I think the idea is sound but how do we enforce it. I have a road close to me which 20mph but the limit is often ignored.

There are numerous roads covered by the scheme that do not need to be restricted to 20mph, so the policy strikes me as a name-making exercise on the part of the council ("Portsmouth prepares to be become the first city in Britain to have a 20mph limit on almost all residential streets"). Many of Portsmouth's streets are so congested by residential traffic that speeds in excess of 20mph are rarely possible anyway - I see little point in sticking up yet more signs stating the b......g obvious. If vehicles travelling in excess of 20mph really are a problem, then PCC ought to be addressing those specific areas. If the measures do not have any significant effect on the accident statistics will we lower the limits further to (say) 15mph and then 10mph? The only sure-fire way to eliminate road traffic accidents is to dispense with motor vehicles but to do so will turn the City into a back-water. The only sensible approach to road safety is that we ALL take responsibility for our own actions, motorists, cyclists AND pedestrians included.

Sorry guys - browser problems. Could someone at The News delete these duplicates (and No.6) ? Thanks.

20mph, great idea, but now we need to educate pedestrians to cross the roads correctly.

We have been deluged with people claiming that this new limit will slash accidents without any real figures being produced. E.G. RoSPA claimed in the Daily Express that 'A reduction to 20mph COULD reduce the accident rate by 74 per cent' - Note the word 'could' - well it 'could' have no effect either but there appear to be no available statistics to support this either way and we are not going to know this until next year. I certainly could not find any basis for the 74% claim on the RoSPA web site. The News also claimed 'experts' predict that accidents will drop by 50%, obviously based on the now discredited claim that '1mph reduction in speed reduces accidents by 5%' ( This claim was 'substantiated' by figures 'cherry picked' from all around the world, e.g. the Transport Research Laboratory used figures for a 'temporary reduction in speed on Swedish motorways, Injury accidents only' and ignored the fatalities which may have increased but did not support the claim. This is like 'proving' that you always win money on the lottery by only interviewing lottery winners. It was also notable that none of the six statistics used to substantiate this claim were from the UK * ). If the new limit doesn't reduce accidents, are they going to remove them then? In practice, most of the times when there is a high risk of accidents, it is usually impossible to do more than 20mph anyway and the rest of the time when there is little or no risk, it will just pointlessly obstruct the motorist going about his lawful business and will make no effect on accident rates. The odd idiots who are doing 40mph+ through crowded streets will still continue to do so because it will be impossible to enforce the limit on 187 miles of side streets. Setting and attempting to enforce this ludicrous limit will only discredit all speed limits, justified or not and, by implication, other more sensible safety measures. The only way of reducing accidents is to address the real causes of accidents,. i.e. ina

Any cance that this could spread over the rest of hampshire?? i dont think so to much cost hampshires reaction a daft 20 is lenty scheame come on unless its mandortary nobody wil take a blind bt of notice!!