motorists are totally against the idea" that it is a bad idea ? Its like saying that smokers don't like the smoking ban.
[quote][p][bold]Claire.M[/bold] wrote: I agree with most of the comments posted above. Lots of very valid points being made. Yes, the Cotswolds does statistically have the "most dangerous roads out of the whole of Gloucestershire" in terms of the number of accidents. But sadly that's the nature of the beast with rural roads, where serious accidents are generally much more likely to happen. Plus, the Cotswolds has by far the largest road network (i.e. highest number of miles) of any district in Gloucestershire, so this will inevitably skew the figures. I'm curious to know why the Wilts & Glos Standard has decided to launch this campaign – is there a hidden agenda in all this? Of course I would never question the impartiality of the Wilts & Glos Standard(!) but it seems to me that their campaign will almost certainly provide a platform for certain local politicians to gain extra coverage in the months leading up to the elections in May next year. For example, the Lib Dem parliamentary candidate for the Cotswolds, Paul Hodgkinson, just happens to speak for the Lib Dems on Highways issues at Glos County Council, so this campaign will conveniently be right up his street (no pun intended!). Also, our Lib Dem mayor of Cirencester has been campaigning for some time to reduce the speed limit on the ring road – even though many motorists seem to be totally against the idea. So it's interesting that the Wilts & Glos Standard now intends to throw its weight behind the proposal. Maybe I'm just being a bit cynical![/p][/quote]No - you're not being cynical - just paranoid. It took some imagination to try and score a political point and implicate the local paper in a piece about road safety ! There is no doubt that excessive speed is a cause of more accidents and more serious accidents. Quite where"safetyaware" is coming from in claiming that speed is not a factor is anyone's guess. And as for politicians pulling stunts before elections - let's see which parties are best - and worst at this. By the way did you mean to say that because " many motorists are totally against the idea" that it is a bad idea ? Its like saying that smokers don't like the smoking ban. Rex Cooper
  • Score: -2

8:46pm Mon 4 Aug 14

Claire.M says...

Rex Cooper: I'm sorry if you thought I was trying to score a political point. I can't imagine that sort of thing is allowed to happen very often on these comments pages, so I'll consider my wrist well and truly slapped.

So just out of interest, are you saying that reducing the speed limit on the Cirencester ring road is a good idea? If so, what sort of speed limit would you like to see introduced?
Rex Cooper: I'm sorry if you thought I was trying to score a political point. I can't imagine that sort of thing is allowed to happen very often on these comments pages, so I'll consider my wrist well and truly slapped. So just out of interest, are you saying that reducing the speed limit on the Cirencester ring road is a good idea? If so, what sort of speed limit would you like to see introduced? Claire.M
  • Score: 1

8:58pm Mon 4 Aug 14

safetyaware says...

Without getting involved in the political slanging match, 'safety aware is coming from' the statistics gathered from every 'injury accident' that occurred in Gloucestershire during 2013. These are derived from what is known as a 'Stats form 19' that is completed by the police officer at the time of attending the crash and his/her investigation of the incident. I agree, the greater the speed, the bigger the mess but it is not the prime cause of the vast majority of incidents. Rex Cooper says; "There is no doubt that excessive speed is a cause of more accidents and more serious accidents." Where does this information come from or is it an assumption made by the unknowing without consulting the facts. How often do we see the coroner's verdict of driver/rider/pedestr
ian error published? The initial incident is sensational and thus newsworthy but the final report will not catch any headlines. I repeat my challenge to the W&GS, get the facts and report them so that we can have a balanced discussion.
Without getting involved in the political slanging match, 'safety aware is coming from' the statistics gathered from every 'injury accident' that occurred in Gloucestershire during 2013. These are derived from what is known as a 'Stats form 19' that is completed by the police officer at the time of attending the crash and his/her investigation of the incident. I agree, the greater the speed, the bigger the mess but it is not the prime cause of the vast majority of incidents. Rex Cooper says; "There is no doubt that excessive speed is a cause of more accidents and more serious accidents." Where does this information come from or is it an assumption made by the unknowing without consulting the facts. How often do we see the coroner's verdict of driver/rider/pedestr ian error published? The initial incident is sensational and thus newsworthy but the final report will not catch any headlines. I repeat my challenge to the W&GS, get the facts and report them so that we can have a balanced discussion. safetyaware
  • Score: 7

6:19pm Tue 5 Aug 14

esse quam viderie says...

Call me naive but I don’t think that anyone is suggesting that reducing the speed limit on the dual carriageways around Cirencester is the panacea that will stop all the accidents. There are many causes for accidents and driving too fast for the conditions may or may not be a factor.

