The public messaging on blanket 20 mph limits is simple: it’s about “saving lives” and “making streets safer.”
But East Dunbartonshire Council’s own Local Transport Strategy 2020-2025 tells a bigger story.
In black and white, the strategy connects 20 mph limits directly to its Transport Planning Objectives — and those objectives are not purely about safety.
Two of the six Transport Planning Objectives set out in the LTS are:
Increase modal shift towards more sustainable modes of travel — in plain English, get people out of their cars and onto walking, cycling, or public transport.
Reduce emissions through reduced vehicle mileage — by cutting the number of car journeys made.
Those are behaviour-change goals, not casualty-reduction goals. And the Council openly lists 20 mph limits as a tool to achieve them.
From Action 25 of the LTS (page 53):
“Implement appropriate measures for reducing vehicle speeds to enhance the appeal of sustainable travel… 20 mph speed limits… Making active travel more attractive can encourage more people to walk and cycle everyday journeys that would otherwise be taken by car… Making active travel more attractive can reduce the number of everyday journeys taken by car and therefore [reduce emissions].”
That is not about simply protecting cyclists from collisions. It is a declared intent to slow down car journeys so other modes become more appealing by comparison.
The difference between “making roads safer” and “making driving less attractive” is more than semantics:
Safety-led policy targets proven danger spots, using tailored measures to reduce collisions.
Behaviour-change policy deliberately imposes inconvenience on one mode (driving) to influence people’s transport choices — even if they already drive safely and responsibly.
The LTS places blanket speed reduction in the second category. The Council is using 20 mph limits as part of a wider modal shift agenda, alongside the pavement parking ban, low-traffic neighbourhoods, and net-zero transport targets.
Research from UK cities with blanket signed-only 20 mph limits (e.g. Edinburgh, Bristol, London boroughs) shows:
Average speeds drop only 1–3 mph without traffic calming.
Casualty rates show no clear improvement beyond existing trends.
High compliance often requires heavy enforcement (more cameras, more fines).
In short — the main, proven effect is slower car journeys.
Implementation cost: millions for signage, publicity, and enforcement.
Economic impact: longer travel times for tradespeople, deliveries, and everyday journeys.
Emergency services: slower response times in time-critical situations.
Public trust: policies sold as “safety” but delivering a behaviour-change programme.
We support targeted 20 mph zones where they’re genuinely needed — near schools, in dense residential areas, and in proven accident hotspots.
But we oppose blanket, one-size-fits-all limits imposed as a social-engineering tool.
Transport policy should be shaped by evidence and practicality, not ideology.
Write to your MSP and councillors: Use our tool and demand a review of blanket 20 mph policies and a return to targeted safety measures.
Share this page: Let others see what the Council has written in its own documents.
Join the campaign: Help hold local and national decision-makers to account.
The government is treating people's lives as a problem to be managed. People are the point. Not the problem.