Comment: speed limit proposals are about much more than safety

Tuesday 21 August 2018

With continuing public discussions over speed limits in Guernsey, Ray McLean has put his thoughts down for Bailiwick Express - asking why they could be lowered, when there appears to be little evidence to support the idea that it would make the island's roads safer...

With all this talk of motorist this and “incentive” that, a couple of things have been made obvious by their absence. So lets take a less PC look at my points shall we.

If these proposed (or pre-agreed) changes are about safety for all...

What are E&I’s proposals to stop pedestrians, local and visitors, crossing roads whenever and where ever they choose?

While they are doing this more often than not they have their faces thrust into their mobile phones, should they not be paying attention to what they are doing? Personally i’ve lost count of chancers crossing the road not looking to see if its safe, and mostly only a few feet away from the pedestrian crossings which, and stop me if i’m not making sense, are there for their safety. What is E&I’s proposals to implement that they take their responsibilities to others seriously?

Pictured: Deputy Barry Brehaut, President of E&I which is suggesting dropping the speed limit on a number of roads to 25mph

What are E&I’s proposals to deal with cyclists who are irresponsible, by that I mean cutting infront of vehicles last minute because they misjudged the distance, or just don’t care? Go through red lights , constantly cycle the wrong way up one way streets despite oncoming vehicles who are driving the correct way.

If you have something in mind, how are you going to identify them? By number plate?

How are E&I going to stop cyclists en masse along by La Houguette as an example, sometimes five abreast, bragging about getting 40+ mph down the hill? How will you identify them? Is the punishment for speeding the same as a vehicle? Does the law not state cyclists may ride two abreast but must be conscious if they are causing any traffic backup?

How will you get the message to cyclists that underpassing vehicles is kind of a bad idea, or what are you going to do to educate those who slip on the blindside of cars at filters, then when the driver whose turn it is next has to stop or do something because a bike has appeared out of nowhere, and then that cyclist has the nerve to have a go at the driver? Are you going to prosecute the driver for behaving correctly?

What incentives are you going to give those who frequently go through red lights without dismounting, do not dismount when approaching a pedestrian crossing, mostly not giving any indication that they wish to cross causing further stress to motorists who in the main are aware of all travellers, though sadly not all drivers are.

Has E&I even spoken with the Home Affairs team as to how these potential 80 roads are going to be policed? And at how much extra cost will this set the taxpayer back by? Or will it simply cost what it costs?

Pictured: Deputy Mary Lowe, President of the Home Affairs committee which has opposed the plans to drop speed limits

What does phase two involve? I understand this was put to a deputy at the Vale Douzaine and i’m happy to be corrected if im wrong, but they had a very hard time with it from parishioners – and typically the douzaines thoughts have simply been brushed off by E&I.

I'll hazard a guess that phase two involves a blanket limit of 25 or less islandwide, but again I will wait to be proved wrong.

The other very troubling fact is that E&I can implement any changes they see fit WITHOUT debate in chambers. Not only is this placing far too much power in the hands of one committee, it sets a very bad precedent for what we are supposed to have, a democracy.

These changes will not just impact the public, but many other areas too. Taxi fares will probably rise, work timetables will need to be shifted which will most probably impact on SLA’s with companies etc, people in the trades, but what am I saying? I’m pretty confident my comments here will just be dismissed.

Oh, and what local evidence is available that warrants these changes? If during an RTC and the drivers agree as to who caused it, then insurance details will be swapped but is that collision still reported to the police? If not, and if this has been the case, how can there be an accurate account of these incidents? If E&I are simply going by what Living Streets or GBG are saying then surely they are implementing changes based purely on hearsay. How is that right or democratic?

Without any evidence to prove these changes are needed, does E&I not understand the growing public perception that this is yet another attempt to frustrate the motorist, pandering to the few. I wish to remind all of the States of just how bad they looked after the width and emissions and paid parking affairs. Do you really want history to repeat itself?

To add a few clarity points, I am all for speeds around schools and hospitals to be lower. I am a parent after all and I wouldn’t wish anything, not even on my worst enemy, for anything to happen to anyone let alone a child. So yes, those speeds should apply during school terms and times, but then they should revert to the “normal” limit.

As Deputy Laurie Queripel pointed out in an email to me, some of our lanes can be a bit strange, with some very narrow ones deemed fit for 35 which is odd and could benefit from a rethink. The same goes for Le Friquet.

Our current speed limits have worked fairly well for a long time now, and as the old saying goes if its not broke don’t fix it.

I am pro the persons choice in transport, but be responsible with it. I was taught the green cross code, my parents also taught me as much common sense as possible in the big bad world. That art seems to have been forgotten in the name of political correctness.

Fair play to those who walk, or cycle - motorbike or shang - or indeed those who go by car, but please stop vilifying the motorist. It's an individual choice to suit our needs, and this social engineering/micro life - management must stop.

Just because you can do a thing, does not mean that you should, and in this case and without local evidence to back it up, I think the States should not.

The above is the personal opinion of Ray McLean. If you would like to submit a comment piece on this or another topic email editor@bailiwickexpress.com