Appendix H - Scheme feedback

Introduction

A total of 19,584 responses were received in response to the consultation. This included 19,484 responses via the online questionnaire on Citizen Space, 55 hardcopy forms (returned at consultation events, by post, or email), and 45 unstructured email responses. 139 organisations responded to the consultation.

Two emails were received as additional comments from respondents who had already completed questionnaires. One organisation submitted an email response in addition to a survey form. One email response from an organisation included answers to closed questions in addition to unstructured feedback, so these answers were included in the closed question survey data.

This section provides an overview of all feedback received. Most respondents opted to take part via the online questionnaire. Data is presented in the same order as the questions were presented in the questionnaire for ease of interpretation.

For closed questions, percentages are shown rounded to the nearest whole number. All charts have data labels, and the corresponding narrative states the number of respondents that selected each question option where relevant.

Thematic feedback from unstructured email responses is presented following the questionnaire data.

Current speed limit experiences

The first five questions in the survey sought to understand respondents’ opinions on current speed limits.

Question 1 asked respondents how frequently they use single carriageways with a national speed limit of 60mph. 19,527 respondents provided a valid response to this question. The results are shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1: How often do you use a single carriageway road with a national speed limit of 60 mph? As described in following text — Figure 1: How often do you use a single carriageway road with a national speed limit of 60 mph?

As shown in Figure 1, 85% of respondents (16,669) use a single carriageway road with a national speed limit of 60mph most of the time. 14% of respondents (2,785) use this type of road some of the time. Less than 1% of respondents use this type of road rarely (58), never (10) or were unsure (5).

Question 2 asked how respondents felt about the current national speed limit on single carriageway roads for cars and motorcycles.

19,532 respondents provided a valid response to this question. The results are shown in Figure 2.

Figure 2: Do you consider the current national speed limits for cars and motorbikes on single carriageway roads to be… as desscribed in following text — Figure 2: Do you consider the current national speed limits for cars and motorbikes on single carriageway roads to be…

As shown in Figure 2, 77% of respondents (15,126) felt the current national speed limit for cars and motorcycles is about right. 18% of respondents (3,539) thought that the current national speed limit was too low, whilst 4% of respondents (836) felt it was too high. Less than 1% of respondents (31) were unsure.

Of those who provided responses to this question (19,532), 139 responded as organisations. Of these organisations 71% (98) said the current national speed limit for cars and motorcycles is about right. 14% of respondents (20) thought that the current national speed limit was too low, whilst 14% of respondents (20) felt it was too high. 1% of respondents (1) were unsure.

Question 3 asked how respondents felt about the current national speed limit on dual carriageway roads for cars and motorcycles.

19,521 respondents provided a valid response to this question. The results are shown in Figure 3.

Figure 3: Do you consider the current national speed limits for cars and motorbikes on dual carriageway roads to be… as described in following text — Figure 3: Do you consider the current national speed limits for cars and motorbikes on dual carriageway roads to be…

As shown in Figure 3, 60% of respondents (11,676) thought the national speed limit for cars and motorcycles on dual carriageways was about right. 39% of respondents (7,552) felt the current limit was too low, whilst 1% of respondents (274) thought it was too high. Less than 1% of respondents (19) were unsure.

Of those who provided responses to this question (19,531), 131 responded as organisations. Of these organisations, 69% of respondents (90) thought the national speed limit for cars and motorcycles on dual carriageways was about right. 24% of respondents (32) felt the current limit was too low, whilst 6% of respondents (8) thought it was too high. 1% of respondents (1) were unsure.

Question 4 asked how respondents felt about the current speed limit on single carriageway roads for goods vehicles over 7.5 tonnes.

19,510 respondents provided a valid response to this question. The results are shown in Figure 4.

Figure 4: Do you consider the current speed limit for goods vehicles over 7.5 tonnes on single carriageway roads to be… as described in following text — Figure 4: Do you consider the current speed limit for goods vehicles over 7.5 tonnes on single carriageway roads to be…

As shown in Figure 4, 47% of respondents (9,226) thought the speed limit for Heavy Goods Vehicles (HGVs) on single carriageways was about right. 47% of respondents (9,161) said the current HGV limit was too low. 3% of respondents (637) thought the current limit was too high, whilst 2% of respondents (486) were unsure.

Of those who provided responses to this question (19,510), 131 responded as organisations. Of these organisations, 37% (48) thought the speed limit for Heavy Goods Vehicles (HGVs) on single carriageways was about right. 57% of respondents (75) felt the current limit was too low, whilst 4% of respondents (5) thought it was too high. 2% of respondents (3) were unsure.

Question 5 asked how respondents felt about the current speed limit on dual carriageway roads for goods vehicles over 7.5 tonnes. 19,520 respondents provided a valid response to this question. The results are shown in Figure 5.

Figure 5: Do you consider the current speed limit for goods vehicles over 7.5 tonnes on dual carriageway roads to be… as described in following text — Figure 5: Do you consider the current speed limit for goods vehicles over 7.5 tonnes on dual carriageway roads to be…

As shown in Figure 5, 54% of respondents (10,617) thought the speed limit for Heavy Goods Vehicles (HGVs) on dual carriageways was about right. 41% of respondents said the current HGV limit was too low (7,959) and 2% of respondents (476) thought the current limit was too high. 2% of respondents (486) were unsure.

Of those who provided responses to this question (19,510), 131 responded as organisations. Of these organisations 45% of respondents (59) thought the speed limit for Heavy Goods Vehicles (HGVs) on dual carriageways was about right. 49% of respondents (65) said the current HGV limit was too low and 5% of respondents (7) thought the current limit was too high. 1% of respondents (1) were unsure.

Safety considerations

Reduction in the national speed limit

Question 6 asked respondents if they thought a reduction in the current national speed limit on single carriageway roads would support national casualty reduction targets.

As these questions weren’t mandatory, the base size of respondents to each element varies. The results are shown in Figure 6.

Figure 6: Do you think reducing the current national speed limit on single carriageway roads would support national casualty reduction targets? As described in following text — Figure 6: Do you think reducing the current national speed limit on single carriageway roads would support national casualty reduction targets?

Across all of the target reduction targets around 9 out of ten respondents selected ‘no’ that they did not think the reduction would support them.

For the target of a 50% reduction in people killed: 90% of respondents (17,635) selected “no”, 6% of respondents (1,103) “yes” and 4% of respondents (764) “unsure”. Of those who responded to this question (19,502), 133 responded as organisations. Of these organisations, 68% of respondents (90) selected “no”, 23% of respondents (30) “yes” and 10% of respondents (13) “unsure”.
For the target of a 50% reduction in people seriously injured: 90% of respondents (17,454) selected “no”, 6% of respondents (1,155) “yes” and 4% of respondents (861) “unsure”. Of those who responded to this question (19,470), 134 responded as organisations. Of these organisations, 66% of respondents (89) selected “no”, 25% of respondents (33) “yes” and 9% of respondents (12) “unsure”.
For the target of a 60% reduction in children (aged <16) killed: 88% of respondents (17,222) selected “no”, 5% of respondents (1,049) “yes” and 6% of respondents (1,195) “unsure”. Of those who responded to this question (19,466), 134 responded as organisations. Of these organisations, 70% of respondents (94) selected “no”, 20% of respondents (27) “yes” and 10% of respondents (13) “unsure”.
For the target of a 60% reduction in children (aged <16) seriously injured: 88% of respondents (17,170) selected “no”, 5% of respondents (1,081) “yes” and 6% of respondents (1,198) “unsure”. Of those who responded to this question (19,449), 133 responded as organisations. Of these organisations, 70% of respondents (93) selected “no”, 20% of respondents (27) “yes” and 10% of respondents (13) “unsure”.

Question 7 introduced 12 impacts that could be affected by a reduction in the national speed limit on single carriageway roads. Respondents were asked how they thought these impacts might change if the national speed limit was reduced.

Respondents were invited to tick as many impacts that applied to them, so the base size shown for each varies – these are shown in brackets after each impact. The results are shown in Figure 7.

Figure 7: These are some impacts a reduction in the national speed limit on single carriageway roads could have for cars and motorcycles. Do you think a reduction in the speed limit could improve these or make them worse? (tick as many as apply) As described in following text — Figure 7: These are some impacts a reduction in the national speed limit on single carriageway roads could have for cars and motorcycles. Do you think a reduction in the speed limit could improve these or make them worse? (tick as many as apply)

12,302 respondents provided an answer for at least one of the stated impacts in this question. Not every respondent provided a response for each impact, so percentages are calculated based on the number of responses received for each impact.

(Following the consultation launch on 27 November 2024, consultees provided feedback on the design of this question. In response to this feedback, the questionnaire wording was updated on 9 December 2024 at 14:40 to include a “no change” option to ensure respondents were able to express their view if they felt that the change would make no difference. Figure 7 shows responses received after the change to this question. Responses received prior to this change can be viewed in Appendix I.)

The breakdown of responses per impact, including the base size of respondents who answered the question in brackets, is:

Impact on driver frustration (12,278)

79% of respondents (9,716) - “makes a lot worse”

10% of respondents (1,231) - “worsens slightly”

5% of respondents (624) - “no change”

2% of respondents (192) - “improves slightly”

2% of respondents (292) - “improves a lot”

2% of respondents (223) - “unsure”

Impact on journey time (12,278)

60% of respondents (7,385) - “makes a lot worse”

27% of respondents (3,347) - “worsens slightly”

8% of respondents (1,022) - “no change”

1% of respondents (178) - “improves slightly”

1% of respondents (155) - “improves a lot”

2% of respondents (191) - “unsure”

Impact on climate change (12,255)

14% of respondents (1,675) - “makes a lot worse”

14% of respondents (1,710) - “worsens slightly”

56% of respondents (6,868) - “no change”

5% of respondents (656) - “improves slightly”

2% of respondents (264) - “improves a lot”

9% of respondents (1,082) - “unsure”

Impact on noise (12,252)

11% of respondents (1,305) - “makes a lot worse”

10% of respondents (1,254) - “worsens slightly”

64% of respondents (7,880) - “no change”

6 of respondents (759) - “improves slightly”

3% of respondents (317) - “improves a lot”

6% of respondents (737) - “unsure”

Impact on air pollution (12,253)

16% of respondents (1,906) - “makes a lot worse”

17% of respondents (2,068) - “worsens slightly”

50% of respondents (6,092) - “no change”

7% of respondents (803) - “improves slightly”

3% of respondents (318) - “improves a lot”

9% of respondents (1,066) - “unsure”

Impact on quality of life (12,255)

34% of respondents (4,160) - “makes a lot worse”

24% of respondents (2,900) - “worsens slightly”

32% of respondents (3,907) - “no change”

3% of respondents (351) - “improves slightly”

4% of respondents (441) - “improves a lot”

4% of respondents (496) - “unsure”.

Impact on motorcycle safety (12,263)

14% of respondents (1,694) - “makes a lot worse”

13% of respondents (1,625) - “worsens slightly”

58% of respondents (7,056) - “no change”

6% of respondents (765) - “improves slightly”

4% of respondents (518) - “improves a lot”

5% of respondents (605) - “unsure”

Impact on horse rider safety (12,260)

9% of respondents (1,084) - “makes a lot worse”

7% of respondents (843) - “worsens slightly”

64% of respondents (7,246) - “no change”

9% of respondents (1,253) - “improves slightly”

5% of respondents (688) - “improves a lot”

6% of respondents (1,146) - “unsure”.

Impact on cyclist safety (12,260)

10% of respondents (1,272) - “makes a lot worse”

10% of respondents (1,192) - “worsens slightly”,

59% of respondents (7,278) - “no change”

9% of respondents (1,146) - “improves slightly”

5% of respondents (629) - “improves a lot”

6% of respondents (743) - “unsure”.

Impact on pedestrian safety (12,255)

9% of respondents (1,084) - “makes a lot worse”

7% of respondents (917) - “worsens slightly”

64% of respondents (7,893) - “no change”

9% of respondents (1,077) - “improves slightly”

5% of respondents (571) - “improves a lot”

6% of respondents (713) - “unsure”

Impact on serious collisions (12,263)

16% of respondents (2,010) - “makes a lot worse”

17% of respondents (2,137) - “worsens slightly”,

47% of respondents (5,813) - “no change”

10% of respondents (1,219) - “improves slightly”

4% of respondents (541) - “improves a lot”

4% of respondents (543) - “unsure”.

Impact on fatal collisions (12,280)

17% of respondents (2,117) - “makes a lot worse”

17% of respondents (2,132) - “worsens slightly”

47% of respondents (5,754) - “no change”

10% of respondents (1,237) - “improves slightly”

4% of respondents (525) - “improves a lot”

4% of respondents (515) - “unsure”

Of the 12,302 respondents who provided an answer for at least one of the stated impacts in this question, 105 were organisations.

