Government is the target but road safety is the punching bag taking hits from “common sense” politicians

Comment & Analysis: “New speed limits penalise law-abiding drivers – Mayo TD” said one of the more surreal headlines about the speed limit changes last month

The headline from the Connaught Telegraph newspaper was referencing what was said by one of my local TDs here in Mayo, Aontú’s Paul Lawless. He’s a good example of a politician taking a populist stance on road safety seemingly without much understanding about the changes.

Out of the heat of the moment, it’s worth looking back at the speed limit changes and some of the things said. I think Deputy Lawless’s statements are a good example to look back on as he managed to muddle so much.

The newspaper outlined that he “called it a ‘blanket approach’ that punishes responsible drivers while failing to tackle reckless and dangerous driving.” This is totally misinformation on Lawless’ part.

This is roughly a breakdown of what the new default limits should mean:

• 30km/h on urban local roads/estates/town centres (implemented in estates etc, and to be expanded),
• 50km/h on most sections of regional/national roads in urban areas (same as now)
• 60km/h on rural local roads (implemented),
• 80km/h regional roads (no change),
• 80km/h on national secondary roads (planned),
• 100km/h on higher-quality national secondary roads (advised in guidelines),
• 100km/h on national roads (no change), and
• 120km/h on motorways (no change)

This is the opposite of “a blanket approach”. This is fixing what was closer to a blanket approach.

The planned change in the national secondary default limit is down from 100km/h, but it will be possible for higher quality roads that are classed as national secondary roads to stay at 100km/h. Just as some motorways for years have been 100km/h and there’s a dual carriageway with a 120km/h limit.

The Telegraph quoted Lawless as saying:

“Road safety is an extremely important issue, and we must punish those who drive recklessly. However, this review completely ignores the real issues – enforcement is down 40% since 2009, dangerous junctions remain unaddressed, and road conditions, hedge-cutting and traffic calming measures continue to be neglected.”

And, of course, enforcement is an issue, and of course traffic calming is needed, but as Deputy Lawless said, blanket approaches are a bad idea. He also got it wrong, but he was right that a blanket approach should not be in place, and the Government are fixing that.

Having the correct default speed for the context of a road or street also helps with the rollout of traffic calming etc.

Road safety is a systems problem. It’ll never be fixed by one thing alone and always be aware of people saying something else is the problem when they have little details and are getting so many details wrong.

The Telegraph reported:

He noted that while some local road speed reductions are justified, the proposal to cut speed limits on national secondary roads from 100km/h to 80km/h is ‘totally wrong’.

“One example is the N60, which links Claremorris, Castlebar and Ballyhaunis. This is one of the best stretches of road in County Mayo, yet the Government is forcing a reduction to 80km/h,” he said.

But the Government is doing no such thing. When the national secondary changes come about, it will be open to Mayo County Council to keep higher quality roads at their current limit. That is, if they don’t abandon the changes due to the level of mis/disinformation being spread by many.

The claim that “He noted that while some local road speed reductions are justified” bit is interesting. The reality is that the majority of rural local roads would have been fine at 50km/h, and many would have still been set too fast for the design of these backroads (there is a bit of a balance to be had with a large road network).

The vast bulk of rural local roads were justified to be lowed, and there are only a few which somebody might be able to make the case to return to 80km/h and even so, it’d be a margin call at best.

The Telegraph further reported that:

Deputy Lawless also criticised Transport Infrastructure Ireland’s approach, highlighting that according to a TII engineer on RTÉ Radio, all roads without a central barrier will be reduced to 80km/h.

“This means there would hardly be a road in Mayo where motorists can legally drive at 100km/h.

“We’re creating a situation where tractors will be overtaking cars. Instead of targeting reckless drivers, this government is penalising responsible motorists who obey the rules,” he stated.

This is just nonsense. A glance at the proposals — including that there will be no changes to national primary roads shows this up to be, at best, a misinterpretation of what was said on the radio without basic checks before repeating what was said.

The Connaught Telegraph also reported that:

And he called for a more localised approach, where councillors and area engineers can make evidence-based decisions.

“Local democracy must play its part. There are good stretches of road that should retain their current limits, while genuinely dangerous areas should be reviewed based on data. This one-size-fits-all policy from central government is dangerous – it will frustrate drivers, encourage unsafe overtaking, and ultimately lead to more road deaths,” he warned.

He appealed to the Transport Minister: “I am asking you to bring common sense back into this debate.”

Calling for evidence-based decisions in an article which is close to fact-free is an irony overload. And then we get a mention of good old “common sense” when what is actually needed is for people — especially politicians — to read and understand what’s in front of them before commenting.

Lawless’s comments are dressed up with a pretence of caring for road safety. But show no real sign of such.

The speed limit changes are clearly not “a one-size-fits-all policy”; good stretches of road can retain their current limits, and local democracy is supposed to play its part. Government guidelines outline a process between councillors and officials (where there are failures at the council level that should be highlighted).

Politicians who advocate for speed limits based around reckless drivers who cannot help but get frustrated and nearly unsafe overtaking should feel part-responsible for any more road deaths. There will always be situations on rural and urban roads where people need to wait behind other road users or are slow to let people cross, etc. So, pandering to the easily frustrated is a recipe for disaster.

Will Deputy Lawless being so wrong about this affect how he comments on the next planned changes for urban areas? Time will tell.

“The Government” is the target, but the punching bag is road safety and it’s taking the hits from politicians like Deputy Lawless and local media, unable or unwilling to challenge fact-free populism. This isn’t harm-free. Just as toxic populism erodes democracy, it can have a similar effect on road safety.