|
|
|
|
|
|
Frustration Builds Over Speed Limits on Formby Bypass (A565)
MOTORISTS using the A565 Formby Bypass are expressing growing anger over a baffling 30mph speed restriction that appears to make little sense to southbound drivers, prompting questions about safety, clarity, and the long term impact of a controversial housing project near RAF Woodvale.
The disruption began on:- 19 May 2025, when roadworks kicked off as part of construction linked to the new development. Since then, drivers heading towards both Southport and Liverpool have reported inconsistent speed restrictions and growing gridlock. But what’s has really sparked outrage? While works are only being carried out on the northbound carriageway, both directions are locked into a 30mph limit with no clear explanation on signage for those travelling South. Northbound traffic, meanwhile, still sees the usual 50mph signs immediately after the work zone. A local commuter commented:- “This is ridiculous,” adding:- "We're all crawling along and no one knows why. If you can go faster on the Northbound side after the entrance to RAF Woodvale, why is it all the way 30 on the Southbound side?" Residents and motorists are also now asking:- "Will this disruption become permanent?" "Will the new housing compromise safety long term for:- drivers, cyclists, and pedestrians in the long run?" In response, Sefton Council issued a statement defending the restriction as a temporary, safety-focused measure:- "The temporary 30mph speed limit on Formby Bypass and speed monitoring actions are being put in place for safety. This action is being taken whilst the works are only on the Northbound carriageway. The footway and cycle lane on the Northbound side are temporarily closed, and pedestrians and cyclists need to cross both carriageways to use the Southbound footway. The 30mph limit applies to the North and Southbound carriageways to keep pedestrians and cyclists safe while crossing. The temporary 30mph speed limit is due to be lifted when work completes on:- 4 August 2025." Still, some argue the logic doesn't hold up. Many are asking:- "Why not install temporary crossing lights?" With others asking:- "Why not install clearer signage at a marked crossing point instead of slowing thousands of vehicles unnecessarily?" With frustration mounting and confidence in planning decisions already shaken by objections to the development itself, this stretch of road is now becoming a battleground between practicality and safety. Eddy Green
#1
Wed, 18 June 2025
7:39 pm
Safety first for pedestrians and cyclists who are forced to cross 60 mph road with some doing 86.7 mph. Now 30 mph for safety.
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
The imposition of a 30mph speed limit on the southbound carriageway of the A565—despite the absence of any roadworks—raises significant concerns in terms of proportionality, effectiveness, and the broader impact on road users.
1. Lack of Justification Based on Actual Use
The stated rationale—pedestrian safety—is not sufficiently supported by current usage patterns. The dual carriageway in question is a 60mph road, designed to facilitate the efficient movement of traffic between Southport and Formby. Both sides are already equipped with dedicated cycle paths, and actual pedestrian or cyclist usage is extremely low. In such circumstances, reducing the speed limit for the benefit of a statistically rare event (a pedestrian needing to cross) appears disproportionate.
2. Impracticality of Crossing a Dual Carriageway
Regardless of speed limits, dual carriageways are inherently unsuitable for casual pedestrian crossings, particularly in the absence of formal crossing points such as footbridges, underpasses, or pedestrian lights. A speed reduction to 30mph does not suddenly make this type of road safe to cross on foot. A more appropriate response would be to discourage crossing entirely and direct the rare pedestrian to a safe alternative—either via signage or local guidance.
3. Disproportionate Impact on Thousands of Road Users
The A565 is a key arterial route connecting Southport and Formby, and any prolonged restriction can have a serious impact on journey times, fuel consumption, and emissions due to slower, less efficient traffic flow.
In the spirit of public policy, decisions should serve the greatest good for the greatest number. A measure that inconveniences thousands of daily commuters and freight operators to theoretically protect an occasional pedestrian from an already unlikely event is a misallocation of priorities.
4. Alternative Solutions Exist
If the concern is genuinely over pedestrian safety, a better approach would be:
• Installing signage that instructs pedestrians not to cross and to use the safer side of the road.
• Encouraging use of the cycle paths, which are separated and underutilized.
• Planning a safe pedestrian crossing if truly warranted by data.
5. Risk of Undermining Public Trust
Unwarranted or excessive restrictions risk eroding public confidence in local transport decisions. When speed limits appear arbitrary or overly cautious, compliance tends to decrease, which could ironically undermine road safety more broadly.
⸻
Conclusion
In summary, the 30mph speed limit on the southbound A565—where no active roadworks are present—is unnecessary, inefficient, and counterproductive. It imposes a measurable burden on a large volume of road users for a highly theoretical pedestrian benefit. More focused, data-driven measures that balance safety with traffic efficiency should be explored instead.