It's perfectly understandable in heavily populated residential areas, where children could easily run out into the street, or the elderly cross the street, but from behind a parked vehicle.
Much less so in areas where this isn't so much of an issue, or perhaps it could be (in normal circumstances) a variable limit, depending on the time of day/day of the week (plus school/bank holidays). Admitedly it would cost more to either have variable LED matrix signs and or something to enforce it.
Unfortunately, most speed limits are now deliberately lo because most people ignore them and drive at least 5mph, if not 10 over theed limit. Not so much of a problem on fast roads, as the likely over-reading error of speedos mean that in reality the car is going at somewhere between 2-3mph over, but on a 30mph limit road, it can make far more of a difference - for stopping in time for said pedestrian or not.
Lots of councils just bend to locals/campaigners who shout loudly because it looks better, politically, to do so. Most people who oppose the lowering of limits tend to grumble only because they already obeyed the previous ones.
Round my area, councils tend to lower roads in the countryside from 60 to 50 or 50 to 40 because complains come in from locals about people going way over those original limits. Lowering them has *some* effect, but most of those speeding excessively still disregard them as before, sometimes taking more risks, especially when the speed limit varies or speed cameras are sited.
I think that if 20mph speed limits come in, councils should have speed humps on those roads. It just make pollution worse because people slow down for them, then speed back up (often changing gear), increasing the pollution emitted in the process.
Some speed bumps also cause damage to the road and buildings through use.
|