Of these organisational responses, the breakdown of responses per impact, including the base size of those who answered the question in brackets, is:

Impact on driver frustration (104)

63% of respondents (66) - “makes a lot worse”

8% of respondents (8) - “worsens slightly”

7% of respondents (7) - “no change”

4% of respondents (4) - “improves slightly”

5% of respondents (5) - “improves a lot”

13% of respondents (14) - “unsure”

Impact on journey time (104)

50% of respondents (52) - “makes a lot worse”

29% of respondents (30) - “worsens slightly”

7% of respondents (7) - “no change”

6% of respondents (6) - “improves slightly”

2% of respondents (2) - “improves a lot”

7% of respondents (7) - “unsure”

Impact on climate change (103)

12% of respondents (12) - “makes a lot worse”

10% of respondents (10) - “worsens slightly”

41% of respondents (42) - “no change”

19% of respondents (20) - “improves slightly”

10% of respondents (10) - “improves a lot”

9% of respondents (9) - “unsure”

Impact on noise (103)

9% of respondents (9) - “makes a lot worse”

6% of respondents (6) - “worsens slightly”

49% of respondents (50) - “no change”

22% of respondents (23) - “improves slightly”

10% of respondents (10) - “improves a lot”

5% of respondents (5) - “unsure”

Impact on air pollution (104)

12% of respondents (12) - “makes a lot worse”

13% of respondents (13) - “worsens slightly”

40% of respondents (42) - “no change”

20% of respondents (21) - “improves slightly”

8% of respondents (8) - “improves a lot”

8% of respondents (8) - “unsure”

Impact on quality of life (103)

26% of respondents (27) - “makes a lot worse”

18% of respondents (19) - “worsens slightly”

25% of respondents (26) - “no change”

13% of respondents (13) - “improves slightly”

12% of respondents (12) - “improves a lot”

6% of respondents (6) - “unsure”.

Impact on motorcycle safety (104)

13% of respondents (14) - “makes a lot worse”

12% of respondents (12) - “worsens slightly”

38% of respondents (40) - “no change”

13% of respondents (14) - “improves slightly”

17% of respondents (18) - “improves a lot”

6% of respondents (6) - “unsure”

Impact on horse rider safety (105)

7% of respondents (7) - “makes a lot worse”

6% of respondents (6) - “worsens slightly”

47% of respondents (49) - “no change”

16% of respondents (17) - “improves slightly”

17% of respondents (18) - “improves a lot”

8% of respondents (8) - “unsure”.

Impact on cyclist safety (105)

8% of respondents (8) - “makes a lot worse”

13% of respondents (14) - “worsens slightly”,

43% of respondents (45) - “no change”

14% of respondents (15) - “improves slightly”

17% of respondents (18) - “improves a lot”

5% of respondents (5) - “unsure”.

Impact on pedestrian safety (104)

4% of respondents (4) - “makes a lot worse”

11% of respondents (11) - “worsens slightly”

50% of respondents (52) - “no change”

15% of respondents (16) - “improves slightly”

13% of respondents (13) - “improves a lot”

8% of respondents (8) - “unsure”

Impact on fatal collisions (105)

14% of respondents (15) - “makes a lot worse”

15% of respondents (16) - “worsens slightly”

26% of respondents (27) - “no change”

24% of respondents (25) - “improves slightly”

15% of respondents (16) - “improves a lot”

6% of respondents (6) - “unsure”

Question 8 was an open text box. It asked respondents to comment if they thought any impacts were missing from those outlined in the previous Question 7.

10,947 respondents provided a free text response to this question. Most respondents used this open text box to comment on the proposals in general, as opposed to specifically answering the stated question, therefore responses were coded according to more general themes. Many respondents used this question to comment further on the themes already outlined in Question 7.

Table 1 provides a breakdown of the thematic codes that were applied across the content of this question. Open text feedback can be wide ranging, ambiguous and cover multiple topics within one response. There is always a level of subjectivity in the interpretation of free text comments.

For easier interpretation, thematic codes are grouped within high-level themes, highlighted in light blue in Table 1. Where appropriate, supplementary context has been added to the themes.

Table 1: Are there any other impacts that a reduction in the national speed limit from 60mph to 50mph for cars and motorcycles on single carriageway roads that have been missed?

If so, please detail below.

The feedback to this question is provided in order of theme frequency.

Table 1a. Road safety theme

Sub theme	Sub theme total
Lowering national speed limit would increase driver frustration Increased frustration may lead to drivers taking more risks, such as dangerous overtaking manoeuvres. Respondents worried about a reduction in opportunities to overtake slower vehicles if speed limits for cars and HGVs were aligned.	5,077
Drivers would not comply with change in speed limits Perception that drivers would not comply with a reduced national speed limit. Including comments expressing the perception that drivers (including HGV drivers) do not always comply with current speed limits.	1,118
Modern vehicles are safe travelling at higher speeds Modern vehicles (including both cars and HGVs) have improved safety features and technology, such as more efficient braking, meaning they are safe to travel at higher speeds.	692
Lowering national speed limit would reduce concentration and lead to fatigue Lower speed would cause driver fatigue from more time spent at the wheel, increasing boredom and reducing concentration.	672
Lowering national speed limit would increase collisions	298
Lowering national speed limit would have no impact on collisions	249
Increasing HGV limit would result in reduced need to overtake Decreased frustration from HGVs being able to travel faster could lead to a reduction in other vehicles overtaking.	108
Lowering national speed limit would decrease collisions Reduction in collisions, including impact on wildlife / animals.	107
Comments about cyclist behaviour and safety Segregated infrastructure for cyclists is the most effective means to ensure safety. Important for cyclists to ensure they are visible. Some respondents suggested enforcement measures for cyclists such as licensing.	105
More consideration should be given to different vehicle classes More consideration should be given to overall differences between vehicle types e.g. • Commercial / Light Goods Vehicles • Safety of motorcycles travelling at same speed as HGVs under proposals • Impact of farm machinery on traffic conditions on rural roads • Categorisation of buses, coaches and motorhomes	87
Increasing HGV limit would increase driver frustration Reduced ability to overtake HGVs may increase frustration of other drivers, particularly if speed limits were aligned.	81
Comments about pedestrian behaviour and safety Segregated infrastructure for pedestrians is the most effective means to ensure safety. Education on safe road usage is important for pedestrians as well as drivers. Important for pedestrians to ensure they are visible.	76
Lowering national speed limit would have positive impact on driver behaviour	66
Perception that non-motorised users are not frequent users of dual (and single) carriageways Perception that non-motorised users are not frequent users of dual carriageways and therefore impacts for cyclists, pedestrians and horse riders may not be substantially relevant to this context. Included some comments that non-motorised users are also not very frequent users of single carriageway roads, either.	60
Increasing HGV limit would increase collisions	42
Lowering national speed limit could increase wear and damage to cars	40
Increasing HGV limit would increase stopping distance Heavy vehicles travelling faster would take longer to stop and increase driver reaction time.	36
Lowering national speed limit would positively impact non-motorised users	29
Proposals would have no impact on non-motorised user safety	28
Road worthiness of vehicles Proper maintenance of vehicles is important to reduce safety risks on the road.	15
Increasing HGV limit would negatively impact safety of non-motorised users	6
HGV drivers have higher skill level Respondents noted that HGV drivers are professionals and therefore undertake more rigorous driving training. They have high knowledge about how to handle situations on the road and drive safely.	5
Increasing HGV speed limit could increase wear and damage to HGV vehicles	5
Increasing HGV limit would decrease collisions	5
Lowering national speed limit could decrease wear and damage to cars	4
Increasing HGV limit would have no impact on safety / collisions	2
Road safety	9,013 total

Table 1b. Traffic and transport theme

Sub theme	Sub theme total
Lowering the national speed limit would negatively impact journey times Longer journey times and increased congestion.	1557
Speed limits should be bespoke to specific road design and conditions Disagreement with a blanket approach to changing speed limits, suggesting speed limit should be based on road design and prevailing conditions. Some roads, for example those that are narrow or twisty, warrant a slower driving speed for safety reasons. However, many thought that on straight lengths of single carriageway there was no reason to lower the current national speed limit.	766
Suggestion to improve road infrastructure / design Improve road design, including adequate overtaking lanes and laybys, improve junctions	433
Lowering national speed limit would negatively impact journey times for businesses Longer journey times leading to reduced productivity, increased delivery times and increased costs.	324
Speed limits should be consistent across the UK To reduce confusion around different speed limits in England.	146
Public transport in rural areas is lacking as an alternative to driving Those in rural areas may not have access to suitable public transport options.	135
Lowering national speed limit would negatively impact emergency services and response vehicles Concern that a lower speed limit could impact speed at which first responders are able to reach emergency situations	116
Suggestion to improve signage on roads Improving signage and road markings, including cat’s eyes, could help improve driving standards.	87
Lowering national speed limit would positively impact journey times	20
Increasing HGV limit would positively impact journey times Improving flow of traffic and decreasing delivery times if HGVs can travel more quickly.	14
Reducing national speed limit could reduce wear on roads	13
Increasing HGV limit would negatively impact journey times	12
Increasing HGV limit could cause more wear on roads Due to heavy vehicles travelling at higher speeds.	8
Suggestion for road infrastructure or rules for HGVs travelling at higher speeds Including: provision of more passing places for HGVs to pull over, not allowing HGVs to overtake on dual carriageways.	8
Lowering national speed limit would have no impact on journey times	6
Lowering national speed limit could increase wear on roads	6
Suggestion to reduce amount of freight transported by road Transporting freight by other means, such as rail, would reduce the number of HGVs on Scotland’s roads.	5
Traffic and transport	3,656 total

Table 1c. General theme

Sub theme	Sub theme total
Criticism of the Scottish Government	719
General opposition to reducing the national speed limit	611
Scottish Government should direct resources to road maintenance instead Suggestions that Scottish Government should prioritise improving road quality instead of changing speed limits.	550
Scottish Government should dual major roads instead of changing speed limits Suggestions that Scottish Government should prioritise dualling major single carriageway roads, commonly mentioning dualling of the A9 and A96.	404
Concern about the cost of implementing the proposals Concern that implementing and enforcing the proposals would be costly; particularly the cost of changing road signage.	208
Scottish Government should direct resources elsewhere instead Suggestions that Scottish Government should direct resources to non-road related areas.	141
General support for increasing HGV limit	102
General support for reducing the national speed limit	49
Scottish Government should invest in improving public transport and dedicated active travel infrastructure instead	48
General opposition to increasing HGV limit	26
General	2,858 total

Table 1d. Enforcement theme

Sub theme	Sub theme total
Concern that key issue is a minority of dangerous drivers, not the speed limit itself Perception that the key safety risk is dangerous driving (e.g. current speeding, drivers using phones) and that a reduction in the national speed limit will not serve to address this problem.	850
Suggestion relating to driver education Perception that some drivers have a low skill level and more comprehensive education could be a more effective tool to reduce safety risks on the road.	569
Increased police presence would be necessary to enforce change in speed limits Including comments that current police presence and funding is inadequate.	414
Suggestion for alternative speed limit proposal	356
Suggestion for tougher penalties for speeding and dangerous driving Including fines, driving bans and suspensions, speed awareness courses, license renewal, harsher penalties/ bans for using mobile phones whilst driving, penalising slow drivers.	151
Increase enforcement (non-specific suggestion)	129
More speed cameras would be needed to enforce a lowered national speed limit	103
Reducing the national speed limit would be difficult to enforce	102
Comments relating to vehicle technology Including suggestions for speed limiters.	69
Suggestion relating to promotion of good driving practice Public information and safety campaigns (such as TV adverts) may be a more effective measure to reduce safety risks on the road. Those commenting on the proposal specifically felt that a reduction in the national speed limit would require significant promotion and awareness raising.	38
Suggestion to remove speed cameras Or not to fund implementation of new cameras.	21
Decrease enforcement (non-specific suggestion)	13
Suggestions relating to insurance or financial incentives Financial incentives such as reduced insurance costs for those who do not speed, or elect to take additional driver education, could be a helpful mechanism to help raise driving standards.	12
Enforcement	2,832 total

Table 1e. Socioeconomic theme

Sub theme	Sub theme total
Reducing national speed limit would have a disproportionate impact on people who need to travel long distances Concern that reducing the national speed limit would have a disproportionate impact on those in rural areas who need to travel on single carriageways more frequently. Reduction in the national speed limit could negatively impact access to work and key services, such as those that need to travel long distances to access healthcare.	979
Reducing national speed limit would negatively impact Scotland's economy General negative economic impact, cost of goods increasing.	416
Proposals would negatively impact quality of life	354
Concern about driving ability of non-locals Perception that the ability of some tourist drivers is poor which contributes to unsafe situations on the road, particularly in popular rural tourist destinations. Concern that changing the national speed limit would increase confusion for drivers unfamiliar with Scottish roads.	212
Reducing national speed limit would have negative impact on tourism Concern that reducing the national speed limit would discourage tourism in Scotland, particularly impacting rural areas and economies such as the Highlands.	144
Proposals would positively impact quality of life	18
Increasing HGV limit would positively impact Scotland's economy Increased efficiency and lower delivery times could benefit both consumers and wider economy.	5
Proposals would have no impact on quality of life	4
Socioeconomic	2,132 total

Table 1f. Environment theme

Sub theme	Sub theme total
Reducing national speed limit would lead to decrease in fuel efficiency / negative climate change impact	577
Reducing national speed limit would worsen air quality	160
Reducing national speed limit would have no impact on climate change	46
Reducing national speed limit would lead to increase in fuel efficiency / positive climate change impact	38
Reducing national speed limit would lead to more noise	30
Increasing HGV limit would lead to decrease in fuel efficiency / negative climate change impact	21
Other suggestions relating to climate change Alternate suggestions relating to climate change impact, such as increasing investment in electric vehicle charging points and development of hydrogen fuel for vehicles.	16
Increasing HGV limit would lead to increase in fuel efficiency / positive climate change impact	12
Reducing national speed limit would have no impact on air quality	7
Reducing national speed limit would lead to less noise	7
Proposals will have no impact on noise	6
Reducing national speed limit would improve air quality	6
Increasing HGV limit would improve air quality	1
Increasing HGV limit would lead to more noise	1
Increasing HGV limit would worsen air quality	1
Environment	929 total

Table 1g. Consultation theme

Sub theme	Sub theme total
Criticism of the evidence provided for the proposals	232
Criticism of the survey questions Including commentary on optionality of Questions 7, 10 and 11. Changes made to these questions from feedback received can be viewed in Appendix I.	165
Criticism of the consultation as having a predetermined outcome	61
General criticism of consultation	50
Request for further information on the proposals	45
Criticism of the consultation materials	22
Positive feedback on the consultation process	6
Criticism of the consultation events	1
Criticism of the consultation promotion	1
Consultation	583 total

Question 9 was an open text box. It asked respondents to comment if they thought any impacts outlined in the previous Question 7 were incorrect.