However it is unarguably true that reducing vehicle speeds gives drivers more time to react and, if possible, avoid a collision or at least reduce the severity if it cannot be avoided. A quick glance at the Highway Code will reveal the difference in stopping distances between 70 mph and 40 mph.

Being hit at 40 mph willnot make the pedestrian crossing the dual carriageway by the fire station less of an idiot but it will give him more of a chance to live to learn some sense for the future.
Call me naive but I don’t think that anyone is suggesting that reducing the speed limit on the dual carriageways around Cirencester is the panacea that will stop all the accidents. There are many causes for accidents and driving too fast for the conditions may or may not be a factor. However it is unarguably true that reducing vehicle speeds gives drivers more time to react and, if possible, avoid a collision or at least reduce the severity if it cannot be avoided. A quick glance at the Highway Code will reveal the difference in stopping distances between 70 mph and 40 mph. Being hit at 40 mph willnot make the pedestrian crossing the dual carriageway by the fire station less of an idiot but it will give him more of a chance to live to learn some sense for the future. esse quam viderie
  • Score: -1

6:22pm Tue 5 Aug 14

esse quam viderie says...

Oh, and please can we keep inane political point scoring out of the argument for once - or is that too much to hope for on these pages?
Oh, and please can we keep inane political point scoring out of the argument for once - or is that too much to hope for on these pages? esse quam viderie
  • Score: 3

7:03pm Tue 5 Aug 14

safetyaware says...

Fact: A pedestrian hit at 40 mph has a 90% chance of being killed. So the 30 mph difference has minimal effect. At 30 mph he has a 20% chance of being killed. Ever thought of why the peed limit in a built up are was set at 30? At 20 mph the pedestrian has a 97% chance of surviving hence the 20 mph speed limit in Cirencester. The graph is exponential, the 50/50 risk is 35 mph. There is no evidence to suggest that reducing the speed limit has any significant effect on a driver's ability to react any better. The Highway Code stopping distances are valid if the driver is concentrating on the driving and has a reaction time of 0.7 seconds. Are your reactions that good?
Fact: A pedestrian hit at 40 mph has a 90% chance of being killed. So the 30 mph difference has minimal effect. At 30 mph he has a 20% chance of being killed. Ever thought of why the peed limit in a built up are was set at 30? At 20 mph the pedestrian has a 97% chance of surviving hence the 20 mph speed limit in Cirencester. The graph is exponential, the 50/50 risk is 35 mph. There is no evidence to suggest that reducing the speed limit has any significant effect on a driver's ability to react any better. The Highway Code stopping distances are valid if the driver is concentrating on the driving and has a reaction time of 0.7 seconds. Are your reactions that good? safetyaware
  • Score: -1

9:31pm Tue 5 Aug 14

Rex Cooper says...

Esse quam Viderie wrote " driving too fast for the conditions may or may not be a factor" Is there any doubt whatsoever that speeding in poor conditions is a factor ? In general -there is no "may not"
and safetyaware claims "there is no evidence to suggest that reducing the speed limit has any significant effect on a drivers ability to react any better ' Since you are so keen on facts : With a reaction time of 0.7 seconds you travel faster and arrive at a potential collision much quicker at a faster than a slower speed. Also after the reaction delay and once braking or averting action is taken the same applies. There is quite simply less time and space to avoid an accident. You can have your own opinion but you can't have your own facts
Esse quam Viderie wrote " driving too fast for the conditions may or may not be a factor" Is there any doubt whatsoever that speeding in poor conditions is a factor ? In general -there is no "may not" and safetyaware claims "there is no evidence to suggest that reducing the speed limit has any significant effect on a drivers ability to react any better ' Since you are so keen on facts : With a reaction time of 0.7 seconds you travel faster and arrive at a potential collision much quicker at a faster than a slower speed. Also after the reaction delay and once braking or averting action is taken the same applies. There is quite simply less time and space to avoid an accident. You can have your own opinion but you can't have your own facts Rex Cooper
  • Score: -2

11:22pm Tue 5 Aug 14

safetyaware says...

My opinion is based on facts not supposition. Of the 775 injury collisions in Gloucestershire in 2013 and the 1850 causation factors contributing to these crashes, speed only accounted for 3.8% of the probable causes. The main cause is 'Failed to look properly' - driver, rider or pedestrian. Simply, if you don't see it you cannot do anything about it, no matter what your speed! Records show that reducing the speed limit has no appreciable effect on the number of incidents. Could this be down to complacency?
My opinion is based on facts not supposition. Of the 775 injury collisions in Gloucestershire in 2013 and the 1850 causation factors contributing to these crashes, speed only accounted for 3.8% of the probable causes. The main cause is 'Failed to look properly' - driver, rider or pedestrian. Simply, if you don't see it you cannot do anything about it, no matter what your speed! Records show that reducing the speed limit has no appreciable effect on the number of incidents. Could this be down to complacency? safetyaware
  • Score: 2

10:59am Wed 6 Aug 14

Rex Cooper says...

