This article surprises me as some of the roads around Frome are really dangerous. High hedges, narrow roads, sharp corners.

Although I can't see how making the whole town a 20mph zone will help, if they speed at a 30 limit they will speed at a 20 limit!

Dom

HERE LIES PND May it rest in peace.
Navigon 7310/iPhone Navigon&Copilot

Quite right, but twice the 20MPH is only 40 MPH, not the 60MPH that they are claiming at the moment.

Something going on in Frome?

Edit: for info: http://www.20splentyforus.org.uk/

Mike R [aka Wyvern46]
Go 530T - unsupported
Go550 Live [not renewed]
Kia In-dash Tomtom

Typical inaccurate reporting to grab a headline. Actually it's the headline that's b****cks. "400 drivers are caught speeding at twice limit," it screams, yet it then goes on to say, "Safety camera vans have caught about 400 cars being driven at speeds of up to 69mph in 30mph zones." So, that's not saying all 400 are doing between 60 and 69, is it? In fact, it doesn't even say that 400 are exceeding the speed limit (though the implication is there). In fact, all it says is that, of 400 vehicles, none was going fater than 69.

Anyway, it goes on to say "watching drivers, often with children in the car, travelling at speeds of 30 to 50 per cent over the limit." In a 30 limit, that's an unspecified number of cars doing between 39 and 45. A bit different. Oh, and just to add to the fake outrage, let's bring children into it (but won't anyone think of the children!!!).

In short, the article is actually short of any real facts, just meaningless numbers in an attempt to whip up a story.

Why are journalists so lazy that they can't
(a) check up the source of the data to verify what they get fed
(b) then use meaningful numbers in their reports?

I think the full source in the first post makes matters a bit clearer with its greater detail. But what I found fascinating is that Ashley Reay, the Speedwatch Coordinator who made these comments, wrote to the newspaper a year earlier, ahead of the introduction of the scheme, that 'this is simply an idea that will not work'

400, eh? Out of how many?

If it's 400 out of 500, then there may be a problem (or, then again, it may just be that the speed limit is artificially low).

If it's 400 out of 4,000,000 then it's only 0.01%, which wouldn't be much of a headline.

Usual hysterical headline based on a nonsensical analysis of the (incomplete) data presented.

Philip

If so many drivers are comfortable at the speeds mentioned,then there must be something wrong with the limits set!

The drivers might be comfortable, but anyone that they hit might not feel the same about it

Speed limits have to be realalistic, and not set at too low a level or people will never stick to them. If you worry about people being hit should we all drive at 12mph and have someone with a red flag in front? Nobody is saying that we should all tear about, but some carefull thinking has to go into the setting of limits, and not just say lets make it 30 mph when a road has been operating quite well for years at 60 mph for instance, maybe that 40 or 50 mph might be more like it.What I am saying is that if so many drivers judge that the speed limit feels too low then it will be broken ( often quite unintentionally ).To put put it another way you can often drive in a 60 mph country lane, but in fact you would not feel COMFORTABLE doing more that 20-30mph, it's all about drivers judgement!