8,481 respondents provided a free text response to this question. Most respondents used this open text box to comment on the proposals in general, as opposed to specifically answering the stated question, therefore responses were coded according to more general themes. Many respondents used this question to comment further on the themes already outlined in Question 7.

Table 2 provides a breakdown of the thematic codes that were applied across the content of this question. Open text feedback can be wide ranging, ambiguous and cover multiple topics within one response. There is always a level of subjectivity in interpretation of free text comments.

For easier interpretation, thematic codes are grouped within high-level themes, highlighted in light blue in Table 2. Where appropriate, supplementary context has been added to the themes.

Table 2: Are there any impacts that a reduction in the national speed limit from 60mph to 50mph for cars and motorcycles on single carriageway roads that you consider to be incorrect? Please provide as much detail and evidence as you can to support this.

The feedback to this question is provided in order of theme frequency.

Table 2a. Road safety theme

Sub theme	Sub theme total
Lowering national speed limit would increase driver frustration Increased frustration may lead to drivers taking more risks, such as dangerous overtaking manoeuvres. Respondents worried about a reduction in opportunities to overtake slower vehicles if speed limits for cars and HGVs were aligned.	2,587
Drivers would not comply with change in speed limits Perception that drivers would not comply with a reduced national speed limit. Including comments expressing the perception that drivers (including HGV drivers) do not always comply with current speed limits.	650
Lowering national speed limit would have no impact on collisions	550
Modern vehicles are safe travelling at higher speeds Modern vehicles (including both cars and HGVs) have improved safety features and technology, such as more efficient braking, meaning they are safe to travel at higher speeds.	435
Lowering national speed limit would increase collisions	292
Lowering national speed limit would reduce concentration and lead to fatigue Lower speed would cause driver fatigue from more time spent at the wheel, increasing boredom and reducing concentration.	286
Perception that non-motorised users are not frequent users of dual (and single) carriageways Perception that non-motorised users are not frequent users of dual carriageways and therefore impacts for cyclists, pedestrians and horse riders may not be substantially relevant to this context. Included some comments that non-motorised users are also not very frequent users of single carriageway roads, either.	108
Comments about pedestrian behaviour and safety Segregated infrastructure for pedestrians is the most effective means to ensure safety. Education on safe road usage is important for pedestrians as well as drivers. Important for pedestrians to ensure they are visible.	72
Proposals would have no impact on non-motorised user safety	66
Comments about cyclist behaviour and safety Segregated infrastructure for cyclists is the most effective means to ensure safety. Important for cyclists to ensure they are visible. Some respondents suggested enforcement measures for cyclists such as licensing.	59
More consideration should be given to different vehicle classes More consideration should be given to overall differences between vehicle types e.g. • Commercial / Light Goods Vehicles • Safety of motorcycles travelling at same speed as HGVs under proposals • Impact of farm machinery on traffic conditions on rural roads • Categorisation of buses, coaches and motorhomes	54
Increasing HGV limit would result in reduced need to overtake Decreased frustration from HGVs being able to travel faster could lead to a reduction in other vehicles overtaking.	50
Increasing HGV limit would increase collisions	41
Lowering national speed limit would decrease collisions Reduction in collisions, including impact on wildlife / animals.	35
Increasing HGV limit would increase driver frustration Reduced ability to overtake HGVs may increase frustration of other drivers, particularly if speed limits were aligned.	28
Increasing HGV limit would increase stopping distance Heavy vehicles travelling faster would take longer to stop and increase driver reaction time.	13
Lowering national speed limit could increase wear and damage to cars	12
Lowering national speed limit would positively impact non-motorised users	12
Lowering national speed limit would have positive impact on driver behaviour	11
Road worthiness of vehicles Proper maintenance of vehicles is important to reduce safety risks on the road.	10
Increasing HGV limit would have no impact on safety / collisions	6
Increasing HGV limit would negatively impact safety of non-motorised users	4
Increasing HGV speed limit could increase wear and damage to HGV vehicles	2
Increasing HGV limit would decrease collisions	2
HGV drivers have higher skill level Respondents noted that HGV drivers are professionals and therefore undertake more rigorous driving training. They have high knowledge about how to handle situations on the road and drive safely.	1
Lowering national speed limit could decrease wear and damage to cars	1
Road safety	5,387 total

Table 2b. Enforcement theme

Sub theme	Sub theme totals
Concern that key issue is a minority of dangerous drivers, not the speed limit itself Perception that the key safety risk is dangerous driving (e.g. current speeding, drivers using phones) and that a reduction in the national speed limit will not serve to address this problem.	680
Suggestion relating to driver education Perception that some drivers have a low skill level and more comprehensive education could be a more effective tool to reduce safety risks on the road.	447
Increased police presence would be necessary to enforce change in speed limits Including comments that current police presence and funding is inadequate.	204
Suggestion for alternative speed limit proposal	186
Increase enforcement (non-specific suggestion)	119
Suggestion for tougher penalties for speeding and dangerous driving Including fines, driving bans and suspensions, speed awareness courses, license renewal, harsher penalties/ bans for using mobile phones whilst driving, penalising slow drivers.	99
Reducing the national speed limit would be difficult to enforce	60
More speed cameras would be needed to enforce a lowered national speed limit	56
Comments relating to vehicle technology Including suggestions for speed limiters.	39
Suggestion relating to promotion of good driving practice Public information and safety campaigns (such as TV adverts) may be a more effective measure to reduce safety risks on the road. Those commenting on the proposal specifically felt that a reduction in the national speed limit would require significant promotion and awareness raising.	24
Suggestion to remove speed cameras Or not to fund implementation of new cameras.	21
Suggestions relating to insurance or financial incentives Financial incentives such as reduced insurance costs for those who do not speed, or elect to take additional driver education, could be a helpful mechanism to help raise driving standards.	9
Decrease enforcement (non-specific suggestion)	4
Enforcement	1948 total

Table 2c. Traffic and transport theme

Sub theme	Sub theme total
Lowering the national speed limit would negatively impact journey times Longer journey times and increased congestion.	758
Speed limits should be bespoke to specific road design and conditions Disagreement with a blanket approach to changing speed limits, suggesting speed limit should be based on road design and prevailing conditions. Some roads, for example those that are narrow or twisty, warrant a slower driving speed for safety reasons. However, many thought that on straight lengths of single carriageway there was no reason to lower the current national speed limit.	520
Suggestion to improve road infrastructure / design Improve road design, including adequate overtaking lanes and laybys, improve junctions	284
Lowering national speed limit would negatively impact journey times for businesses Longer journey times leading to reduced productivity, increased delivery times and increased costs.	78
Public transport in rural areas is lacking as an alternative to driving Those in rural areas may not have access to suitable public transport options.	68
Suggestion to improve signage on roads Improving signage and road markings, including cat’s eyes, could help improve driving standards.	61
Speed limits should be consistent across the UK To reduce confusion around different speed limits in England.	49
Lowering national speed limit would negatively impact emergency services and response vehicles Concern that a lower speed limit could impact speed at which first responders are able to reach emergency situations.	27
Increasing HGV limit would positively impact journey times Improving flow of traffic and decreasing delivery times if HGVs can travel more quickly.	14
Lowering national speed limit would positively impact journey times	10
Increasing HGV limit would negatively impact journey times	7
Suggestion to reduce amount of freight transported by road Transporting freight by other means, such as rail, would reduce the number of HGVs on Scotland’s roads.	7
Increasing HGV limit could cause more wear on roads Due to heavy vehicles travelling at higher speeds.	4
Lowering national speed limit would have no impact on journey times	4
Suggestion for road infrastructure or rules for HGVs travelling at higher speeds Including: provision of more passing places for HGVs to pull over, not allowing HGVs to overtake on dual carriageways.	4
Reducing national speed limit could reduce wear on roads	3
Traffic and transport	1,898 total

Table 2d. General theme

Sub theme	Sub theme total
General opposition to reducing the national speed limit	482
Criticism of the Scottish Government	434
Scottish Government should direct resources to road maintenance instead Suggestions that Scottish Government should prioritise improving road quality instead of changing speed limits.	343
Scottish Government should dual major roads instead of changing speed limits Suggestions that Scottish Government should prioritise dualling major single carriageway roads, commonly mentioning dualling of the A9 and A96.	231
Scottish Government should direct resources elsewhere instead Suggestions that Scottish Government should direct resources to non-road related areas.	91
Concern about the cost of implementing the proposals Concern that implementing and enforcing the proposals would be costly; particularly the cost of changing road signage.	80
General support for increasing HGV limit	45
General support for reducing the national speed limit	30
Scottish Government should invest in improving public transport and dedicated active travel infrastructure instead	27
General opposition to increasing HGV limit	18
General	1,781 total

Table 2e. Environment theme

Sub theme	Sub theme total
Reducing national speed limit would lead to decrease in fuel efficiency / negative climate change impact	557
Reducing national speed limit would have no impact on climate change	175
Reducing national speed limit would worsen air quality	156
Reducing national speed limit would lead to more noise	66
Proposals will have no impact on noise	42
Reducing national speed limit would have no impact on air quality	31
Other suggestions relating to climate change Alternate suggestions relating to climate change impact, such as increasing investment in electric vehicle charging points and development of hydrogen fuel for vehicles.	17
Increasing HGV limit would lead to decrease in fuel efficiency / negative climate change impact	14
Reducing national speed limit would improve air quality	7
Reducing national speed limit would lead to increase in fuel efficiency / positive climate change impact	6
Reducing national speed limit would lead to less noise	6
Increasing HGV limit would lead to increase in fuel efficiency / positive climate change impact	4
Increasing HGV limit would lead to more noise	4
Increasing HGV limit would have no impact on climate change	3
Increasing HGV limit would worsen air quality	2
Increasing HGV limit would improve air quality	1
Environment	1,091

Table 2f. Consultation theme

Sub theme	Sub theme total
Criticism of the evidence provided for the proposals	604
Criticism of the survey questions	244
Including commentary on optionality of Questions 7, 10 and 11. Changes made to these questions from feedback received can be viewed in Appendix I.	72
Request for further information on the proposals	68
General criticism of consultation	59
Criticism of the consultation materials	34
Criticism of the consultation promotion	3
Criticism of the consultation events	1
Consultation	1,085 total

Table 2g. Socioeconomic theme

Sub theme	Sub theme total
Reducing national speed limit would have a disproportionate impact on people who need to travel long distances Concern that reducing the national speed limit would have a disproportionate impact on those in rural areas who need to travel on single carriageways more frequently. Reduction in the national speed limit could negatively impact access to work and key services, such as those that need to travel long distances to access healthcare.	347
Proposals would negatively impact quality of life	144
Reducing NSL will negatively impact Scotland's economy	123
Concern about driving ability of non-locals Perception that the ability of some tourist drivers is poor which contributes to unsafe situations on the road, particularly in popular rural tourist destinations. Concern that changing the national speed limit would increase confusion for drivers unfamiliar with Scottish roads.	104
Reducing national speed limit would have negative impact on tourism Concern that reducing the national speed limit would discourage tourism in Scotland, particularly impacting rural areas and economies such as the Highlands.	33
Proposals would have no impact on quality of life	11
Increasing HGV limit would positively impact Scotland's economy Increased efficiency and lower delivery times could benefit both consumers and wider economy.	2
Proposals would positively impact quality of life	1
Socioeconomic theme	765 total

Impact on serious collisions (105)

14% of respondents (15) - “makes a lot worse”

13% of respondents (14) - “worsens slightly”,

29% of respondents (30) - “no change”

23% of respondents (24) - “improves slightly”

16% of respondents (17) - “improves a lot”

5% of respondents (5) - “unsure”.

HGV questions

Question 10 introduced 12 impacts that could be affected by raising the HGV limit on single carriageway roads. Respondents were asked how they thought these impacts might change if the HGV limit on single carriageway roads was increased.

Respondents were invited to tick as many impacts as applied to them, so the base size shown for each varies - these are shown in brackets after each impact. The results are shown in Figure 8.

Figure 8: These are some of the impacts an increase in the speed limit for goods vehicles exceeding 7.5 tonnes on single carriageway roads could have. Do you think increasing the speed limits could improve these or make them worse? (tick as many as apply) as described in following text — Figure 8: These are some of the impacts an increase in the speed limit for goods vehicles exceeding 7.5 tonnes on single carriageway roads could have. Do you think increasing the speed limits could improve these or make them worse? (tick as many as apply)

12,220 respondents provided an answer for at least one of the stated impacts in this question. Not every respondent provided a response for each impact, so percentages are calculated based on the number of responses received for each impact.

