Shropshire Conservative councillors refuse to back safer roads

A motion put to Shropshire councillors last Thursday sought to get agreement on adopting Vision Zero, which would commit the council to working towards eliminating all deaths and  serious injuries on Shropshire’s roads. An amendment sought to introduce 20mph on residential streets. Both the motion and amendment were rejected by the Conservatives on flimsy grounds. The portfolio holder for transport, Councillor Richard Marshall called Vision Zero “ideology” and described Vision Zero in Oslo as “being a little bit of a totalitarian state”.

Councillor Wilson had come up against the diehard reluctance of the Tory leadership to make our roads slower, safer and more comfortable for users other than drivers. They show this time and time again. They are trialling schemes that have already proved a success elsewhere. They are resisting a universal 20mph speed limit on residential streets, thinking that 20mph limits outside schools is enough – it’s not. And the schools scheme has been delayed from completion in 2025 and will now take “several years” from April 2022.

Councillor Wilson’s motion also called for a change in reporting language, moving away from talking about “accidents” – knocking over a coffee cup is an accident – to talking about crashes and collisions. And using “the driver crashed” rather than “the car crashed”.

The Labour group tabled an amendment calling for the introduction of a 20mph speed limit in all residential streets, urban or rural, throughout Shropshire. It was supported by Councillor Wilson but was rejected by 38 votes against 27. The main motion for Vision Zero was rejected with 38 votes for and 27 votes against after Lezley Picton instructed the Conservatives to vote it down.

Councillors representing the interests of their constituents? Bah humbug as far as the Conservatives are concerned. They just do what they are told.

Council leader Lezley Picton said that she wasn’t prepared to accept an unfunded motion. I honestly don’t think she had understood Councillor Wilson’s motion. After making suggestions about potential actions, the motion stated:

“This Council resolves… To instruct officers to bring a paper to Cabinet within 12 months to address how these points will be achieved.”

It isn’t normal to cost officer work in preparing a paper to go to cabinet. The cabinet paper itself would contain indicative costings for different options and any options selected to go forward would be costed up in detail before approval by cabinet or council. But it suits the Tories to hide behind the cry of “it’s not costed” when they don’t want to accept a motion either because they wish they’d put it forward, or because they haven’t caught up with the modern world and the needs of the majority of citizens they are meant to represent.

In demanding that the motion was costed, Councillor Picton was contradicting the stance she took last July when she supported a motion on improving safety between the A41 between Whitchurch to Hinstock. That motion stated:

“This council resolves to… ask road traffic engineers to commission a report detailing how to make junctions more visible, replace warn signage and introduce appropriate line markings where necessary and look at how this could be done on a limited highways budget.”

That wasn’t costed. It only asked for a report, just as Councillor Wilson’s motion did last Thursday. But the A41 motion was put forward by Conservatives, not by the opposition, so different rules applied.

I hope that Councillor Wilson will now ask officers to cost the implementation of Vision Zero and bring it back to cabinet and council.

The rejected motion

This Council believes:

1. The only justifiable target should be that in the longer term no one is killed or seriously injured on the roads in Shropshire.

2. It should adopt a Vision Zero “Safe System” approach to road danger that incorporates four key principles:

(a) Safety: Road traffic systems should take account of the fact that people make mistakes and should minimise both the opportunity for error and the harm done when they do occur.

(b) Ethics: Human life and health have highest priority.

(c) Responsibility: We must all be ready to change to achieve a safe environment on our roads and there is a particular responsibility for change and reduction of danger amongst those whose modes of travel create the highest levels of risk.

(d) Active travel: A Vision Zero approach must enable healthy, clean forms of transport such as cycling and walking.

3. That language matters when talking about road collisions. For example we should refer to “road danger reduction” rather than “road safety”.

4. Vision Zero principles will change public perception about road danger, so that death and injury is no longer an inevitable part of our lives as we move around, but something that can be avoided if a serious and sustained effort is made to tackle the causes of the problem.”

This Council resolves:

1. To adopt a Vision Zero “Safe System” approach to road danger reduction.

2. To work closely with partners and stakeholders to take a whole system approach, working together on infrastructure, behaviour, technology and legislation to achieve this change.

3. To set a target date for there to be zero fatalities and severe injuries on Shropshire’s roads and streets.

4. To embed Vision Zero in all relevant Shropshire Council policies, including, but not limited to, LTP4.

5. To adopt the Road Collision Reporting Guidelines in Shropshire Council communications and encourage West Mercia Police and media organisations in Shropshire to do the same. Including but not limited to, using “road danger reduction” instead of “road safety” and assigning agency to those involved in crashes.

6. To instruct officers to bring a paper to Cabinet within 12 months to address how these points will be achieved.

Rejected amendment from Councillor Rosemary Dartnall

To amend point 2 of the resolution to read:

To work closely with partners and stakeholders to take a whole system approach, working together on infrastructure, behaviour, technology and legislation to achieve this change, including the introduction of a 20 mph speed limit in all residential streets, urban or rural, throughout Shropshire.

Recorded vote on Councillor Dartnall’s amendment

FOR:

Lib Dem: Boddington, R Evans, Davies, Green, Hartin, Houghton, R Huffer, T Huffer, Kidd, Parry, Vasmer, Wagner and Wilson.

Labour: Buckley, Connolly, Dartnall, Halliday, A Moseley, P Mosley, Pardy and Parsons.

Green: Dean, J Evans, Isherwood and Kerr.

Independent: Towers.

AGAINST:

Conservative: Aldcroft, Anderson, Bardsley, Barrow, Biggins, Bird, Broomhall, Burchett, Butler, Charmley, Davenport, Elner, D Evans, Gill, Harris, Hignett, Hunt, Hurst-Knight, M Jones, S Jones, Lea, Luff, Lumby, Lynch, Macey, Marshall, Morris, Motley, Mullock, Nellins, Picton, Potter, Schofield, Thomas, Wild, B Williams and Wynn.

Lib Dem: Bentick.

Recorded Vote on Councillor Wilson’s Motion

FOR:

Lib Dem: Bentick, Boddington, R Evans, Davies, Green, Hartin, Houghton, R Huffer, T Huffer, Kidd, Parry, Vasmer, Wagner and Wilson.

Labour: Buckley, Connolly, Dartnall, Halliday, A Moseley, P Mosley, Pardy and Parsons.

Green: Dean, J Evans, Isherwood and Kerr.

Independent: Towers.

AGAINST:

Conservative: Aldcroft, Anderson, Bardsley, Barrow, Biggins, Bird, Broomhall, Burchett, Butler, Carroll, Charmley, Davenport, Elner, D Evans, Gill, Harris, Hignett, Hunt, Hurst-Knight, M Jones, S Jones, Lea, Luff, Lumby, Lynch, Macey, Marshall, Morris, Motley, Mullock, Nellins, Picton, Potter, Schofield, Thomas, Wild, B Williams and Wynn.