Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
inky pete

20mph zones working well then!

Recommended Posts

Well once we have found out that the zones work, or not as the case may be, then maybe we can then educate cyclists in the correct use of their vehicles.  suggestions for a few simple courses that could be run for all cyclists old and new.

 

1. "HOW A BELL WORKS" the theory of cycle bell construction, correct positioning of the bell on the cycle for optimum use,when to use the bell and why.

2. "LIGHTS AND WHY THEY ARE IMMPORTANT" the maintainance of cycle lighting, how to replace the battery, correct placement of cycle lighting, what lighting is suitable for cycles and why.

3. "REFLECTIVE CLOTHING" What it can mean to you and your safety, when reflective clothing is advisable.

 

there are probably others that people could add but that will do for now.

if anybody is wondering why I suggest this I will relate a little tale or two to you.

 

1> one early winter morning i was driving to work along a dark dual carriageway (which is now half cycle lane and has a speed limit of forty mph) being winter it was pitch black and the street lighting did little to illuminate the road due to a light drizzle. As I rounded a shallow bend out of the corner of my eye I saw something moving JUST ahead of me. I managed to swerve away from it not knowing what it was until I pased it. My heart rate was through the roof as I realised that I had almost hit a cyclist. He was riding a black bike with no lights on and he was wearing dark clothing with no reflective strips or anything almost in the middle of the dual carriageway.

 

2> Out walking the dog and was crossing over one of the bridges across sankey valley. Some way in front of me was an elderly lady leaning over the bridge watching the ducks. similarly, although I did not realise it at the time, some way behind me was a couple also crossing the bridge. My dog stopped to have a sniff at something, a common trait with most dogs and so I stepped over to his side to wait. All of a sudden i hear an odd whirring noise and a dark figure on a cycle swerves past me and the swerves past the elderly lady watching the ducks. what speed he was doing I do not know but had I stepped back at that point we would have collided with possibly lethal results. (it would have depended on whether he was a good swimmer or not as he would certainly have ended up either in the canal or the pond at the side of the bridge as a result of the collision due to his speed).  I heard a muttered exclamation from behind me and turned to see the couple standing there looking a bit shocked. it seems he had swerved round them then me and finally the elderly lady as he sped acros the bridge. This particular incident happened on wednesday this week about eleven o'clock.

 

So two tales one an old one one new, time between incidents about seven years, so cycle safety should now become a priority of any government who wants to find something to control next. Maybe they will limit cycles to three speed machines like in the olden days when the sturmey archer gear was king and to save on aluminium start making them out of good old heavy duty steel. Go on hands up how many of you had a "butchers" bike as your first "grown up" cycle with the big steel basket carrier on the front and a weight that made picking it up and carrying it a feat worthy of Samson, or failing that several mates.

 

Cycles today tend to be lightweight high speed accidents waiting to happen given the way that the untrained people use them. Just a thought, anybody who has a driving license has had to pass a strict test to prove they are capable of piloting a vehicle on the public highway. Cylist are taught by their parents or grandparents and once they can travel more than five feet without falling off are left to it and have to learn by themselves. Scarey isn't it!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dizzy Yes Coffee Not mine, but Warrington's. Decision made with all party support after an extensive pilot. Also being done by most of UK's iconic cities. And there is increasing support from central government and Public Health.

 

Yes, after an extensive pilot which showed they did nothing and primarily because the vast majority of people already drive at close to 20 mph when the conditions demand it. I think it's heartening that the majority of drivers know already how to drive safely and disheartening that the credulous politicians who represent us can't credit the people of this town as possessing intelligence and decency.

 

Well done Rod for getting them to waste money on your pointless scheme.   

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whilst carefully driving over road humps, at approxiamately 5mph; I noticed a road sign saying I should be travelling at 20mph.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well Dizzy, the Warrington pilots showed a 27% reduction in casualties on residential streets so is good evidence that they work. Results from around the country also echo this.

 

Councillors around the country also think the same. You can see the councils representing 20% of the UK population on our website.

 

And the benefits of lower speeds are wide which is why councillors and transport, health and other professionals all support wide-area 20mph limits.

 

Whether it will "Work" for anyone I guess really depends on their values. Monitoring road safety, public health, child independent mobility, sustainability of travel, etc are all responsibilities of the local authority when it is unitary such as Warrington.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know that is what has been said Rod but HOW during/after the pilots did they actually ascertain that there was a 27% reduction in casualties ?  HOW did they know how many people would/could have been injured or killed if they had not lowered it to 20 ?  

Sorry but I just don't get how they can come to these sorts of figures.

I'm not saying 20's are a bad idea in general and I fully support them around schools and even on some other roads where there is a proven danger.   It's good that the two primary schools around here for example now have lower speed limits around them.  Of course kids and parents STILL have to be aware and take into account that some people WILL still unfortunately still drive faster on them without due care and attention so the danger still exists.