Look - its simple. If someone " fails to look" is a collision more likely to happen if either or both are going faster or slower ? Also if a collision occurs is it likely to be more serious if the drivers are going faster or slower ?
Forget statistics - try logic.
I'm out of here.
Good luck to the Standard in their Waterland/South Cerney campaign.
Look - its simple. If someone " fails to look" is a collision more likely to happen if either or both are going faster or slower ? Also if a collision occurs is it likely to be more serious if the drivers are going faster or slower ? Forget statistics - try logic. I'm out of here. Good luck to the Standard in their Waterland/South Cerney campaign. Rex Cooper
  • Score: -2

5:27pm Wed 6 Aug 14

Crickladian says...

Absolutely no point in speed limits if they are not enforced. Despite having a 20mph limit in our Town the police do not enforce, not because they can't because they won't. Their position is that it should be self-enforcing. So you can campaign for a speed limit and implement, but if the police decide, as a matter of policy, that they will not enforce there is nothing you can do. Highways are similarly ineffective. Despite lobbying the Police Commissioner, who is supposed to represent us, he simply accepts the police stance. Meanwhile we endure the speeding!
Absolutely no point in speed limits if they are not enforced. Despite having a 20mph limit in our Town the police do not enforce, not because they can't because they won't. Their position is that it should be self-enforcing. So you can campaign for a speed limit and implement, but if the police decide, as a matter of policy, that they will not enforce there is nothing you can do. Highways are similarly ineffective. Despite lobbying the Police Commissioner, who is supposed to represent us, he simply accepts the police stance. Meanwhile we endure the speeding! Crickladian
  • Score: 2

5:33pm Wed 6 Aug 14

Geoff66 says...

In the case of the Cirencester bypass (ring road), the issue is not necessarily the speed of the cars, the issue is that people are not using their common sense and are trying to cross over a busy dual-carriage where they shouldn't be.

Speeds of 5 miles an hour plus are capable of killing someone....so what speed limit should we expect? I think it is reasonable for people to travel up to 70 mph, when it is supposed to be safe for them to do so - the issue here however is that certain people are throwing their own safety and lives to the wind, and this is what MUST be tackled. Not simply imposing a lowered blanket speed limit on this dual-carriageway.

Tackle the causes i.e. the idiots who are putting both their lives, and the lives of the drivers and their passengers at risk.....not just the drivers who are rightly assuming that these roads are safe.
In the case of the Cirencester bypass (ring road), the issue is not necessarily the speed of the cars, the issue is that people are not using their common sense and are trying to cross over a busy dual-carriage where they shouldn't be. Speeds of 5 miles an hour plus are capable of killing someone....so what speed limit should we expect? I think it is reasonable for people to travel up to 70 mph, when it is supposed to be safe for them to do so - the issue here however is that certain people are throwing their own safety and lives to the wind, and this is what MUST be tackled. Not simply imposing a lowered blanket speed limit on this dual-carriageway. Tackle the causes i.e. the idiots who are putting both their lives, and the lives of the drivers and their passengers at risk.....not just the drivers who are rightly assuming that these roads are safe. Geoff66
  • Score: 4

5:11pm Thu 7 Aug 14

Jessica Rabbit says...

I disagree... The speed on the ring road should be 40mph on Tetbury hill.. there is a pavement either side and hundreds of children walk up and down here daily. Regardless of whether people run across the road, which is silly, the cars are traveling at motorway speed with pedestrians a few feet away. Would we allow people to walk along the hard shoulder of the motorway.. no. So why are we risking the lives of hundreds of children walking up and down Tetbury hill? It is a disgrace and the sooner the speed is reduced the better. I back this campaign.
I disagree... The speed on the ring road should be 40mph on Tetbury hill.. there is a pavement either side and hundreds of children walk up and down here daily. Regardless of whether people run across the road, which is silly, the cars are traveling at motorway speed with pedestrians a few feet away. Would we allow people to walk along the hard shoulder of the motorway.. no. So why are we risking the lives of hundreds of children walking up and down Tetbury hill? It is a disgrace and the sooner the speed is reduced the better. I back this campaign. Jessica Rabbit
  • Score: 0

5:12pm Thu 7 Aug 14

Jessica Rabbit says...

Standard - Where is the link for the e-petition?
Standard - Where is the link for the e-petition? Jessica Rabbit
  • Score: 0

6:31pm Thu 7 Aug 14

Geoff66 says...

Jessica sorry petal, but your wrong. As i said previously, it is about ensuring that people are unable to cross the dual-carriage, where they shouldn't be able to access it.

