Dear Editor,

We write in response to the letter in last month's edition of the Chew Valley Gazette asking us to justify the changes to speed limits in Bishop Sutton.

Road safety and speeding are the biggest issue we are contacted about by residents. In Bishop Sutton before we were elected we were constantly asked why no one was doing anything about the speed limits on the A368 and in the village side roads. So, we said we would. We promised if elected to represent the people of the Chew Valley in B&NES we would deliver a consultation on speed limits on the A368 and in the adjoining villages. We were elected, and we have delivered the speed limit consultation as we promised.

As part of this work we surveyed the parish, using newsletters, social media and going to door speaking to many residents. Over 300 people responded to our surveys. Ninety-four per cent of respondents wanted the speed limit changed to 20mph along the A368 and in the side roads.

We therefore reject completely the assertion that because six people objected to the proposed changes in the B&NES consultation that we are not representing the views of residents.

With respect to the position of some signs, the sighting of road signs is governed by the Traffic Signs Manual and The Traffic Signs Regulations and Directions (2016) law. This legislation includes the distances between relay/repeater signs that need to be adhered to by law and so dictates where signs have to go.

Car and van sales are increasing. More people are using delivery services such as Amazon and for supermarket shopping. More and more houses are being built, and the Government has imposed huge targets for house building on local authorities. There are more successful businesses in Bishop Sutton and nearby, and the airport traffic is only ever increasing. As a result, there are more journeys on our roads than ever, and this is only going to increase. Furthermore, the cars and vans are getting longer and wider. We can't ignore these facts and that many people now feel unsafe on the narrow pavements (where they exist) and when crossing our roads.

We cannot support waiting for serious incidents to occur before something is done. Last year B&NES adopted the Vision Zero strategy (supported by every Councillor of all parties and independents) as an aspiration to try to eliminate traffic deaths and serious injuries. Vision Zero is endorsed by the World Health Organisation. We therefore fully support the Council officers in trying to be proactive to improve road safety and only wish there was more funding to do things faster and address immediately street designs, road crossings and driver education for example.

Faster, inappropriate speeds are a major factor in accidents where drivers cannot respond in time to hazards or people, children, entering the road. Lack of speed restrictions has been shown to account for the excess deaths among child pedestrians seen in the UK. The chance of a pedestrian being seriously injured or killed if struck by a car is 45 per cent if the car is travelling at 30 mph but only five per cent at 20 mph.

As a paediatrician who has scooped up dying children from roads and looked after brain damaged children, and a NHS physiotherapist with expertise in neuro-muscular and skeletal rehabilitation after injury we believe that prevention of road accidents is a far better thing to do than dealing with the awful personal trauma, as well as the huge costs to society more broadly, of serious accidents.

Yours sincerely,

Councillors Dave Harding and Anna Box

Dear Editor,

So Nigel Farage finally published Reform UK’s ‘masterplan’ on immigration. It is absurd.

He claims all arrivals will be arrested - but charged with what crime? If they claim asylum, arrival is not illegal. Repeating the lie that they are “illegal immigrants” does not make it true. International law is clear.

To bypass this, he proposes leaving the ECHR. But there is no clear exit process, unlike Brexit, and leaving would also unravel multiple treaties on slavery, trafficking and human rights, as well as the Human Rights Act and the NI Good Friday Agreement. His “British Bill of Rights” would be worthless if a UK Government was determined to undermine it and remove safeguards against abuse by the powerful. This would put UK citizens at risk. A Brexit-style saga, only much longer (more than a decade perhaps?) and far more damaging.

Farage suggests housing migrants on disused RAF bases - a policy even the Tories abandoned after local protests. He talks of deals with regimes such as the Taliban to take returnees. Many Afghans risked their lives helping our armed forces. Sending them back would be monstrous and shameful.

People talk of Farage as a future Prime Minister. This plan demonstrates stunning incompetence and shows he is utterly unfit for office. If this is his application form for the job it should be stamped ‘Failed’!

Peter Scott via email

Dear Editor,

As the Energy Price Cap increases once again to £1,755 for a typical household, Marie Curie, the UK’s leading end of life charity, is calling on the UK government to implement a social tariff to protect dying people from rising bills.

Energy costs can double for those with a terminal illness, often forcing people to choose between heating their home, powering vital medical equipment, or buying food. With energy costs still much higher than 2021, households facing terminal illness are often forced to make impossible financial choices, at the worst time imaginable.

Last year, Marie Curie received more than 2,000 energy-related enquiries via our free Support Line. Dying people don't have time to lose – the UK government must act now to introduce a social tariff to ensure everyone can live the end of their life without worrying about bills.

Your sincerely,

Jamie Thunder

Senior Policy Manager for Financial Security at Marie Curie