As a parent and aunt myself and also as a person who knows a lot of people with children there is still no way that I will ever believe that sticking 20 signs up everywhere will make it safer for children to have 'independent mobility'' as you call it either.  Sorry but I see too many idiots every day driving round in big metal shells who wont change their ways just because of a circle stuck on a post.  Just as some of the idiot cyclists I see wont change.... and the idiot pedestrians wont change.....

That's the bit that annoys me whenever I see it written that it will make it SAFER.... it only takes a split second and one person for 'safe' to be suddenly become totally 'unsafe'. 

As for sustainable travel... if you mean public transport well that has a very long way to go before it will ever take over from the car as it;s too dam expensive and unreliable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well Dizzy, the Warrington pilots showed a 27% reduction in casualties on residential streets so is good evidence that they work. Results from around the country also echo this.

 

Councillors around the country also think the same. You can see the councils representing 20% of the UK population on our website.

 

And the benefits of lower speeds are wide which is why councillors and transport, health and other professionals all support wide-area 20mph limits.

 

Whether it will "Work" for anyone I guess really depends on their values. Monitoring road safety, public health, child independent mobility, sustainability of travel, etc are all responsibilities of the local authority when it is unitary such as Warrington.

 

Ok so we your saying that this time next year the casualty figures in Warrington will be down around 27%!

 

Out of interest where do you get your 27% from?  This is a remarkable figure seeing as most accidant happen below 30mph in towns anyway,

 

Why has this not been managed in Portsmouth for example?

 

http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http:/www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/roadsafety/research/rsrr/theme4/interimeval20mphspeedlimits.pdf

 

On your web site you state that pedestrian casualties are greater in the UK by 60% compared to Europe, how did you arrive at this stetistic?

 

How is driving at 20mph improving anyones health, child independent mobility, sustainability of travel, etc?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A few years ago traffic calming was the way forward, roads were altered, bumps put in, this policy has no been quietly droped and the poloticians have found the 20mph speed limit is the answer to  all our problems. Wonder what the next fad will be?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A few years ago traffic calming was the way forward, roads were altered, bumps put in, this policy has no been quietly droped and the poloticians have found the 20mph speed limit is the answer to  all our problems. Wonder what the next fad will be?

Very large potholes Coffee.  A 'natural' deterrent and they are already being phased in as a trial measure by the looks of some of the road :wink:

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well Dizzy, the Warrington pilots showed a 27% reduction in casualties on residential streets so is good evidence that they work. Results from around the country also echo this.

 

Councillors around the country also think the same. You can see the councils representing 20% of the UK population on our website.

 

And the benefits of lower speeds are wide which is why councillors and transport, health and other professionals all support wide-area 20mph limits.

 

Whether it will "Work" for anyone I guess really depends on their values. Monitoring road safety, public health, child independent mobility, sustainability of travel, etc are all responsibilities of the local authority when it is unitary such as Warrington.

 

That is not what the overall results of the pilots suggested at all and even if it did the numbers of collisions were so small that the report is statistically insignificant. But let's assume you are correct and then we could say that the pilots also reported that the number of journeys on the tested roads had fallen significantly so maybe any collisions were moved somewhere else. But given that the pilot led to average road speed reducing by 1 mph, as it has in other towns, let's agree that's not the case either.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So now that they have made the roads safer for pedestrians and cyclist maybe it is time the council started to make the pathways safer for pedestrians. resurfacing would be a start as some of the pathways in our area make a cobbled street seem smooth. Enforcement to get cyclist back on the road instead of the footpath,grass verge or any other convenient route they care to follow.

 

also a bit of education to people that headphones and talking on the phone whilst trying to cross a main road seven feet from a light controlled crossing can be hazardous as some youth nearly found out yesterday when they stepped blithly out into the road and then glared at the driver who had to slam the brakes on and sound his horn irately. fortunately the youth was not hit by the car and only for the chaps wife being in the car with him by the guy himself (well I think it was his wife). as for the youth he just waved by way of acknowledgement and carried on across the road as if nothing had happened.

 

Still when they get those new tracking devices in the cars the council will be able to get accurate figures on all aspects of the driving on all the roads not just teh twenty limited ones :twisted:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry folks

 

I only commented because I wanted to clarify that spacing of signs is something WBC don't have any discretion on.

 

You seem to be opening up a debate which is already history from several years ago. Since then the same conclusion that Warrington came to for its residential road speed limits has been endorsed by central government, local authorities and communities across the country.

 

Its actually very simple. Do you want to endorse vehicles travelling at 30mph on residential, shopping and school streets? As interventions go, 20mph limits are affordable, the benefits wide and the downsides are negligible. 

 

And so, if you don't mind I will continue in my "dreamland" and you can continue in yours.

