It was disappointing to read (Gazette, May 13) that the request for 20mph limits around our schools has been turned down, though it was good to read Anne Hawkesworth’s letter (Gazette Letters, April 1) saying, “in my strategic capacity for highways I have instructed the director that officers investigate the effectiveness of 20mph “respect zones”. Such zones have been found to be beneficial in other parts of the country . . .”

Where there is high concentration of pedestrians and traffic, all real and empirical evidence suggests that such zones act as a safeguard.

Safeguards are now an accepted part of our lives – hard hats on building sites, fire doors in public buildings, seat belts in cars – it is not that we expect an accident, it is that we hope to prevent one, thus it is particularly hard to read that we must have a certain accident level in order to qualify for 20mph limits. This argument goes against the grain of the advice of the All-party Road Safety Select Committee and is contrary to the statement of Steve Thornton, co-ordinator for road safety for Bradford Council, who says: “Guidance that requires a casualty record to reduce speed limits to sociable levels is unacceptable.”

Current traffic calming fails to prevent speeds considerably higher than the posted 30mph limit. We need more effective measures; it is to be hoped that further discussions with traffic engineers and highways officials will bring a more realistic and satisfactory outcome.

Barbara Davy

Parklands, Ilkley