(Following the consultation launch on 27 November 2024, feedback on the design of this question was received through the consultation. As a result of this feedback, the questionnaire was updated on 9 December 2024 at 14:40 to include a “no change” option to ensure respondent views were captured as accurately as possible. Figure 8 shows responses received after the change to this question. Responses received prior to this change can be viewed in Appendix I.)

The breakdown of responses per impact, including the base size of respondents who answered the question in brackets, is:

Impact on driver frustration (12,169)

16% of respondents (1,995) - “makes a lot worse”

7% of respondents (797) “worsens slightly”

14% of respondents (1,708) - “no change”

27% of respondents (3,273) - “improves slightly”

29% of respondents (3,527) - “improves a lot”

7% of respondents (869) - “unsure”.

Impact on journey time (12,168):

11% of respondents (1,283) - “makes a lot worse”

7% of respondents (811) “worsens slightly”

18% of respondents (2,169) - “no change”

35% of respondents (4,253) - “improves slightly”

22% of respondents (2,689) - “improves a lot”

8% of respondents (963) - “unsure”

Impact on climate change (12,148)

8% of respondents (914) - “makes a lot worse”

11% of respondents (1,380) - “worsens slightly”

53% of respondents (6,460) - “no change”

9% of respondents (1,090) - “improves slightly”

5% of respondents (654) - “improves a lot”

14% of respondents (1,650) - “unsure”

Impact on noise (12,161)

9% of respondents (1,068) “makes a lot worse”

14% of respondents (1,644) - “worsens slightly”

56% of respondents (6,851) - “no change”

6% of respondents (775) - “improves slightly”

5% of respondents (572) - “improves a lot”

10% of respondents (1,251) - “unsure”.

Impact on air pollution (12,162)

8% of respondents (1,023) - “makes a lot worse”

13% of respondents (1,608) - “worsens slightly”

48% of respondents (5,869) - “no change”

10% of respondents (1,277) - “improves slightly”

6% of respondents (717) “improves a lot”

14% of respondents (1,668) - “unsure”

Impact on quality of life (12,158)

10% of respondents (1,183) - “makes a lot worse”

11% of respondents (1,297) - “worsens slightly”

40% of respondents (4,916) - “no change”

18% of respondents (2,185) - “improves slightly”

11% of respondents (1,355) - “improves a lot”

10% of respondents (1,222) - “unsure”

Impact on motorcycle safety (12,164)

11% of respondents (1,342) - “makes a lot worse”

13% of respondents (1,551) - “worsens slightly”

53% of respondents (6,402) - “no change”

9% of respondents (1,058) - “improves slightly”

6% of respondents (771) - “improves a lot”

9% of respondents (1,040) - “unsure”

Impact on horse rider safety (12,174):

12% of respondents (1,511) - “makes a lot worse”

15% of respondents (1,767) - “worsens slightly”

53% of respondents (6,392) - “no change”

5% of respondents (548) “improves slightly”

4% of respondents (500) - “improves a lot”

12% of respondents (1,456) - “unsure”

Impact on cyclist safety (12,168)

12% of respondents (1,465) - “makes a lot worse”

15% of respondents (1,845) - “worsens slightly”

53% of respondents (6,401) - “no change”

5% of respondents (667) “improves slightly”

5% of respondents (553) - “improves a lot”

10% of respondents (1,237) - “unsure”

Impact on pedestrian safety (12,181)

11% of respondents (1,288) - “makes a lot worse”

13% of respondents (1,637) - “worsens slightly”

56% of respondents (6,806) - “no change”

5% of respondents (640) - “improves slightly”

4% of respondents (539) - “improves a lot”

10% of respondents (1,271) - “unsure”

Impact on serious collisions (12,184)

11% of respondents (1,351) - “makes a lot worse”

16% of respondents (2,028) - “worsens slightly”

41% of respondents (5,053) - “no change”

13% of respondents (1,538) - “improves slightly”

8% of respondents (988) - “improves a lot”

10% of respondents (1,226) - “unsure”

Impact on fatal collisions (12,204)

11% of respondents (1,290) - “makes a lot worse”

16% of respondents (1,978) - “worsens slightly”

40% of respondents (4,870) - “no change”

14% of respondents (1,757) - “improves slightly”

9% of respondents (1,106) - “improves a lot”

10% of respondents (1,203) - “unsure”

Of the 12,220 respondents who provided an answer for at least one of the stated impacts in this question, 105 were organisations.

Of these organisational responses, the breakdown of responses per impact, including the base size of respondents who answered the question in brackets, is:

Impact on driver frustration (104)

13% of respondents (13) - “makes a lot worse”

2% of respondents (2) - “worsens slightly”

8% of respondents (8) - “no change”

29% of respondents (30) - “improves slightly”

37% of respondents (38) - “improves a lot”

13% of respondents (13) - “unsure”.

Impact on journey time (104):

9% of respondents (9) - “makes a lot worse”

5% of respondents (5) - “worsens slightly”

8% of respondents (8) - “no change”

38% of respondents (39) - “improves slightly”

32% of respondents (33) - “improves a lot”

10% of respondents (10) - “unsure”

Impact on climate change (104)

13% of respondents (13) “makes a lot worse”

14% of respondents (15) - “worsens slightly”

40% of respondents (42) - “no change”

12% of respondents (12) - “improves slightly”

9% of respondents (9) - “improves a lot”

13% of respondents (13) - “unsure”

Impact on noise (103)

14% of respondents (14) “makes a lot worse”

20% of respondents (21) - “worsens slightly”

44% of respondents (45) - “no change”

7% of respondents (7) - “improves slightly”

8% of respondents (8) - “improves a lot”

8% of respondents (8) - “unsure”.

Impact on air pollution (104)

13% of respondents (13) - “makes a lot worse”

16% of respondents (17) - “worsens slightly”

39% of respondents (41) - “no change”

11% of respondents (11) - “improves slightly”

10% of respondents (10) - “improves a lot”

12% of respondents (12) - “unsure”

Impact on quality of life (103)

15% of respondents (15) - “makes a lot worse”

12% of respondents (12) - “worsens slightly”

29% of respondents (30) - “no change”

14% of respondents (14) - “improves slightly”

18% of respondents (19) - “improves a lot”

13% of respondents (13) - “unsure”

Impact on motorcycle safety (104)

19% of respondents (20) - “makes a lot worse”

11% of respondents (11) - “worsens slightly”

45% of respondents (47) - “no change”

10% of respondents (10) - “improves slightly”

9% of respondents (9) - “improves a lot”

7% of respondents (7) - “unsure”

Impact on horse rider safety (105):

21% of respondents (22) - “makes a lot worse”

12% of respondents (13) - “worsens slightly”

51% of respondents (54) - “no change”

5% of respondents (5) - “improves slightly”

6% of respondents (6) - “improves a lot”

5% of respondents (5) - “unsure”

Impact on cyclist safety (104)

21% of respondents (22) - “makes a lot worse”

11% of respondents (11) - “worsens slightly”

50% of respondents (52) - “no change”

7% of respondents (7) - “improves slightly”

6% of respondents (6) - “improves a lot”

6% of respondents (6) - “unsure”

Impact on pedestrian safety (105)

19% of respondents (20) - “makes a lot worse”

11% of respondents (12) - “worsens slightly”

50% of respondents (53) - “no change”

4% of respondents (4) - “improves slightly”

8% of respondents (8) - “improves a lot”

8% of respondents (8) - “unsure”

Impact on serious collisions (105)

19% of respondents (20) - “makes a lot worse”

12% of respondents (13) - “worsens slightly”

36% of respondents (38) - “no change”

11% of respondents (12) - “improves slightly”

12% of respondents (13) - “improves a lot”

9% of respondents (9) - “unsure”

Impact on fatal collisions (104)

17% of respondents (18) - “makes a lot worse”

13% of respondents (14) - “worsens slightly”

32% of respondents (33) - “no change”

13% of respondents (13) - “improves slightly”

15% of respondents (16) - “improves a lot”

10% of respondents (10) - “unsure”

Question 11 introduced 12 impacts that could be affected by raising the HGV limit on dual carriageway roads. Respondents were asked how they thought these impacts might change if the HGV limit on dual carriageway roads was increased.

12,157 respondents provided an answer for at least one of the stated impacts in this question. Not every respondent provided a response for every impact, so percentages are calculated based on number of responses received for each impact. The results are shown in Figure 9.

(Following the consultation launch on 27 November 2024, feedback on the design of this question was received through the consultation. As a result of this feedback, the questionnaire was updated on 9 December 2024 at 14:40 to include a “no change” option to ensure respondent views were captured as accurately as possible. Figure 9 shows responses received after the change to this question. Responses received prior to this change can be viewed in Appendix I.)

Figure 9: These are some impacts an increase in the speed limit for goods vehicles exceeding 7.5 tonnes on dual carriageway roads could have. Do you think increasing the speed limits could improve these or make them worse? (tick as many as apply) as described in following text — Figure 9: These are some impacts an increase in the speed limit for goods vehicles exceeding 7.5 tonnes on dual carriageway roads could have. Do you think increasing the speed limits could improve these or make them worse? (tick as many as apply)

The breakdown of responses per impact, including the base size of respondents who answered the question in brackets, is:

Impact on driver frustration (12,079)

12% of respondents (1,439) - “makes a lot worse”

6% of respondents (711) “worsens slightly”

18% of respondents (2,172) - “no change”

27% of respondents (3,283) - “improves slightly”

30% of respondents (3,591) - “improves a lot”

7% of respondents (883) - “unsure”

Impact on journey time (12,104)

8% of respondents (995) “makes a lot worse”

5% of respondents (635) “worsens slightly”

20% of respondents (2,389) - “no change”

35% of respondents (4,265) - “improves slightly”

24% of respondents (2,903) - “improves a lot”

8% of respondents (917) - “unsure”

Impact on climate change (12,070)

7% of respondents (829) - “makes a lot worse”

10% of respondents (1,221) - “worsens slightly”

54% of respondents (6,497) - “no change”

9% of respondents (1,105) - “improves slightly”

6% of respondents (767) - “improves a lot”

14% of respondents (1,651) - “unsure”

Impact on noise (12,081)

7% of respondents (889) “makes a lot worse”

12% of respondents (1,507) - “worsens slightly”

58% of respondents (6,983) - “no change”

6% of respondents (777) - “improves slightly”

6% of respondents (672) - “improves a lot”

10% of respondents (1,253) - “unsure”

Impact on air pollution (12,087)

7% of respondents (850) “makes a lot worse”

12% of respondents (1,396) - “worsens slightly”

51% of respondents (6,189) - “no change”

10% of respondents (1,264) - “improves slightly”

7% of respondents (802) - “improves a lot”

13% of respondents (1,586) - “unsure”

Impact on quality of life (12,064)

8% of respondents (938) “makes a lot worse”

7% of respondents (875) “worsens slightly”

43% of respondents (5,189) - “no change”

19% of respondents (2,260) - “improves slightly”

13% of respondents (1,596) - “improves a lot”

10% of respondents (1,206) - “unsure”

Impact on motorcycle safety (12,094)

9% of respondents (1,101) - “makes a lot worse”

11% of respondents (1,307) - “worsens slightly”

56% of respondents (6,778) - “no change”

9% of respondents (1,031) - “improves slightly”

7% of respondents (833) - “improves a lot”

9% of respondents (1,044) - “unsure”

Impact on horse rider safety (12,066)

9% of respondents (1,129) - “makes a lot worse”

9% of respondents (1,145) - “worsens slightly”

62% of respondents (7,450) - “no change”

4% of respondents (453) “improves slightly”

4% of respondents (533) - “improves a lot”

11% of respondents (1,356) - “unsure”

Impact on cyclist safety (12,075)

9% of respondents (1,123) - “makes a lot worse”

11% of respondents (1,278) - “worsens slightly”

61% of respondents (7,409) - “no change”

4% of respondents (541) “improves slightly”

5% of respondents (580) - “improves a lot”

9% of respondents (1,144) - “unsure”

Impact on pedestrian safety (12,092)

8% of respondents (1,015) - “makes a lot worse”

9% of respondents (1,126) - “worsens slightly”

63% of respondents (7,664) - “no change”

4% of respondents (537) “improves slightly”

5% of respondents (606) - “improves a lot”

9% of respondents (1,144) - “unsure”

Impact on serious collisions (12,106)

9% of respondents (1,118) - “makes a lot worse”

14% of respondents (1,730) - “worsens slightly”

48% of respondents (5,799) - “no change”

11% of respondents (1,376) - “improves slightly”

8% of respondents (978) - “improves a lot”

9% of respondents (1,105) - “unsure”

Impact on fatal collisions (12,142):

9% of respondents (1,079) - “makes a lot worse”

14% of respondents (1,658) - “worsens slightly”

48% of respondents (5,770) - “no change”

12% of respondents (1,488) - “improves slightly”

9% of respondents (1,052) - “improves a lot”

9% of respondents (1,095) - “unsure”

Of the 12,157 respondents who provided an answer for at least one of the stated impacts in this question, 103 were organisations.

