I thank the Minister for her clear recognition of the fact that 20 mph zones have already proved their worth. Those zones have also saved many lives. On the other hand, a default speed limit still gives local authorities flexibility, as the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, emphasised. Local authorities are free to set higher limits as relevant. However, here I also take the point of my noble friends Lady Gardner of Parkes and Lord Hanningfield. Certainly, we do not want the default system to impose limits unnecessarily—establishing 20 mph zones where they are not required—and we do not want them to impose some practice throughout the day if that might be relevant for only part of the day. A default speed limit, if we were to deploy it, could possibly too restrictive a means, in which case we should not deploy it.
Yet my purpose in tabling the amendment was to recommend some form of balanced approach to the problem, of which a default system might be one of many. As such, I continue to recommend it, along with its alternatives, to the Minister for further consideration. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 17 [Exemptions from speed limits]:
Road Safety Bill [HL]
Proceeding contribution from
Earl of Dundee
(Conservative)
in the House of Lords on Monday, 4 July 2005.
It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL)
and
Debate on bills on Road Safety Bill [HL].
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
673 c466 Session
2005-06Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-22 00:20:52 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_260932
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_260932
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_260932