PEOPLE will have heard how in the very early days of car travel these new-fangled machines were required to have someone walking in front of them carrying a red flag.

While not going quite that far – at least not yet – it will be back to the future if a campaign to get a universal 20mph speed limit introduced in Ludlow is successful.

These kind of limits are already common place in the vicinity of places such as schools during arrival and departure time in the morning and afternoon. In this context, most people do not have a problem with the restriction and, indeed, can see the sense of it.

But what the '20 is plenty’ campaign want goes much further than this – it is a default speed limit of 20mph throughout the town at all times of the day and night.

When the idea was put to Ludlow Town Council there was a notable lack of any statistical evidence in terms of numbers of accidents or injuries that would be prevented to back such a move.

Of course, if you hit something at 20mph you are likely to do less damage than at 30mph. This is a statement of the obvious and to follow this line of logic why not a 15mph or even a 10mph limit. In fact, why not have a zero speed limit.

There is cause for suspicion that ’20 is plenty’ is not really about safety at all but is a way of taking forward an anti-car agenda by stealth.

It is said that if there is such a limit people are more likely to get about on foot, by public transport or even cycle. In case they have not noticed public transport is hardly plentiful in places like Ludlow and rural areas.

Cycling is a wonderful and increasingly popular sport and leisure-time activity but it is not a serious proposition for most people in Ludlow.

The town has a population that is older than average and there are simply not too many people like Chris Froome (three times winner of the Tour de France) living in Ludlow. Anyone who knows anything about Ludlow and about cycling will know that the town is simply too hilly for bikes to be a realistic way for all but the fittest and most committed to get around.

Just as big an issue is that the police are simply not resourced to enforce even the existing sensible speed limits – a point that was made clear at a public meeting last year.

A traffic law that cannot be enforced and has nothing to do with safety and everything to do with social engineering is bad law.

This idea is also not good for the Green movement as it just reinforces a view that too many environmentalists are, at the least, semi-detached from the real world.

Cars are safer and more efficient than they have ever been and it is hard to believe there is a case for making them, in the name of ideology, travel everywhere at a snail's pace.