Why can't we enforce the existing limits rather than put new lower limits in place? Reducing the average speed of cars (particularly those going faster than the limit) seems like a good idea, but simply putting lots of 20 mph signs up (at a cost of £350,000 to the cash-strapped council - see link - http://www.eastlondonlines.co.uk/2013/12...eed-limit/) doesn't seem like the best way to do this.

When this was last being discussed, I remember reading around and finding that the Metropolitan Police and the Department of Transport both said that the Islington plan was a bad one. Here's a link: http://www.islingtongazette.co.uk/news/p..._1_1663128

The point that they made was that rather than reducing the average speed of traffic (never mind the people who ignore the limits anyway), this would create an enforcement problem where one does not currently exist.

As someone who obeys the speed limit, I am used to being overtaken along Cranston Road, like the poster above.

I can't help but think that a blanket 20 mph limit will create more signage clutter, doubtless lead to more badly-laid speed cushions/bumps and do practically nothing to make the roads safer. People obeying the limit will continue to be overtaken and the roads will not really be any safer for more vulnerable users.

Education and enforcement are the keys to making people drive more safely. Reducing the speed limit without either ensuring people stick to it or understand why is a typical politician's move and oversimplifies the issue.

If the council was able to generate revenue from speed enforcement in the same way they do from parking, I think we'd see a completely different approach.