Of the organisational responses, the breakdown of responses per impact, including the base size of respondents who answered the question in brackets, is:

Impact on driver frustration (102)

7% of respondents (7) - “makes a lot worse”

4% of respondents (4) “worsens slightly”

10% of respondents (10) - “no change”

33% of respondents (34) - “improves slightly”

33% of respondents (34) - “improves a lot”

13% of respondents (13) - “unsure”

Impact on journey time (103)

5% of respondents (5) - “makes a lot worse”

6% of respondents (6) - “worsens slightly”

8% of respondents (8) - “no change”

42% of respondents (43) - “improves slightly”

29% of respondents (30) - “improves a lot”

11% of respondents (11) - “unsure”

Impact on climate change (102)

15% of respondents (15) “makes a lot worse”

7% of respondents (7) - “worsens slightly”

47% of respondents (48) - “no change”

12% of respondents (12) - “improves slightly”

6% of respondents (6) - “improves a lot”

14% of respondents (14) - “unsure”

Impact on noise (103)

14% of respondents (14) “makes a lot worse”

18% of respondents (19) - “worsens slightly”

47% of respondents (48) - “no change”

7% of respondents (7) - “improves slightly”

5% of respondents (5) - “improves a lot”

10% of respondents (10) - “unsure”

Impact on air pollution (102)

14% of respondents (14) - “makes a lot worse”

10% of respondents (10) - “worsens slightly”

46% of respondents (47) - “no change”

12% of respondents (12) - “improves slightly”

6% of respondents (6) - “improves a lot”

13% of respondents (13) - “unsure”

Impact on quality of life (103)

15% of respondents (15) “makes a lot worse”

7% of respondents (7) “worsens slightly”

32% of respondents (33) - “no change”

14% of respondents (14) - “improves slightly”

19% of respondents (20) - “improves a lot”

14% of respondents (14) - “unsure”

Impact on motorcycle safety (103)

17% of respondents (17) - “makes a lot worse”

12% of respondents (12) - “worsens slightly”

48% of respondents (49) - “no change”

11% of respondents (11) - “improves slightly”

8% of respondents (8) - “improves a lot”

6% of respondents (6) - “unsure”

Impact on horse rider safety (101)

14% of respondents (14) - “makes a lot worse”

10% of respondents (10) - “worsens slightly”

61% of respondents (62) - “no change”

5% of respondents (5) “improves slightly”

3% of respondents (3) - “improves a lot”

7% of respondents (7) - “unsure”

Impact on cyclist safety (102)

15% of respondents (15) - “makes a lot worse”

11% of respondents (11) - “worsens slightly”

58% of respondents (59) - “no change”

7% of respondents (7) - “improves slightly”

4% of respondents (4) - “improves a lot”

6% of respondents (6) - “unsure”

Impact on pedestrian safety (102)

16% of respondents (16) - “makes a lot worse”

7% of respondents (7) - “worsens slightly”

58% of respondents (59) - “no change”

9% of respondents (9) - “improves slightly”

5% of respondents (5) - “improves a lot”

6% of respondents (6) “unsure”

Impact on serious collisions (102)

19% of respondents (19) - “makes a lot worse”

11% of respondents (11) - “worsens slightly”

39% of respondents (40) - “no change”

9% of respondents (9) - “improves slightly”

13% of respondents (13) - “improves a lot”

10% of respondents (10) - “unsure”

Impact on fatal collisions (103):

19% of respondents (20) - “makes a lot worse”

9% of respondents (9) - “worsens slightly”

40% of respondents (41) - “no change”

9% of respondents (9) - “improves slightly”

13% of respondents (13) - “improves a lot”

11% of respondents (11) - “unsure”

Question 12 was an open text box. It asked respondents to comment if they thought any impacts were missing from those outlined in the previous Questions 10 and 11.

5,156 respondents provided a free text responses to this question. Most respondents used this open text box to comment on the proposals in general, as opposed to specifically answering the stated question, therefore responses were coded according to more general themes. Many respondents used this question to comment further on the themes already outlined in Question 7.

Table 3 provides a breakdown of the thematic codes that were applied across the content of this question. Open text feedback can be wide ranging, ambiguous and cover multiple topics within one response. There is always a level of subjectivity in interpretation of free text comments. Subjective interpretation was mitigated as far as possible through the following steps:

Robust, thematic code frame with guidance to assist coders
Real-time peer review for complex responses
Quality Assurance process with ongoing feedback and training to coders

For easier interpretation, thematic codes are grouped within high-level themes, highlighted in light blue in Table 3. Where appropriate, supplementary context has been added to the themes.

Table 3: Are there any impacts that an increase in the national speed limit for goods vehicles exceeding 7.5 tonnes on single and dual carriageways that have been missed? If so, please detail below.

The feedback to this question is provided in order of theme frequency.

Table 3a. Road safety theme

Sub theme	Sub theme total
Increasing HGV limit would increase driver frustration Reduced ability to overtake HGVs may increase frustration of other drivers, particularly if speed limits were aligned.	391
Drivers would not comply with change in speed limits Perception that drivers would not comply with a reduced national speed limit. Including comments expressing the perception that drivers (including HGV drivers) do not always comply with current speed limits.	363
Increasing HGV limit would increase collisions	330
Increasing HGV limit would increase stopping distance Heavy vehicles travelling faster would take longer to stop and increase driver reaction time.	221
Perception that non-motorised users are not frequent users of dual (and single) carriageways Perception that non-motorised users are not frequent users of dual carriageways and therefore impacts for cyclists, pedestrians and horse riders may not be substantially relevant to this context. Included some comments that non-motorised users are also not very frequent users of single carriageway roads, either.	215
Lowering national speed limit would increase driver frustration Increased frustration may lead to drivers taking more risks, such as dangerous overtaking manoeuvres. Respondents worried about a reduction in opportunities to overtake slower vehicles if speed limits for cars and HGVs were aligned.	156
Modern vehicles are safe travelling at higher speeds Modern vehicles (including both cars and HGVs) have improved safety features and technology, such as more efficient braking, meaning they are safe to travel at higher speeds.	154
Increasing HGV limit would have no impact on safety / collisions	65
HGV drivers have higher skill level Respondents noted that HGV drivers are professionals and therefore undertake more rigorous driving training. They have high knowledge about how to handle situations on the road and drive safely.	62
More consideration should be given to different vehicle classes More consideration should be given to overall differences between vehicle types e.g. • Commercial / Light Goods Vehicles • Safety of motorcycles travelling at same speed as HGVs under proposals • Impact of farm machinery on traffic conditions on rural roads • Categorisation of buses, coaches and motorhomes	59
Increasing HGV limit would negatively impact safety of non-motorised users	56
Increasing HGV limit would decrease collisions	48
Increasing HGV limit would increase collisions	31
Comments about cyclist behaviour and safety Segregated infrastructure for cyclists is the most effective means to ensure safety. Important for cyclists to ensure they are visible. Some respondents suggested enforcement measures for cyclists such as licensing.	22
Proposals would have no impact on non-motorised user safety	16
Increasing HGV speed limit could increase wear and damage to HGV vehicles	15
Lowering national speed limit would have no impact on collisions	13
Comments about pedestrian behaviour and safety Segregated infrastructure for pedestrians is the most effective means to ensure safety. Education on safe road usage is important for pedestrians as well as drivers. Important for pedestrians to ensure they are visible.	13
Lowering national speed limit would reduce concentration and lead to fatigue Lower speed would cause driver fatigue from more time spent at the wheel, increasing boredom and reducing concentration.	12
Lowering national speed limit would increase collisions	10
Road worthiness of vehicles Proper maintenance of vehicles is important to reduce safety risks on the road.	9
Lowering national speed limit would have positive impact on driver behaviour	5
Lowering national speed limit would decrease collisions Reduction in collisions, including impact on wildlife / animals.	3
Lowering national speed limit could increase wear and damage to cars	1
Road safety	3,127 total

Table 3b. Traffic and transport theme

Sub theme

Sub theme total
Increasing HGV limit would positively impact journey times Improving flow of traffic and decreasing delivery times if HGVs can travel more quickly.	348
Speed limits should be bespoke to specific road design and conditions Disagreement with a blanket approach to changing speed limits, suggesting speed limit should be based on road design and prevailing conditions. Some roads, for example those that are narrow or twisty, warrant a slower driving speed for safety reasons. However, many thought that on straight lengths of single carriageway there was no reason to lower the current national speed limit.	174
Increasing HGV limit could cause more wear on roads Due to heavy vehicles travelling at higher speeds.	111
Speed limits should be consistent across the UK To reduce confusion around different speed limits in England.	92
Suggestion to improve road infrastructure / design Improve road design, including adequate overtaking lanes and laybys, improve junctions	76
Increasing HGV limit would negatively impact journey times	70
Lowering the national speed limit would negatively impact journey times Longer journey times and increased congestion.	33
Suggestion for road infrastructure or rules for HGVs travelling at higher speeds Including: provision of more passing places for HGVs to pull over, not allowing HGVs to overtake on dual carriageways.	29
Suggestion to reduce amount of freight transported by road Transporting freight by other means, such as rail, would reduce the number of HGVs on Scotland’s roads.	29
Lowering national speed limit would negatively impact journey times for businesses Longer journey times leading to reduced productivity, increased delivery times and increased costs.	20
Suggestion to improve signage on roads Improving signage and road markings, including cat’s eyes, could help improve driving standards.	11
Public transport in rural areas is lacking as an alternative to driving Those in rural areas may not have access to suitable public transport options.	6
Lowering national speed limit would negatively impact emergency services and response vehicles Concern that a lower speed limit could impact speed at which first responders are able to reach emergency situations	3
Lowering national speed limit could increase wear on roads	2
Lowering national speed limit could decrease wear on roads	1
Traffic and transport	1,005 total

Table 3c. General theme

Sub theme	Sub theme total
General support for increasing HGV limit	264
General opposition to increasing HGV limit	204
Criticism of the Scottish Government	65
General opposition to reducing the national speed limit	52
Scottish Government should direct resources to road maintenance instead Suggestions that Scottish Government should prioritise improving road quality instead of changing speed limits.	48
Scottish Government should dual major roads instead of changing speed limits Suggestions that Scottish Government should prioritise dualling major single carriageway roads, commonly mentioning dualling of the A9 and A96.	42
Concern about the cost of implementing the proposals Concern that implementing and enforcing the proposals would be costly; particularly the cost of changing road signage.	24
Scottish Government should direct resources elsewhere instead Suggestions that Scottish Government should direct resources to non-road related areas.	12
Scottish Government should invest in improving public transport and dedicated active travel infrastructure instead	8
General opposition to reducing the national speed limit	2
General	721 total

Table 3d. Enforcement theme

Sub theme	Sub theme total
Suggest alternative speed limit proposal	112
Concern that key issue is a minority of dangerous drivers, not the speed limit itself Perception that the key safety risk is dangerous driving (e.g. current speeding, drivers using phones) and that a reduction in the national speed limit will not serve to address this problem.	86
Suggestion relating to driver education Perception that some drivers have a low skill level and more comprehensive education could be a more effective tool to reduce safety risks on the road.	54
Increased police presence would be necessary to enforce change in speed limits Including comments that current police presence and funding is inadequate.	38
Comments relating to vehicle technology Including suggestions for speed limiters.	30
Increase enforcement (non-specific suggestion)	21
Suggestion for tougher penalties for speeding and dangerous driving Including fines, driving bans and suspensions, speed awareness courses, license renewal, harsher penalties/ bans for using mobile phones whilst driving, penalising slow drivers.	19
More speed cameras would be needed to enforce a lowered national speed limit	13
Reducing the national speed limit would be difficult to enforce	5
Suggestion relating to promotion of good driving practice Public information and safety campaigns (such as TV adverts) may be a more effective measure to reduce safety risks on the road. Those commenting on the proposal specifically felt that a reduction in the national speed limit would require significant promotion and awareness raising.	2
Suggestions relating to insurance or financial incentives Financial incentives such as reduced insurance costs for those who do not speed, or elect to take additional driver education, could be a helpful mechanism to help raise driving standards.	2
Decrease enforcement (non-specific suggestion)	1
Suggestion to remove speed cameras Or not to fund implementation of new cameras.	1
Enforcement	385 total

Table 3e. Consultation theme

Sub theme	Sub theme total
Criticism of the survey questions Including commentary on optionality of Questions 7, 10 and 11. Changes made to these questions from feedback received can be viewed in Appendix I.	143
Criticism of the evidence provided for the proposals	70
Request for further information on the proposals	30
General criticism of consultation	21
Criticism of the consultation as having a predetermined outcome	18
Criticism of the consultation materials	10
Positive feedback on the consultation process	4
Criticism of consultation events	1
Consultation	297 total

Table 3f. Environment theme

Sub theme	Sub theme total
Increasing HGV limit would lead to increase in fuel efficiency / positive climate change impact	66
Increasing HGV limit would lead to decrease in fuel efficiency / negative climate change impact	64
Increasing HGV limit would improve air quality	22
Increasing HGV limit would lead to more noise	22
Reducing national speed limit would lead to decrease in fuel efficiency / negative climate change impact	13
Increasing HGV limit would have no impact on climate change	11
Increasing HGV limit would worsen air quality	10
Increasing HGV limit would lead to less noise	9
Reducing national speed limit would worsen air quality	5
Other suggestions relating to climate change Alternate suggestions relating to climate change impact, such as increasing investment in electric vehicle charging points and development of hydrogen fuel for vehicles.	5
Proposals will have no impact on noise	3
Reducing national speed limit would have no impact on air quality	2
Reducing national speed limit would have no impact on climate change	2
Reducing national speed limit would lead to less noise	2
Reducing national speed limit would lead to more noise	2
Reducing national speed limit would lead to increase in fuel efficiency / positive climate change impact	1
Environment	239 total

Table 3g. Socioeconomic theme

Sub theme	Sub theme total
Increasing HGV limit would positively impact Scotland's economy Increased efficiency and lower delivery times could benefit both consumers and wider economy.	158
Proposals would positively impact quality of life	24
Proposals would negatively impact quality of life	20
Concern about driving ability of non-locals Perception that the ability of some tourist drivers is poor which contributes to unsafe situations on the road, particularly in popular rural tourist destinations. Concern that changing the national speed limit would increase confusion for drivers unfamiliar with Scottish roads.	18
Reducing national speed limit would have a disproportionate impact on people who need to travel long distances Concern that reducing the national speed limit would have a disproportionate impact on those in rural areas who need to travel on single carriageways more frequently. Reduction in the national speed limit could negatively impact access to work and key services, such as those that need to travel long distances to access healthcare.	17
Reducing national speed limit would negatively impact Scotland's economy General negative economic impact, cost of goods increasing.	13
Reducing national speed limit would have negative impact on tourism Concern that reducing the national speed limit would discourage tourism in Scotland, particularly impacting rural areas and economies such as the Highlands.	2
Socioeconomic	252 total

Question 13 was an open text box. It asked respondents to comment if they thought any impacts outlined in the previous Question 7 were incorrect.