 

Best wishes.

 

 

 

Rod

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 I would have thought that on most estates in town it would be impossible to exceed 20mph anyway what with speed bumps ,parked cars & potholes. As for their very existence ,speed bumps can be more of a hazard than exceeding the speed limit especially at night & when the reflective warning paint wears off . Hitting a speed bump unprepared could easily send a car out of control.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sorry folks

 

I only commented because I wanted to clarify that spacing of signs is something WBC don't have any discretion on.

 

You seem to be opening up a debate which is already history from several years ago. Since then the same conclusion that Warrington came to for its residential road speed limits has been endorsed by central government, local authorities and communities across the country.

 

Its actually very simple. Do you want to endorse vehicles travelling at 30mph on residential, shopping and school streets? As interventions go, 20mph limits are affordable, the benefits wide and the downsides are negligible. 

 

And so, if you don't mind I will continue in my "dreamland" and you can continue in yours.

 

Best wishes.

 

 

 

Rod

 

The thing is though Rod that people don't travel at 30 mph on those roads anyway. Do they? They are more decent and more intelligent than you care to admit. And that's the reason why the 20 mph limits don't do anything - because the majority of people drive carefully whatever the speed limit is. And the ones who don't drive sensibly don't care. 

 

I said earlier that once you were presented with facts you'd fall back on 'yah boo sucks, cough up losers' and you've just done it.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not at all grey one. Just feel that there is no point in putting effort into those with entrenched views. However, I am pleased to hear that you never exceed 20mph on these roads anyway. Of course I am assuming that you are not one of those who don't drive sensibly. In which case you should be pleased that your "sensible" driving is now being endorsed by the law.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not at all grey one. Just feel that there is no point in putting effort into those with entrenched views. However, I am pleased to hear that you never exceed 20mph on these roads anyway. Of course I am assuming that you are not one of those who don't drive sensibly. In which case you should be pleased that your "sensible" driving is now being endorsed by the law.

 

It's not the law that's the issue Rod. It's a campaign that achieves nothing at vast expense while vital services that do change people lives are withdrawn. At least understand that. 

 

And you're the one with the entrenched views. That is why when you are faced with inconvenient facts, you ignore them. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Grey one

 

Money for services comes from a completely different budget than capital items such as 20mph limits. Hence one does not affect the other.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And the council creates those budgets to begin with.

 

If quibbling about how the council allocates its budgets helps you to justify wasting public money on schemes that your own pilot proved achieves nothing Rod, then good for you. Personally I wish the council would deal with facts rather than creating consultations and pilots the outcomes of which it then ignores.

 

In fact, the council could use the pilot to prove that 20 mph limits increase casualty numbers, because that is what happened during the pilot. I wouldn't do that because the results for casualties are as meaningless and statistically insignificant as the other outcomes of the pilot, but why don't you use that outcome rather than the one you've chosen that supports your campaign?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not at all grey one. Just feel that there is no point in putting effort into those with entrenched views.

 

But your head of an organization that persuades councils/governments to part with millions so do you not feel a responsibility to explain when asked, especially if you come up with statements you should be able to explain. If there is money (and there clearly is) the money should be spent on practical things like school crossing, enhanced police petrols, parking controls/enforcements, even mechanical bollards that can close of streets near schools at peak times.

 

Instead we are getting a stupid scheme that applies equally at 3am as it does at 3pm

Grey one

 

Money for services comes from a completely different budget than capital items such as 20mph limits. Hence one does not affect the other.

The money still has to come from somewhere and if it was not going on this scheme it could be going to other projects.

 

I was listening to the radio last week and a council were axing the school crossing petrol to save money, yet it is rolling out a 20mph speed area

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If Rod King won't answer these questions, maybe the Councillors could answer them.

 

I am going to email my Councillor and ask her to reply.

 

Councillors May 20 will soon be here!!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah  but will the councillors be here after 22 May?

 

Perhaps the new ones will remove all 20 stuff and use the road humps to fill in the potholes?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But your head of an organization that persuades councils/governments to part with millions so do you not feel a responsibility to explain when asked, especially if you come up with statements you should be able to explain. If there is money (and there clearly is) the money should be spent on practical things like school crossing, enhanced police petrols, parking controls/enforcements, even mechanical bollards that can close of streets near schools at peak times.

 

Instead we are getting a stupid scheme that applies equally at 3am as it does at 3pm

The money still has to come from somewhere and if it was not going on this scheme it could be going to other projects.

 

I was listening to the radio last week and a council were axing the school crossing petrol to save money, yet it is rolling out a 20mph speed area

 

You won't get an answer coffee, because Rod does one of two things when presented with inconvenient facts. One is to crow that the money is being spent whether it achieves anything or not, so tough luck. The other is to vanish.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...