‘Ridiculous idea’

I MUST reply to the letter of recent weeks by E. Stevens which is typical of the “20 is plenty” fanatics with their “holier than though attitude”, and demonising those of us who wish to drive at up to the horrendous speed of 30mph. To quote, “I slow to give people crossing the road plenty of time and space to do so”, implying that we don’t. He uses terms like “driving in a calmer and less aggressive manner” implying that we are aggressive, and so on.

We also want to see the number of accidents reduced, but “20 is plenty” is not the way to do it. We believe in adjusting our speed according to conditions and not unthinkingly driving by numbers. It is safer to watch the road than to have to watch the speedometer all of the time.

I do not “fume that pedestrians and cyclists don’t pay road tax.” He writes that “road tax was abolished in the 1930s”. However, motorists are still paying it although the name may have changed. We also pay the iniquitous fuel tax and parking charges that cyclists and pedestrians avoid; in addition to the rates and taxes that they do pay.

He has missed the point that major roads are not included in the scheme, only the most extreme fanatics would find that acceptable. So, it will be no “easier to emerge from side turnings or turning right,” as the same amount of care will still be needed.

Don’t be fooled by the cherry picked and misinterpreted accident statistics. Kent County Council has decided against implementing it as they say that there is no evidence that it saves lives.

Air pollution is not a problem in Worthing. The reduction in speed would make no difference, but motorists making quicker, but longer, detours to avoid these roads would use more fuel and slightly increase pollution.

I hope that our councils will come to their senses and not waste any more of our money on this ridiculous idea.

Chris Gould

Georgia Avenue