3,645 respondents provided a free text response to this question. Most respondents used this open text box to comment on the proposals in general, as opposed to specifically answering the stated question, therefore responses were coded according to more general themes. Many respondents used this question to comment further on the themes already outlined in Question 7.

Table 4 provides a breakdown of the thematic codes that were applied across the content of this question. Open text feedback can be wide ranging, ambiguous and cover multiple topics within one response. There is always a level of subjectivity in interpretation of free text comments.

For easier interpretation, thematic codes are grouped within high-level themes, highlighted in light blue in Table 4. Where appropriate, supplementary context has been added to the themes.

Table 4: Are there any impacts that an increase in the speed limit for goods vehicles exceeding 7.5 tonnes on single and dual carriageways that you consider to be incorrect? Please provide as much detail and evidence as you can to support this

The feedback to this question is provided in order of theme frequency.

Table 4a. Road safety theme

Sub theme	Sub theme total
Increasing HGV limit would result in reduced need to overtake Decreased frustration from HGVs being able to travel faster could lead to a reduction in other vehicles overtaking.	252
Perception that non-motorised users are not frequent users of dual (and single) carriageways Perception that non-motorised users are not frequent users of dual carriageways and therefore impacts for cyclists, pedestrians and horse riders may not be substantially relevant to this context. Included some comments that non-motorised users are also not very frequent users of single carriageway roads, either.	246
Increasing HGV limit would increase collisions	203
Drivers would not comply with change in speed limits Perception that drivers would not comply with a reduced national speed limit. Including comments expressing the perception that drivers (including HGV drivers) do not always comply with current speed limits.	181
Increasing HGV limit would increase driver frustration Reduced ability to overtake HGVs may increase frustration of other drivers, particularly if speed limits were aligned.	166
Increasing HGV limit would increase stopping distance Heavy vehicles travelling faster would take longer to stop and increase driver reaction time.	88
Lowering national speed limit would increase driver frustration Increased frustration may lead to drivers taking more risks, such as dangerous overtaking manoeuvres. Respondents worried about a reduction in opportunities to overtake slower vehicles if speed limits for cars and HGVs were aligned.	80
Modern vehicles are safe travelling at higher speeds Modern vehicles (including both cars and HGVs) have improved safety features and technology, such as more efficient braking, meaning they are safe to travel at higher speeds.	79
Increasing HGV limit would have no impact on safety / collisions	65
HGV drivers have higher skill level Respondents noted that HGV drivers are professionals and therefore undertake more rigorous driving training. They have high knowledge about how to handle situations on the road and drive safely.	36
Increasing HGV limit would decrease collisions	29
More consideration should be given to different vehicle classes More consideration should be given to overall differences between vehicle types e.g. • Commercial / Light Goods Vehicles • Safety of motorcycles travelling at same speed as HGVs under proposals • Impact of farm machinery on traffic conditions on rural roads • Categorisation of buses, coaches and motorhomes	28
Increasing HGV limit would negatively impact safety of non-motorised users	23
Comments about cyclist behaviour and safety Segregated infrastructure for cyclists is the most effective means to ensure safety. Important for cyclists to ensure they are visible. Some respondents suggested enforcement measures for cyclists such as licensing.	21
Proposals would have no impact on non-motorised user safety	18
Lowering national speed limit would increase collisions	14
Comments about pedestrian behaviour and safety Segregated infrastructure for pedestrians is the most effective means to ensure safety. Education on safe road usage is important for pedestrians as well as drivers. Important for pedestrians to ensure they are visible.	13
Increasing HGV limit will increase concentration	9
Lowering national speed limit would reduce concentration and lead to fatigue Lower speed would cause driver fatigue from more time spent at the wheel, increasing boredom and reducing concentration.	9
Road worthiness of vehicles Proper maintenance of vehicles is important to reduce safety risks on the road.	9
Lowering national speed limit would have no impact on collisions	7
Increasing HGV speed limit could increase wear and damage to HGV vehicles	4
Lowering national speed limit would have positive impact on driver behaviour	4
Lowering national speed limit would positively impact non-motorised users	1
Road safety	1,585 total

Table 4b. General theme

Sub theme	Sub theme total
General support for increasing HGV limit	157
General opposition to increasing HGV limit	140
Criticism of the Scottish Government	61
Scottish Government should direct resources to road maintenance instead Suggestions that Scottish Government should prioritise improving road quality instead of changing speed limits.	43
General opposition to reducing the national speed limit	37
Scottish Government should dual major roads instead of changing speed limits Suggestions that Scottish Government should prioritise dualling major single carriageway roads, commonly mentioning dualling of the A9 and A96.	31
Concern about the cost of implementing the proposals Concern that implementing and enforcing the proposals would be costly; particularly the cost of changing road signage.	10
Scottish Government should direct resources elsewhere instead Suggestions that Scottish Government should direct resources to non-road related areas.	7
Scottish Government should invest in improving public transport and dedicated active travel infrastructure instead	3
General	489 total

Table 4c. Traffic and transport theme

Sub theme	Sub theme total
Increasing HGV limit would positively impact journey times Improving flow of traffic and decreasing delivery times if HGVs can travel more quickly.	105
Speed limits should be bespoke to specific road design and conditions Disagreement with a blanket approach to changing speed limits, suggesting speed limit should be based on road design and prevailing conditions. Some roads, for example those that are narrow or twisty, warrant a slower driving speed for safety reasons. However, many thought that on straight lengths of single carriageway there was no reason to lower the current national speed limit.	100
Suggestion to improve road infrastructure / design Improve road design, including adequate overtaking lanes and laybys, improve junctions	51
Increasing HGV limit would negatively impact journey times	39
Speed limits should be consistent across the UK To reduce confusion around different speed limits in England.	36
Increasing HGV limit could cause more wear on roads Due to heavy vehicles travelling at higher speeds.	29
Suggestion for road infrastructure or rules for HGVs travelling at higher speeds Including: provision of more passing places for HGVs to pull over, not allowing HGVs to overtake on dual carriageways.	20
Lowering the national speed limit would negatively impact journey times Longer journey times and increased congestion.	16
Suggestion to reduce amount of freight transported by road Transporting freight by other means, such as rail, would reduce the number of HGVs on Scotland’s roads.	16
Suggestion to improve signage on roads Improving signage and road markings, including cat’s eyes, could help improve driving standards.	7
Public transport in rural areas is lacking as an alternative to driving Those in rural areas may not have access to suitable public transport options.	5
Lowering national speed limit would negatively impact journey times for businesses Longer journey times leading to reduced productivity, increased delivery times and increased costs.	4
Lowering national speed limit would have no impact on journey times	2
Reducing national speed limit could reduce wear on roads	2
Lowering national speed limit could increase wear on roads	1
Traffic and transport	433 total

Table 4d. Consultation theme

Sub theme	Sub theme total
Criticism of the survey questions Including commentary on optionality of Questions 7, 10 and 11. Changes made to these questions from feedback received can be viewed in Appendix I.	141
Criticism of the evidence provided for the proposals	108
Request for further information on the proposals	19
General criticism of consultation	16
Criticism of the consultation as having a predetermined outcome	11
Criticism of the consultation materials	10
Consultation	305 total

Table 4e. Enforcement theme

Sub theme	Sub theme total
Suggest alternative speed limit proposal	75
Concern that key issue is a minority of dangerous drivers, not the speed limit itself Perception that the key safety risk is dangerous driving (e.g. current speeding, drivers using phones) and that a reduction in the national speed limit will not serve to address this problem.	67
Suggestion relating to driver education Perception that some drivers have a low skill level and more comprehensive education could be a more effective tool to reduce safety risks on the road.	43
Increased police presence would be necessary to enforce change in speed limits Including comments that current police presence and funding is inadequate.	24
Comments relating to vehicle technology Including suggestions for speed limiters.	20
Increase enforcement (non-specific suggestion)	13
Suggestion for tougher penalties for speeding and dangerous driving Including fines, driving bans and suspensions, speed awareness courses, license renewal, harsher penalties/ bans for using mobile phones whilst driving, penalising slow drivers.	13
More speed cameras would be needed to enforce a lowered national speed limit	9
Reducing the national speed limit would be difficult to enforce	6
Suggestion relating to promotion of good driving practice Public information and safety campaigns (such as TV adverts) may be a more effective measure to reduce safety risks on the road. Those commenting on the proposal specifically felt that a reduction in the national speed limit would require significant promotion and awareness raising.	2
Decrease enforcement (non-specific suggestion)	1
Suggestion to remove speed cameras Or not to fund implementation of new cameras.	1
Suggestions relating to insurance or financial incentives Financial incentives such as reduced insurance costs for those who do not speed, or elect to take additional driver education, could be a helpful mechanism to help raise driving standards.	1
Enforcement	276 total

Table 4f. Environment theme

Sub theme	Sub theme total
Increasing HGV limit would lead to decrease in fuel efficiency / negative climate change impact	37
Increasing HGV limit would have no impact on climate change	34
Increasing HGV limit would lead to increase in fuel efficiency / positive climate change impact	30
Increasing HGV limit would worsen air quality	16
Increasing HGV limit would lead to more noise	14
Reducing NSL would lead to decrease in fuel efficiency / negative climate change impact	11
Increasing HGV limit would improve air quality	9
Increasing HGV limit would lead to less noise	8
Reducing NSL would have no impact on climate change	7
Reducing NSL would worsen air quality	7
Proposals will have no impact on noise	4
Other suggestions relating to climate change Alternate suggestions relating to climate change impact, such as increasing investment in electric vehicle charging points and development of hydrogen fuel for vehicles.	4
Reducing NSL would have no impact on air quality	3
Reducing NSL would improve air quality	1
Reducing NSL would lead to increased fuel efficiency	1
Reducing NSL would lead to more noise	1
Environment	187 total

Table 4g. Socioeconomic theme

Sub theme	Sub theme total
Increasing HGV limit would positively impact Scotland's economy Increased efficiency and lower delivery times could benefit both consumers and wider economy.	33
Reducing national speed limit would have a disproportionate impact on people who need to travel long distances Concern that reducing the national speed limit would have a disproportionate impact on those in rural areas who need to travel on single carriageways more frequently. Reduction in the national speed limit could negatively impact access to work and key services, such as those that need to travel long distances to access healthcare.	13
Concern about driving ability of non-locals Perception that the ability of some tourist drivers is poor which contributes to unsafe situations on the road, particularly in popular rural tourist destinations. Concern that changing the national speed limit would increase confusion for drivers unfamiliar with Scottish roads.	8
Proposals would positively impact quality of life	7
Reducing national speed limit would negatively impact Scotland's economy General negative economic impact, cost of goods increasing.	7
Proposals would have no impact on quality of life	3
Proposals would negatively impact quality of life	3
Reducing national speed limit would have negative impact on tourism Concern that reducing the national speed limit would discourage tourism in Scotland, particularly impacting rural areas and economies such as the Highlands.	3
Socioeconomic	77 total

Speed Enforcement and Speed Limit Compliance

Question 14 asked respondents if they thought that motorists generally comply with the current national speed limit on single carriageway roads. 19,515 respondents provided a valid response to this question. The results are shown in Figure 10.

Figure 10: Do you think motorists generally comply with the current national speed limit on single carriageway roads? as described in following text — Figure 10: Do you think motorists generally comply with the current national speed limit on single carriageway roads?

As shown in Figure 10, 80% of respondents (15,610) thought motorists generally comply with the current national speed limit most of the time. 18% of respondents thought motorists rarely comply with the current national speed limit (3,428) and 2% of respondents (377) thought motorists always comply. 1% of respondents (100) were unsure.

Of those that responded to this question (19,515), 132 responded as organisations. Of these organisations, 72% (95) thought motorists generally comply with the current national speed limit most of the time. 20% of respondents thought motorists rarely comply with the current national speed limit (27) and 5% of respondents (6) thought motorists always comply. 3% of respondents (4) were unsure.

Question 15 asked respondents whether current speed enforcement measures should remain in place for road safety if the national speed limit on single carriageways was reduced. 19,392 respondents provided a valid response to this question. The results are shown in Figure 11.

Figure 11: If the national speed limit on single carriageways was reduced, do you think current speed enforcement measures should remain in place to support road safety? as described in following text — Figure 11: If the national speed limit on single carriageways was reduced, do you think current speed enforcement measures should remain in place to support road safety?

As shown in Figure 11, 51% of respondents (9,794) thought current speed enforcement measures should not remain in place if the national speed limit was reduced. 34% of respondents (6,680) thought current enforcement measures should be maintained, and 15% of respondents (2,918) were unsure.

Of those that responded to this question (19,392), 135 responded as organisations. Of these organisations, 41% (56) thought current speed enforcement measures should not remain in place if the national speed limit was reduced. 50% of respondents (67) thought current enforcement measures should be maintained, and 9% of respondents (12) were unsure.

Question 16 was an open question and asked respondents what additional measures they thought the Scottish Government could take to encourage compliance with a lower national speed limit on single carriageway roads.

11,633 respondents responded to this question. Most respondents commented more freely on the proposals, rather than specifically answering the stated question.

Table 5: What additional measures could the Scottish Government take to encourage compliance with a lower national speed limit on single carriageways? Please detail below.

The feedback to this question is provided in order of theme frequency.

Table 5a. Enforcement theme

Sub theme	Sub theme total
Increased police presence would be necessary to enforce change in speed limits Including comments that current police presence and funding is inadequate.	1,436
More speed cameras would be needed to enforce a lowered national speed limit	1,035
Suggestion relating to driver education Perception that some drivers have a low skill level and more comprehensive education could be a more effective tool to reduce safety risks on the road.	891
Suggest alternative speed limit proposal	499
Suggestion for tougher penalties for speeding and dangerous driving Including fines, driving bans and suspensions, speed awareness courses, license renewal, harsher penalties/ bans for using mobile phones whilst driving, penalising slow drivers.	496
Concern that key issue is a minority of dangerous drivers, not the speed limit itself Perception that the key safety risk is dangerous driving (e.g. current speeding, drivers using phones) and that a reduction in the national speed limit will not serve to address this problem.	462
Increase enforcement (non-specific suggestion)	404
Reducing the national speed limit would be difficult to enforce	296
Suggestion relating to promotion of good driving practice Public information and safety campaigns (such as TV adverts) may be a more effective measure to reduce safety risks on the road. Those commenting on the proposal specifically felt that a reduction in the national speed limit would require significant promotion and awareness raising.	232
Comments relating to vehicle technology Including suggestions for speed limiters.	169
Suggestions relating to insurance or financial incentives Financial incentives such as reduced insurance costs for those who do not speed, or elect to take additional driver education, could be a helpful mechanism to help raise driving standards.	130
Suggestion to remove speed cameras Or not to fund implementation of new cameras.	129
Decrease enforcement (non-specific suggestion)	50
Enforcement	6,814 total

Table 5b. General theme

Sub theme	Sub theme total
General opposition to reducing the national speed limit	2814
Criticism of the Scottish Government	998
Scottish Government should direct resources to road maintenance instead Suggestions that Scottish Government should prioritise improving road quality instead of changing speed limits.	678
Scottish Government should dual major roads instead of changing speed limits Suggestions that Scottish Government should prioritise dualling major single carriageway roads, commonly mentioning dualling of the A9 and A96.	504
Scottish Government should direct resources elsewhere instead Suggestions that Scottish Government should direct resources to non-road related areas.	281
Concern about the cost of implementing the proposals Concern that implementing and enforcing the proposals would be costly; particularly the cost of changing road signage.	197
Scottish Government should invest in improving public transport and dedicated active travel infrastructure instead	74
General support for increasing HGV limit	60
General opposition to increasing HGV limit	28
General support for reducing the national speed limit	13
General	5,647 total

Table 5c. Road Safety theme

Sub theme	Sub theme total
Drivers would not comply with change in speed limits Perception that drivers would not comply with a reduced national speed limit. Including comments expressing the perception that drivers (including HGV drivers) do not always comply with current speed limits.	787
Lowering national speed limit would increase driver frustration Increased frustration may lead to drivers taking more risks, such as dangerous overtaking manoeuvres. Respondents worried about a reduction in opportunities to overtake slower vehicles if speed limits for cars and HGVs were aligned.	693
Modern vehicles are safe travelling at higher speeds Modern vehicles (including both cars and HGVs) have improved safety features and technology, such as more efficient braking, meaning they are safe to travel at higher speeds.	263
Lowering national speed limit would increase collisions	89
Lowering national speed limit would have no impact on collisions	86
Comments about cyclist behaviour and safety Segregated infrastructure for cyclists is the most effective means to ensure safety. Important for cyclists to ensure they are visible. Some respondents suggested enforcement measures for cyclists such as licensing.	56
Lowering national speed limit would reduce concentration and lead to fatigue Lower speed would cause driver fatigue from more time spent at the wheel, increasing boredom and reducing concentration.	52
More consideration should be given to different vehicle classes More consideration should be given to overall differences between vehicle types e.g. • Commercial / Light Goods Vehicles • Safety of motorcycles travelling at same speed as HGVs under proposals • Impact of farm machinery on traffic conditions on rural roads • Categorisation of buses, coaches and motorhomes	29
Comments about pedestrian behaviour and safety Segregated infrastructure for pedestrians is the most effective means to ensure safety. Education on safe road usage is important for pedestrians as well as drivers. Important for pedestrians to ensure they are visible.	25
Increasing HGV limit would result in reduced need to overtake Decreased frustration from HGVs being able to travel faster could lead to a reduction in other vehicles overtaking.	23
Road worthiness of vehicles Proper maintenance of vehicles is important to reduce safety risks on the road.	18
Perception that non-motorised users are not frequent users of dual (and single) carriageways Perception that non-motorised users are not frequent users of dual carriageways and therefore impacts for cyclists, pedestrians and horse riders may not be substantially relevant to this context. Included some comments that non-motorised users are also not very frequent users of single carriageway roads, either.	17
Increasing HGV limit would increase collisions	10
Increasing HGV limit would increase driver frustration Reduced ability to overtake HGVs may increase frustration of other drivers, particularly if speed limits were aligned.	8
HGV drivers have higher skill level Respondents noted that HGV drivers are professionals and therefore undertake more rigorous driving training. They have high knowledge about how to handle situations on the road and drive safely.	3
Lowering national speed limit would decrease collisions Reduction in collisions, including impact on wildlife / animals.	3
Proposals would have no impact on non-motorised user safety	3
Increasing HGV limit would have no impact on safety / collisions	2
Increasing HGV limit would increase stopping distance Heavy vehicles travelling faster would take longer to stop and increase driver reaction time.	2
Lowering national speed limit could increase wear and damage to cars	2
Lowering national speed limit would have positive impact on driver behaviour	2
Increasing HGV limit would decrease collisions	1
Increasing HGV limit would increase concentration	1
Increasing HGV limit would negatively impact safety of non-motorised users	1
Road safety	2,176 total

Table 5d. Traffic and transport theme

Sub theme	Sub theme total
Speed limits should be bespoke to specific road design and conditions Disagreement with a blanket approach to changing speed limits, suggesting speed limit should be based on road design and prevailing conditions. Some roads, for example those that are narrow or twisty, warrant a slower driving speed for safety reasons. However, many thought that on straight lengths of single carriageway there was no reason to lower the current national speed limit.	542
Suggestion to improve road infrastructure / design Improve road design, including adequate overtaking lanes and laybys, improve junctions	507
Suggestion to improve signage on roads Improving signage and road markings, including cat’s eyes, could help improve driving standards.	237
Lowering the national speed limit would negatively impact journey times Longer journey times and increased congestion.	146
Public transport in rural areas is lacking as an alternative to driving Those in rural areas may not have access to suitable public transport options.	100
Speed limits should be consistent across the UK To reduce confusion around different speed limits in England.	59
Suggestion for road infrastructure or rules for HGVs travelling at higher speeds Including: provision of more passing places for HGVs to pull over, not allowing HGVs to overtake on dual carriageways.	20
Lowering national speed limit would negatively impact journey times for businesses Longer journey times leading to reduced productivity, increased delivery times and increased costs.	17
Suggestion to reduce amount of freight transported by road Transporting freight by other means, such as rail, would reduce the number of HGVs on Scotland’s roads.	7
Increasing HGV limit would positively impact journey times Improving flow of traffic and decreasing delivery times if HGVs can travel more quickly.	6
Lowering national speed limit would negatively impact emergency services and response vehicles Concern that a lower speed limit could impact speed at which first responders are able to reach emergency situations	6
Reducing national speed limit could reduce wear on roads	3
Lowering national speed limit would have no impact on journey times	1
Traffic and transport	1,651 total

Table 5e. Consultation theme

Sub theme	Sub theme total
Criticism of the consultation as having a predetermined outcome	162
Criticism of the evidence provided for the proposals	125
Criticism of the survey questions Including commentary on optionality of Questions 7, 10 and 11. Changes made to these questions from feedback received can be viewed in Appendix I.	115
General criticism of consultation	59
Request for further information on the proposals	38
Criticism of the consultation materials	11
Criticism of the consultation promotion	7
Criticism of the consultation events	1
Consultation	518 total

Table 5f. Socioeconomic theme

Sub theme	Sub theme total
Reducing national speed limit would have a disproportionate impact on people who need to travel long distances Concern that reducing the national speed limit would have a disproportionate impact on those in rural areas who need to travel on single carriageways more frequently. Reduction in the national speed limit could negatively impact access to work and key services, such as those that need to travel long distances to access healthcare.	187
Proposals would negatively impact quality of life	73
Concern about driving ability of non-locals Perception that the ability of some tourist drivers is poor which contributes to unsafe situations on the road, particularly in popular rural tourist destinations. Concern that changing the national speed limit would increase confusion for drivers unfamiliar with Scottish roads.	52
Reducing national speed limit would negatively impact Scotland's economy General negative economic impact, cost of goods increasing.	45
Reducing national speed limit would have negative impact on tourism Concern that reducing the national speed limit would discourage tourism in Scotland, particularly impacting rural areas and economies such as the Highlands.	12
Increasing HGV limit would positively impact Scotland's economy Increased efficiency and lower delivery times could benefit both consumers and wider economy.	1
Socioeconomic	370 total

Table 5g. Environment theme

Sub theme	Sub theme total
Reducing national speed limit would lead to decrease in fuel efficiency / negative climate change impact	56
Reducing national speed limit would worsen air quality	11
Reducing national speed limit would have no impact on climate change	6
Increasing HGV limit would lead to decrease in fuel efficiency / negative climate change impact	3
Reducing national speed limit would lead to increase in fuel efficiency / positive climate change impact	3
Reducing national speed limit would have no impact on air quality	2
Reducing national speed limit would lead to more noise	2
Other suggestions relating to climate change Alternate suggestions relating to climate change impact, such as increasing investment in electric vehicle charging points and development of hydrogen fuel for vehicles.	2
Reducing national speed limit would improve air quality	1
Environment	86 total

Behavioural impact

This section of the questionnaire aimed to understand if a reduction in the national speed limit on single carriageway roads would impact people’s travel behaviours.

Question 17 asked if a reduction in the national speed limit would encourage respondents to use active travel options. 19,499 respondents provided a valid response to this question. The results are shown in Figure 12.

Figure 12: Would a reduced speed limit on single carriageway roads encourage you to use active travel options (walking, wheeling, cycling)? as described in following text — Figure 12: Would a reduced speed limit on single carriageway roads encourage you to use active travel options (walking, wheeling, cycling)?

As shown in Figure 12, 90% of respondents were either very unlikely (79%; 15,387) or unlikely (11%; 2,075) to use active travel options if the national speed limit was reduced on single carriageways. 6% of respondents (1,172) were neither likely or unlikely to use active travel options. 2% of respondents (312) were likely, whilst 2% of respondents were very likely (360). 1% of respondents (193) were unsure.

Question 18 asked if a reduction in the national speed limit would affect respondents’ use of public transport options.

12,290 respondents provided a valid response to this question. The results are shown in Figure 13.

(The questionnaire was updated on 9 December 2024 at 14:40 to include an “I don’t use public transport” option to this question. Figure 13 shows the breakdown of responses following this change. The chart showing responses received prior to this change can be viewed in Appendix I)

Figure 13: Would a reduced national speed limit on single carriageway roads make you use public transport more or less often? as described in following text — Figure 13: Would a reduced national speed limit on single carriageway roads make you use public transport more or less often?

As shown in Figure 13, 56% of respondents (6,851) don’t use public transport. 26% (3,219) of respondents would use public transport the same amount if the national speed limit on single carriageway roads was reduced. 15% of respondents (1,783) would use public transport less often and 1% (103) would use it more often. 3% of respondents (334) were unsure.

Of the 5,439 respondents who used public transport, 59% (3,219) would use it the same and 33% of respondents (1,783) would use it less often if the national speed limit on single carriageways was reduced, 2% of respondents (103) would use it more often, and 6% (334) were unsure.

Question 19 asked if a reduction in the national speed limit would impact respondents’ driving frequency. 19,499 respondents provided a valid response to this question. The results are shown in Figure 14.

Figure 14: If the national speed limit on single carriageway roads was reduced would this impact your driving frequency? as described in following text — Figure 14: If the national speed limit on single carriageway roads was reduced would this impact your driving frequency?

As shown in Figure 14, 85% of respondents (16,566) said that a reduction in the national speed limit on single carriageway roads would not change their driving frequency. 10% (1,977) of respondents would drive more if the national speed limit was reduced. 2% of respondents (476) were unsure and 2% of respondents (448) would drive less under the proposed changes. Less than 1% of respondents (29) don’t drive.

(The questionnaire was updated on 9 December 2024 at 14:40 to include an “I don’t drive” option to this question. Less than 1% of respondents selected this option, so the data for this question has not been split as the additional option did not significantly change the data gathered. All changes made to the questionnaire are recorded in Appendix I. )

About respondents

The final section of the questionnaire asked respondents questions about themselves.

Question 22 asked respondents if they were responding to the consultation as an individual or organisation. The results are shown in Figure 15.

Figure 15: Are you responding as an individual or an organisation? as described in following text — Figure 15: Are you responding as an individual or an organisation?

19,535 respondents provided a valid answer to this question. 99% (19,399) of respondents were individuals, and 1% of respondents (136) stated that they were responding on behalf of organisations.

Question 25 asked respondents which age category they were within. 19,360 respondents provided a valid response to this question. The results are shown in Figure 16.

Figure 16: Which age category best describes you? as described in following text — Figure 16: Which age category best describes you?

As shown in Figure 16, less than 1% of respondents (65) were aged 18 or under; 1% of respondents (259) were aged between 19 to 21 years old; 16% of respondents (3,018) were aged between 22 to 34 years old; 19% of respondents (3,597) were aged between 35 to 44 years old; 22% of respondents (4,237) were aged between 45 to 54 years old; 13% of respondents (2,603) were aged between 55 to 59 years old and 29% of respondents (5,581) were aged 60 years old or older.

Question 26 asked respondents if they consider themselves to live in an urban or rural location. 19,407 respondents provided a valid response to this question. The results are shown in Figure 17.

Figure 17: Do you consider yourself to live in an urban or rural location? as described in following text — Figure 17: Do you consider yourself to live in an urban or rural location?

As shown in Figure 17, 68% of respondents (13,197) considered themselves to live in a rural area, and 32% of respondents (6,210) in an urban area.

Question 27 asked respondents what mode of transport they most frequently use on single carriageway and dual carriageway roads with a national speed limit.

19,418 respondents provided a valid response to this question. Respondents were permitted to select multiple options to this question. The results are shown in Figure 18.

Figure 18: What mode do you most frequently use to travel on single carriageway and dual-carriageway roads with a national speed limit? as described in following text — Figure 18: What mode do you most frequently use to travel on single carriageway and dual-carriageway roads with a national speed limit?

As shown in Figure 18, 94% of respondents (18,315) selected ‘car driver’

Question 28 asked respondents what their most frequent reason for driving on single and dual carriageway roads is. 19,374 respondents provided a valid response to this question. The results are shown in Figure 19.

Figure 19: If you are a driver, what is your most frequent reason for driving on single carriageway and dual carriageway roads with National Speed Limits? as described in following text — Figure 19: If you are a driver, what is your most frequent reason for driving on single carriageway and dual carriageway roads with National Speed Limits?

As shown in Figure 19, 47% of respondents (9,056) chose “all of the above”. 29% of respondents (5,526) said they use single and dual carriageways most frequently for personal/leisure, 17% of respondents (3,269) selected for commuting to work/education and 8% of respondents (1,459) selected for business. Less than 1% of respondents (64) said that they don’t drive.

5 respondents provided multiple options to this question in the hardcopy version of the questionnaire. These responses were not included in the above graph as the question was not a multiple-choice question.

Question 29 asked respondents what social media platforms they would most likely use to receive road safety information. Respondents were able to choose multiple options in response to this question. 18,642 respondents provided a valid response to this question. The results are shown in Figure 20.

Figure 20: Which social media platforms would you most likely use to receive road safety information? as described in following text — Figure 20: Which social media platforms would you most likely use to receive road safety information?

As shown in Figure 20, 52% of respondents (9,677) use Facebook; 40% of respondents (7,526) use no social media platforms to receive road safety information; 11% of respondents (2,029) use Instagram; 11% of respondents (1,994) use X (formerly Twitter); 5% of respondents (912) use TikTok and 4% of respondents (720) use other platforms.

Those who selected the “other” option were able to specify their answer in an open text box.

(Due to a processing error, the open text box related to the “other” option was not initially present in the online questionnaire form. This was added in an update on 9 December 2024 at 14:40. Details of changes to the questionnaire can be viewed in Appendix I.)

Other social media platforms mentioned by respondents included BlueSky and YouTube.

Many respondents also stated they get their road safety information from other non-social media sources, including news outlets, the Government and Scottish Government websites, road safety and navigation apps (AA, RAC, Waze and Google Maps), road safety organisations (IAM and RoSPA), radio and TV.

Unstructured email responses

45 unstructured emails were received as responses to the consultation (20 from organisations and 25 from individuals).

Unstructured email responses were coded using the same code frame developed from the open text data received in response to the structured questionnaire. Table 6 outlines the themes that arose from these responses.

Table 6: themes from coding of unstructured email responses

The feedback to this question is provided in order of theme frequency.

Table 6a. Road safety theme

Sub theme	Sub theme total
Lowering national speed limit would increase driver frustration Increased frustration may lead to drivers taking more risks, such as dangerous overtaking manoeuvres. Respondents worried about a reduction in opportunities to overtake slower vehicles if speed limits for cars and HGVs were aligned.	20
Drivers would not comply with change in speed limits Perception that drivers would not comply with a reduced national speed limit. Including comments expressing the perception that drivers (including HGV drivers) do not always comply with current speed limits.	13
Lowering national speed limit would increase collisions	7
Increasing HGV limit would result in reduced need to overtake Decreased frustration from HGVs being able to travel faster could lead to a reduction in other vehicles overtaking.	7
Lowering national speed limit would decrease collisions Reduction in collisions, including impact on wildlife / animals.	7
Modern vehicles are safe travelling at higher speeds Modern vehicles (including both cars and HGVs) have improved safety features and technology, such as more efficient braking, meaning they are safe to travel at higher speeds.	6
Increasing HGV limit would increase driver frustration Reduced ability to overtake HGVs may increase frustration of other drivers, particularly if speed limits were aligned.	4
Lowering national speed limit would have no impact on collisions	4
Lowering national speed limit would reduce concentration and lead to fatigue Lower speed would cause driver fatigue from more time spent at the wheel, increasing boredom and reducing concentration.	4
Increasing HGV limit would have no impact on safety / collisions	2
Increasing HGV limit would negatively impact safety of non-motorised users	2
Lowering national speed limit would positively impact non-motorised users	2
Comments about pedestrian behaviour and safety Segregated infrastructure for pedestrians is the most effective means to ensure safety. Education on safe road usage is important for pedestrians as well as drivers. Important for pedestrians to ensure they are visible.	2
Increasing HGV limit would decrease collisions	1
Increasing HGV limit would increase concentration	1
Increasing HGV limit would increase stopping distance Heavy vehicles travelling faster would take longer to stop and increase driver reaction time.	1
Lowering NSL would increase collisions	1
Perception that non-motorised users are not frequent users of dual (and single) carriageways Perception that non-motorised users are not frequent users of dual carriageways and therefore impacts for cyclists, pedestrians and horse riders may not be substantially relevant to this context. Included some comments that non-motorised users are also not very frequent users of single carriageway roads, either.	1
Road worthiness of vehicles Proper maintenance of vehicles is important to reduce safety risks on the road.	1
Road safety	86 total

Table 6b. Traffic and transport theme

Sub theme	Sub theme total
Speed limits should be bespoke to specific road design and conditions Disagreement with a blanket approach to changing speed limits, suggesting speed limit should be based on road design and prevailing conditions. Some roads, for example those that are narrow or twisty, warrant a slower driving speed for safety reasons. However, many thought that on straight lengths of single carriageway there was no reason to lower the current national speed limit.	22
Lowering the national speed limit would negatively impact journey times Longer journey times and increased congestion.	11
Suggestion to improve road infrastructure / design Improve road design, including adequate overtaking lanes and laybys, improve junctions	7
Lowering national speed limit would negatively impact journey times for businesses Longer journey times leading to reduced productivity, increased delivery times and increased costs.	6
Speed limits should be consistent across the UK To reduce confusion around different speed limits in England.	6
Suggestion to improve signage on roads Improving signage and road markings, including cat’s eyes, could help improve driving standards.	5
Public transport in rural areas is lacking as an alternative to driving Those in rural areas may not have access to suitable public transport options.	4
Increasing HGV limit would positively impact journey times Improving flow of traffic and decreasing delivery times if HGVs can travel more quickly.	3
Increasing HGV limit could cause more wear on roads Due to heavy vehicles travelling at higher speeds.	1
Increasing HGV limit would negatively impact journey times	1
Lowering national speed limit would negatively impact emergency services and response vehicles Concern that a lower speed limit could impact speed at which first responders are able to reach emergency situations	1
Suggestion to reduce amount of freight transported by road Transporting freight by other means, such as rail, would reduce the number of HGVs on Scotland’s roads.	1
Traffic and transport	68 total

Table 6c. Enforcement theme

Sub theme	Sub theme total
Suggestion relating to driver education Perception that some drivers have a low skill level and more comprehensive education could be a more effective tool to reduce safety risks on the road.	14
Concern that key issue is a minority of dangerous drivers, not the speed limit itself Perception that the key safety risk is dangerous driving (e.g. current speeding, drivers using phones) and that a reduction in the national speed limit will not serve to address this problem.	10
Decrease enforcement (non-specific suggestion)	1
Suggestion relating to promotion of good driving practice Public information and safety campaigns (such as TV adverts) may be a more effective measure to reduce safety risks on the road. Those commenting on the proposal specifically felt that a reduction in the national speed limit would require significant promotion and awareness raising.	4
Increase enforcement (non-specific suggestion)	9
Increased police presence would be necessary to enforce change in speed limits Including comments that current police presence and funding is inadequate.	6
More speed cameras would be needed to enforce a lowered national speed limit	6
Reducing the national speed limit would be difficult to enforce	3
Suggestion to remove speed cameras Or not to fund implementation of new cameras.	1
Suggest alternative speed limit proposal	5
Suggestions relating to insurance or financial incentives Financial incentives such as reduced insurance costs for those who do not speed, or elect to take additional driver education, could be a helpful mechanism to help raise driving standards.	2
Suggestion for tougher penalties for speeding and dangerous driving Including fines, driving bans and suspensions, speed awareness courses, license renewal, harsher penalties/ bans for using mobile phones whilst driving, penalising slow drivers.	2
Comments relating to vehicle technology Including suggestions for speed limiters.	2
Enforcement	65 total

Table 6d. General theme

Sub theme	Sub theme total
General opposition to reducing the national speed limit	14
Criticism of the Scottish Government	8
General support for increasing HGV limit	8
Scottish Government should direct resources to road maintenance instead Suggestions that Scottish Government should prioritise improving road quality instead of changing speed limits.	8
General support for reducing the national speed limit	7
General opposition to increasing HGV limit	6
Concern about the cost of implementing the proposals Concern that implementing and enforcing the proposals would be costly; particularly the cost of changing road signage.	4
Scottish Government should dual major roads instead of changing speed limits Suggestions that Scottish Government should prioritise dualling major single carriageway roads, commonly mentioning dualling of the A9 and A96.	4
General	59 total

Table 6e. Consultation theme

Sub theme	Sub theme total
Criticism of the evidence provided for the proposals	13
Request for further information on the proposals	5
Criticism of the survey questions Including commentary on optionality of Questions 7, 10 and 11. Changes made to these questions from feedback received can be viewed in Appendix I.	4
General criticism of consultation	4
Criticism of the consultation as having a predetermined outcome	3
Criticism of the consultation materials	3
Criticism of the consultation promotion	3
Positive feedback on the consultation process	3
Criticism of the consultation events	1
Consultation	39 total

Table 6f. Socioeconomic theme

Sub theme	Sub theme total
Reducing national speed limit would have a disproportionate impact on people who need to travel long distances Concern that reducing the national speed limit would have a disproportionate impact on those in rural areas who need to travel on single carriageways more frequently. Reduction in the national speed limit could negatively impact access to work and key services, such as those that need to travel long distances to access healthcare.	13
Reducing national speed limit would negatively impact Scotland's economy General negative economic impact, cost of goods increasing.	6
Increasing HGV limit would positively impact Scotland's economy Increased efficiency and lower delivery times could benefit both consumers and wider economy.	5
Proposals would negatively impact quality of life	4
Reducing national speed limit would have negative impact on tourism Concern that reducing the national speed limit would discourage tourism in Scotland, particularly impacting rural areas and economies such as the Highlands.	4
Concern about driving ability of non-locals Perception that the ability of some tourist drivers is poor which contributes to unsafe situations on the road, particularly in popular rural tourist destinations. Concern that changing the national speed limit would increase confusion for drivers unfamiliar with Scottish roads.	3
Socioeconomic	35 total

Table 6g. Environment theme

Sub theme	Sub theme total
Reducing national speed limit would lead to decrease in fuel efficiency / negative climate change impact	5
Increasing HGV limit would lead to more noise	2
Increasing HGV limit would lead to decrease in fuel efficiency / negative climate change impact	1
Environment	8 total

< Previous | Contents | Next >