LAST week, John McLellan wrote about the unenforceable but costly action by Edinburgh Council to impose a 20mph speed limit in the city (“Slow way to achieve not very much”, The Herald, March 2). Edinburgh, it should be noted, has a track record in not enforcing traffic schemes.

In 2015 Edinburgh City Council launched a pilot scheme closing the roads outside nine primary schools, including Sciennes, at the start and stop of the school day. Signs, which flashed during the restricted periods, were set up at each end of the relevant stretch of road and the police were charged with enforcement. For the first week the police were in attendance and everything worked well. However, the police did not have the manpower to continue so the traffic came back until the road was almost as busy as before. A small group of parents took it upon themselves to act. Each morning they would stand in the road and draw drivers’ attention to the restrictions. However, it was obvious that the signs were poor. An approaching driver saw the flashing lights but not the reason.

Parents started lobbying the council for better signs and suggested using flashing “No Entry” signs like those used to restrict traffic on part of Princes Street. They light up when and only when the restrictions apply.

We waited a long time before being told that we could not have the “No Entry” signs because that would mean emergency vehicles could not go along the street. When we pointed out that emergency vehicles did go along Princes Street without trouble, the reply came that the Princes Street scheme had been granted by special approval of Scottish ministers on condition that it was not replicated elsewhere. When we asked how come the evening closure of the Cowgate is similarly managed by “No Entry” signs that light up when the restrictions apply, we were told that that was an entirely different scheme.

We then suggested that our signs would be more readily understood if the central portion, indicating the nature of the restriction, also lit up. We were told that this was not possible because the signs had been specifically approved by Scottish ministers and were standard across the UK for similar restrictions. When we pointed out a case in Argyll where the central portion of a 20mph restriction lit up, the official went on Google Street View to verify our claim, but would not budge.

Next we tackled the “the signs have been approved by Scottish ministers” argument, and asked our MSP to raise the matter. The answer from Humza Yousaf was that it was possible to request a change if (and here comes the Catch 22) the local authority does not think the sign is fit for purpose. Of course the council does think the sign is fit for purpose.

It is a shame that so much energy and effort has been invested by the council in doing nothing and ensuring that its own scheme does not work.

Judith Gillespie,

40 Findhorn Place, Edinburgh.