INTRODUCING blanket 20mph zones across York was one of the previous Labour administration's more controversial moves.

Nobody would argue with the aim of reducing accidents on the city's roads.

But many - including opposition Liberal Democrats - felt the best way to achieve this was to have selective 20mph zones in areas where they would make most difference. That was an approach that already worked well outside schools.

Instead, Labour spent £500,000 - or even more, according to some opponents - introducing 20mph signs on just about every residential street in the city. The only exception was major trunk routes.

They did that in the face of what was at best overwhelming public indifference.

When people living in west York were asked for their views on the introduction of 20mph zones there, just 97 of 13,000 people bothered to respond. Of these, 87 were against the idea. Hardly a ringing endorsement.

Now the city's new Conservative-Liberal Democrat ruling coalition are considering scrapping the 20mph limits and removing the signs. "Some of the signs are in ridiculous places," said the Conservative executive member for transport Ian Gillies. "It was political dogma that put them there."

Getting rid of the zones might prove popular in some quarters.

But should the council really spend yet more money removing signs that cost so much to put up in the first place?

We don't think so.

The signs are here now. There would inevitably be a cost implication to removing them. And while the evidence about how effective they are is unclear, they do at least serve as a visible warning to motorists not to drive too quickly in residential areas.

They should be allowed to stay.