MADAM – In response to B Goodall’s letter, I would make the following observations.

Firstly, I am grateful to both Cllr Lunnon and Cllr Sanders for affording me the time to discuss this issue which, although I disagree with the scheme’s planning and implementation, deserves credit for addressing a safety issue and I respect their strong views on the matter.

I am not against the scheme and simply feel it should be reviewed.

To suggest that my views are “selfish” and “cobblers” are no more ludicrous than Cllr Lunnon’s views that cars are intimidating when “swooshing” by at up to 30mph.

Equally, I have had a completely clean driving licence for 24 years and therefore aspersions dispersions regarding my driving ability are wide of the mark.

Perhaps Mr/Mrs Goodall would like to read the full argument before making assumptions which can be viewed at chn.ge/16sC941 .

Secondly, why has the allocated £10,000 been spent (you read that amount correctly) on a scheme which hasn’t been universally adopted by other local councils and is widely regarded as being the most ineffective way of slowing cars down, with an average reduction of 1-2mph?

I have spent time walking around Uplands over the last week and would estimate that 90 per cent plus of drivers are taking no notice of the limits.

I would, of course, stress that as a safe and courteous driver, I am sticking to the limit.

Thirdly, why are areas such as (but not limited to) Parliament Street School, which could use the 20mph restriction around schools times, not protected on the basis (and this baffles Cllr Lunnon as much as myself) on the basis that cars drive too fast past it already to expect drivers to slow down and adjust to 20mph?

This is crazy and essentially means that safer areas where drivers abide by the limits, and therefore 20mph is technically less needed, are expected to adapt, but in areas where it would make sense to have the scheme, they can’t have it as drivers drive too fast already.

Ludicrous.

Fourthly, Cllr Lunnon suggests that despite smaller housing estates being 20mph zones, drivers will know that it isn’t appropriate to actually drive that fast (I feel 20mph is too fast in many of these areas, for the record).

Surely this contradicts the argument that drivers don’t possess the common sense to know what a safe speed is on other roads which previously had a 30mph limit?

Finally, as a father I am very worried that such a degree of emphasis is being put on protecting cyclists and pedestrians from supposed dangerous motorists.

The only long-term way to make our highways safer for all users is to educate and teach tolerance and respect for all road users be they pedestrians, cyclists or motorists.

I worry that the current message will be interpreted that motorists should be more aware, or more responsible, than cyclists or pedestrians and this is likely to breed a culture of “we’re not to blame” complacency amongst said cyclists and pedestrians in the longer term.

I worry that in the long term this culture of complacency will result in more accidents, which is exactly what none of us want.

B Marks

Uplands