Is the Government listening to the SCP?
29 September 2011
The Government has suggested raising the maximum speed limit on the UK’s roads from 70 to 80 mph.
The debate on Question Time tonight raised the usual arguments for and against higher speed limits. Some people drew attention to the dangers of slow vehicles as well as fast vehicles.
It is possible that this debate has been initiated by the Scottish Christian Party which proposed this in its 2007 and again in its 2011 Holyrood Manifesto. However we did not ask for a static speed, but our manifesto states: “We will initiate a consultation exercise regarding the feasibility of variable speed limits for trunk roads to reduce journey times and driver frustration, a common cause of accidents.”
The reality is that there are some sections of road which can tolerate 80mph, and there are some sections of 60mph roads which need to have the speed reduced, such as sharp or blind bends.
There are a plethora of signs on our roads, and it should be very easy to put a reduced speed limit on a tight or dangerous bend, and to increase the speed limit on safer sections of road.
Increasing the number of speed limits signs will make drivers more aware of the speed limit, which can only be a good thing.
The concept of variable speed limits has already been introduced in towns and cities, in which 30mph has been reduced to 20mph in appropriate places.
On the topic of influence: it was interesting to note that of the Question Time panellists, Tim Farron, MP, President of the Liberal Democrats, seemed to have a Christian fish symbol on his lapel, that Janet Street-Porter spoke about church-going, and Peter Oborne of the Daily Telegraph spoke of Margaret Thatcher’s Christian compassion. These points are notable because of their novelty and rarity. The Christian adjective and reference to church-going would have been omitted some years ago. Is this another evidence of Christian Party influence? It is encouraging to see Christian concepts being introduced naturally into programmes and debate without encountering the traditional hostility with which it has been met by humanist activists.
