· Paragraph 5. Speed limit table is an over simplifcation of a complex assessment and as such is only one part of the overall process. Using this table in this way means that the views and experiences of residents are not being taken into account when assessing speed limits as set out in the Circular. (ref 23 Circular 01/2013)

. The first bullet point in the Notice of Motion refers to Ref 23 which is detailed below in italics. The Road Safety Team consider the below during their assessment of sites for potential inclusion within the annual Road Safety Programme, the Capital Programme for Local Transport Improvements, the Community Focussed Road Safety Programme and will do so when considering schemes for the Speed Management Programme.

· A study of types of crashes, their severity, causes and frequency, together with a survey of traffic speeds, should indicate whether an existing speed limit is appropriate for the type of road and mix of use by different groups of road users, including the presence or potential presence of vulnerable road users (including people walking, cycling or riding horses, or on motorbikes), or whether it needs to be changed. Local residents may also express their concerns or desire for a lower speed limit and these comments should be considered.

1.2 The second bullet point in the Notice of Motion states:

· Paragraph 6. Refers to speed limits being investigated will be subject to “available resources”. The Circular outlines a cost benefit analysis that includes a wide range of non monetary benefits that have to be considered including quality of life factors and fear of speeds [my emphasis]. (ref: 31 Circular 01/2013)

The second bullet point in the Notice of Motionrefers to Ref 31 which is detailed below in italics. The Road Safety team consider the below during their assessment of sites for potential inclusion within the Programmes detailed above in 1.1. ESCC along with many Highway Authorities choose not to make use of the DFT speed Limit appraisal tool kit as it is cumbersome, requiring a significant level of officer engagement. The results from the trial we undertook were also inconclusive and did not inform the decision making process to any greater degree than the established process currently used.

· Before introducing or changing a local speed limit, traffic authorities will wish to satisfy themselves that the expected benefits exceed the costs. Many of the costs and benefits do not have monetary values associated with them, but traffic authorities should include an assessment of the following factors:

o collision and casualty savings;

o conditions and facilities for vulnerable road users;

o impacts on walking and cycling and other mode shift;

o congestion and journey time reliability;

o environmental, community and quality of life impact

· Quality of life impact may include emissions, severance of local communities, visual impact, noise and vibration and costs, including of engineering and other physical measures including signing, maintenance and cost of enforcement.

· The speed limit appraisal toolkit, found at section 5, will help assess the full costs and benefits of any proposed schemes.

1.3 The third bullet point in the Notice of Motion mentions states:

· Paragraph 7a: casualty reduction: The Circular further sets out that the assessment is not simply about casualties on a road or killed or seriously injured, but is a more complex process of assessment that has to include the experience of other road users, pedestrians, cyclists, horses and riders [my emphasis] (ref 32 Circular 01/2013)

The third bullet point in the Notice of Motion refers to Ref 32 which is detailed below in italics. The Road Safety team consider the below during their assessment of sites for potential inclusion within the Capital Programme for Local Transport Improvements, the Community Focussed Road Safety Programme and will do so when considering schemes for the Speed Management Programme.

· Different road users perceive risks and appropriate speeds differently, and drivers and riders of motor vehicles often do not have the same perception of the hazards of speed as do people on foot, on bicycles or on horseback. Fear of traffic can affect peoples’ quality of life and the needs of vulnerable road users must be fully taken into account in order to further encourage these modes of travel and improve their safety. Speed management strategies should seek to protect local community life.

1.4 The fourth bullet point in the Notice of Motion states:

· Paragraph 7c: The self enforcing requirements of PS05/02 is not a defacto requirement. It is a factor to consider and as such the danger is that policy is used to uphold existing speed limits rather than consider why compliance might be an issue and how to address compliance. (ref 26 Circular 01/2013).

The fourth bullet point in the Notice of Motion refers to Ref 26 which is detailed below in italics. The Road Safety team consider the below during their assessment of sites for potential inclusion within the Programmes detailed above in 1.1.

· Where there is poor compliance with an existing speed limit on a road or stretch of road the reasons for the non-compliance should be examined before a solution is sought. If the speed limit is set too low for no clear reason and the risk of collisions is low, then it may be appropriate to increase the limit. If the existing limit is in place for a good reason, solutions may include engineering measures or changes to the road environment to ensure it better matches the speed limit, or local education and publicity. Enforcement may also be appropriate but should be considered only after the other measures and jointly with the police force.

1.5 The fifth bullet point in the Notice of Motion states:

· Appendix A outlines an approach to speed limit criteria that is equally outwith of the national guidance, which requires local traffic authorities to perform an assessment that includes listening to local residents, and introduce 20mph speed limits in towns AND villages, “particularly where the streets are being used by people on foot and on bicycles, there is community support and the characteristics of the street are suitable” (ref 84 Circular 01/2013).

The fifth bullet point in the Notice of Motion refers to ref 84 which is detailed below in italics, along with ref 85. The Road Safety team consider the below during their assessment of sites for potential inclusion within the Programmes detailed above in 1.1.

· Based on this positive effect on road safety, and a generally favourable reception from local residents, traffic authorities are able to use their power to introduce 20mph speed limits or zones on:

o major streets where there are – or could be - significant numbers of journeys on foot, and/or where pedal cycle movements are an important consideration, and this outweighs the disadvantage of longer journey times for motorised traffic.

This is in addition to:

o residential streets in cities, towns and villages, particularly where the streets are being used by people on foot and on bicycles, there is community support and the characteristics of the street are suitable.

· Successful 20 mph zones and 20 mph speed limits are generally self-enforcing, i.e. the existing conditions of the road together with measures such as traffic calming or signing, publicity and information as part of the scheme, lead to a mean traffic speed compliant with the speed limit. To achieve compliance there should be no expectation on the police to provide additional enforcement beyond their routine activity, unless this has been explicitly agreed.