The Tetbury Hill has always been a potential melting pot, just waiting to rear it's ugly head. It is not about imposing a 40 mph limit here, it is about ensuring that people are unable to access the dual-carriage way, other than via the underpass and the pedestrian foot bridge.

However, i do agree that the safety of pedestrians and school children, is also paramount on this stretch of road, that is why pedestrian fencing and barriers should be, and always should have been installed, to prevent 1. people accessing the road, and 2. cars being able to drive, or crash onto the pavements

If we start imposing speed limits on these dual-carriageways, then we will surely start creating potential bottle necks, and these could end up causing many more problem for the residents of Cirencester, than they can be expected to solve.

Anyway, lets also not forget that potentially this roundabout could, in the future (dependent upon the decision to allow 2,500 new homes to built at Chesterton farm) be a major transport issue for the town and road users, with shall we say around 4,000 additional cars trying to access this roundabout. This roundabout and the roads leading to it, will surely need to be a major factor that the Highways Agency, GCC and CDC, will need to consider and address.

I am sorry to say that simply imposing a 40mph limit on these approaches, and this stretch of the dual-carriageway, is not enough, nor is it necessarily the only, or the right approach to be taken.
Jessica sorry petal, but your wrong. As i said previously, it is about ensuring that people are unable to cross the dual-carriage, where they shouldn't be able to access it. The Tetbury Hill has always been a potential melting pot, just waiting to rear it's ugly head. It is not about imposing a 40 mph limit here, it is about ensuring that people are unable to access the dual-carriage way, other than via the underpass and the pedestrian foot bridge. However, i do agree that the safety of pedestrians and school children, is also paramount on this stretch of road, that is why pedestrian fencing and barriers should be, and always should have been installed, to prevent 1. people accessing the road, and 2. cars being able to drive, or crash onto the pavements If we start imposing speed limits on these dual-carriageways, then we will surely start creating potential bottle necks, and these could end up causing many more problem for the residents of Cirencester, than they can be expected to solve. Anyway, lets also not forget that potentially this roundabout could, in the future (dependent upon the decision to allow 2,500 new homes to built at Chesterton farm) be a major transport issue for the town and road users, with shall we say around 4,000 additional cars trying to access this roundabout. This roundabout and the roads leading to it, will surely need to be a major factor that the Highways Agency, GCC and CDC, will need to consider and address. I am sorry to say that simply imposing a 40mph limit on these approaches, and this stretch of the dual-carriageway, is not enough, nor is it necessarily the only, or the right approach to be taken. Geoff66
  • Score: 4

10:44am Fri 8 Aug 14

Rex Cooper says...

One upside of re-classifying the ring road would be that it wouldn't be necessary to cone off and employ an army of contractors at huge cost to cut the verges and roundabouts. Because of the cost it is only tackled once a year, looks terrible most of the time are arguably poses a safety risk.
The town council could keep the verges and roundabouts in trim with one man and a mower ( a'la Tony Curry)
One upside of re-classifying the ring road would be that it wouldn't be necessary to cone off and employ an army of contractors at huge cost to cut the verges and roundabouts. Because of the cost it is only tackled once a year, looks terrible most of the time are arguably poses a safety risk. The town council could keep the verges and roundabouts in trim with one man and a mower ( a'la Tony Curry) Rex Cooper
  • Score: -3

4:48pm Sat 9 Aug 14

oldsmokey0 says...

Why do we allow our Cirencester children to walk to and from Deer Park school up Tetbury Road next to a 70 mph dual carriage way protected only by a 4 inch kerb stone, we do not allow pedestrians to stroll along the motorways.
It is just as bad for people walking on the other side to and from the hospital to Chesterton.

There are people concerned that reducing the speed limit to 40mph up Tetbury Hill would create a bottleneck on that stretch of road.
Where is the logic in that statement, have they ever driven up the hill in school time when there is a queue halfway down the hill in the outside lane due to traffic going to Deer Park and the AGG College.
Once you get to the roundabout at the top the speed limit drops to 50mph from 70mph on a single lane trunk road anyway, so people are just speeding bottle neck .
Why do we allow our Cirencester children to walk to and from Deer Park school up Tetbury Road next to a 70 mph dual carriage way protected only by a 4 inch kerb stone, we do not allow pedestrians to stroll along the motorways. It is just as bad for people walking on the other side to and from the hospital to Chesterton. There are people concerned that reducing the speed limit to 40mph up Tetbury Hill would create a bottleneck on that stretch of road. Where is the logic in that statement, have they ever driven up the hill in school time when there is a queue halfway down the hill in the outside lane due to traffic going to Deer Park and the AGG College. Once you get to the roundabout at the top the speed limit drops to 50mph from 70mph on a single lane trunk road anyway, so people are just speeding bottle neck . oldsmokey0
  • Score: 1

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree