Jump to content
Bill

Now THEY want 20mph limits!

Recommended Posts

Correct, Bill.

The problem with whatever is done, who will enforce it?

I live in a 20mph zone off the main road. We also have the large speed humps, but some people still travel at around 40mph . :evil::evil::twisted:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Given the choice, most people would opt for reduced speeds outside their own homes but at the same time they want to be able to commute quickly and here lies the dilemma.

 

The original thinking was that nobody would object to 20mph default applied to truly residential roads provided the arterial and feeder roads that account for the lions share of most journeys were unaffected.

 

Makes sense to me, but our loony planners have done just the opposite by trying to slow people down on main roads then telling them its ok to speed up when they turn into residential side roads.

 

The thing is that by choosing this backward way of doing things, the planners have turned a good idea into a bad one and set public opinion against the idea which is a pretty dumb thing to do when the whole thing relies on public co-operation.

 

Bill :)

Exactly Bill. When I lived in the Isle of Man, they trialled this there too. Of course they did it correctly in the manner you describe, so "normal" 30mph roads stayed as they were, but once you pulled off into a proper residential street it became 20mph.

 

And guess what, the scheme was seen as a success, and I think it is now virtually island wide, and this in a place that doesn;t even have speed limits in places.

 

As you say, the planners in Warrington, with their continual disasters are setting everyone against them with their baffling decisions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bill

 

What the planners are doing is conducting a pilot, or experiment.

 

They do know that 20 mph in the town centre and in residential roads is supported by most residents. There have been petitions from Orford residents for 20 mph and strong support from councillors.

 

What they do not know is what the effect is of including such roads as Long Lane and Park Road where a speed limit of 30 mph poses a threat to vulnerable road users. Hence they have included these roads in the 147-road Experimental Traffic Order.

 

Of course , if you are going to conduct any limited experiment as this then there will always be a boundary. And at that boundary then you will get the problem of residential roads which are outside of the boundary (and therefore still left at 30 mph) being adjacent to other roads which are in the boundary and set to 20 mph.

 

The only way to overcome this is to include the whole borough.

 

For my own part I am happy to allow the Council's Traffic Engineers to decide the correct speed limit for A and B roads being other than 20 mph. They have a duty anyway to review the speed limits on these roads by 2011 and fully take into account the needs of vulnerable road users. I am sure that they will take this responsibility seriously.

 

At the same time the pilots do allow the council to better understand the problems associated with implementing 20 mph speed limits in bulk and I am sure that they are learning good lessons from their pilots concerning the logistics of signing and also the best way to engage with the public.

 

I drove down Long Lane on Friday at 20 mph. It made no difference to the time I took to go from Winwick Road to the Hilden roundabout because there was a queue at the roundabout. So my journey time was exactly the same as if I had travelled at 30 mph.

 

Whilst some of us may feel that the number of cars and congestion on the roads is frustrating. It is incorrect to lay the blame for this on lower speed limits.

 

Lower speed limits do not significantly reduce journey times, but they do significantly reduce, accidents, noise, pollution and the number of cars as more people feel comfortable walking or cycling instead of driving.

 

And for drivers there is a benefit as well. Its far easier to drive steadily at 20 mph than to be constantly looking to maximise your speed.

 

And with 20 mph becoming the default for residential roads across the borough then those drivers and their families get the benefit on their streets as well.

 

Best regards

 

 

Rod

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Baz

 

Your contributions to this debate have included:-

 

Rod King is a tree hugging numpty and wants us all to return to having a man walking in front of those infernal horeless carriages waving a flag

 

Cyclists are the single worse abusers of traffic laws and they face no consequence for their actions. Time to start a campaign against creeping through red lights or jumping on the pavement to miss the traffic lights under Hawleys Lane bridge etc

 

Mind you, I had on cyclist do that to me a few years ago; just as the lights turned green. There was a bit of water under the bridge and I passed through it, just as the pavement riding cyclist was mid-undrerpass...... result!

 

and

 

and if that were the case they would be an awful lot of car crashes at traffic lights.... which there aren't apparently.

 

and

 

So why penalise the motorist just because Warrington pedestrians are stupid?

 

and

 

But of course they are wanting you to miss it so that they can get you with the speed cameras!! Laughing

 

and

 

Cyclists are immune from prosecution.... everyone knows that!

 

and

 

Apart from apparently being a total crack pot as well?

 

In which case I will take the last comment as a complement. :wink:

 

Best regards

 

 

Rod

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Paul

 

You said :-

Let's not get too bothered about who does and doesn't pay road taxes, the question is, is a 20mph speed limit Borough wide on "residential" roads required and will the residents support it. In a democracy, maybe Mr King should go to the electorate with his proposals....2010 will be his first opportunity here in Warrington.

 

The great thing about living in a democracy is that our elected councillors represent their constituents across a wide range of issues. I am really pleased that councillors from all parties in Warrington include the "quality of life" of residents as a key concern and therefore the safety, convenience and amenity of our streets for all road users is of interest to them.

 

And with that interest has come a wide support for 20 mph on residential roads. Democracy is therefore already working well. I do not actually think that democracy would be best served by the democratic electoral process being subject to single issue prospective councillors standing in the forthcoming elections.

 

No, far better to have the current system whereby any individual or group is able to make the case for change in a constructive manner to councillors both individually and collectively. That can then be debated in public and the Council can make due consideration and take appropriate action.

 

 

So, thanks for the suggestion.

 

 

 

 

Best regards

 

 

Rod

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Best of luck for the G20 summit, nice to see the world is taking your campaign seriously enough to call a mega meeting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Eagle

 

I understand that President Obama had been discussing whether more countries should have been at the summit.

 

His comment was :-

 

"Gee, 20's Plenty for US". :wink:

 

But co-incidentally I was in the centre of London for a conference on Saturday and was carrying a set of display panels rolled into three canisters which I had on a trolley. I took the decision that it probably was best to avoid the visitors as my luggage might have appeared to be a little concerning to any officials.

 

Best regards

 

 

Rod

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Amazing how statements like "it took the same amount of time" can be said without the use of a stopwatch. :shock:

 

What does confuse me is that they need to do this experiment. I thought that stats of accidents, incidents etc. recorded over several years would be quite adequate.

 

IF there are more of the above due to the reduced speed limit, does that mean they then try 40 mph or go down to 15mph until the get the figure they want?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Peter

 

You said

Amazing how statements like "it took the same amount of time" can be said without the use of a stopwatch.

 

Its not really amazing at all. If I had been travelling at a maximum speed of 80 mph, I would still have come up behind a car and van at the traffic lights half way down Long Lane. I would have arrived at the lights a little earlier, but would then have had to wait longer for the lights to change. And then I would have followed them the rest of the way and still been behind them when they stopped to go into the Hilden roundabout.

 

In both cases, assuming that I was not going to overtake anyone, my maximum speed was irrelevant to the actual time that I reached the roundabout itself rather than the end of the queue of cars waiting to enter the roundabout.

 

I hope that I have explained it sufficiently.

 

 

Regards

 

Rod

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Baz

 

Your contributions to this debate have included:-

 

Rod King is a tree hugging numpty and wants us all to return to having a man walking in front of those infernal horeless carriages waving a flag

 

Cyclists are the single worse abusers of traffic laws and they face no consequence for their actions. Time to start a campaign against creeping through red lights or jumping on the pavement to miss the traffic lights under Hawleys Lane bridge etc

 

Mind you, I had on cyclist do that to me a few years ago; just as the lights turned green. There was a bit of water under the bridge and I passed through it, just as the pavement riding cyclist was mid-undrerpass...... result!

 

and

 

and if that were the case they would be an awful lot of car crashes at traffic lights.... which there aren't apparently.

 

and

 

So why penalise the motorist just because Warrington pedestrians are stupid?

 

and

 

But of course they are wanting you to miss it so that they can get you with the speed cameras!! Laughing

 

and

 

Cyclists are immune from prosecution.... everyone knows that!

 

and

 

Apart from apparently being a total crack pot as well?

 

In which case I will take the last comment as a complement. :wink:

 

Best regards

 

 

Rod

 

So you chose to only comment on my last statement and totally didn't bother to address the rest?

 

Well aint that just typical Rod?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Peter

 

You said

Amazing how statements like "it took the same amount of time" can be said without the use of a stopwatch.

 

Its not really amazing at all. If I had been travelling at a maximum speed of 80 mph, I would still have come up behind a car and van at the traffic lights half way down Long Lane. I would have arrived at the lights a little earlier, but would then have had to wait longer for the lights to change. And then I would have followed them the rest of the way and still been behind them when they stopped to go into the Hilden roundabout.

 

In both cases, assuming that I was not going to overtake anyone, my maximum speed was irrelevant to the actual time that I reached the roundabout itself rather than the end of the queue of cars waiting to enter the roundabout.

 

I hope that I have explained it sufficiently.

 

 

Regards

 

Rod

 

As clear as mud.

What really surprises me is that you weren't on your bike!!

Don't you practice what you preach? :shock:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rod, it's good to read your measured reply, contribution & to see that you retain your humour despite the many snipes that are aimed at you from the posters on this site.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Paul

 

You said :-

Let's not get too bothered about who does and doesn't pay road taxes, the question is, is a 20mph speed limit Borough wide on "residential" roads required and will the residents support it. In a democracy, maybe Mr King should go to the electorate with his proposals....2010 will be his first opportunity here in Warrington.

 

The great thing about living in a democracy is that our elected councillors represent their constituents across a wide range of issues. I am really pleased that councillors from all parties in Warrington include the "quality of life" of residents as a key concern and therefore the safety, convenience and amenity of our streets for all road users is of interest to them.

 

And with that interest has come a wide support for 20 mph on residential roads. Democracy is therefore already working well. I do not actually think that democracy would be best served by the democratic electoral process being subject to single issue prospective councillors standing in the forthcoming elections.

 

We'll see. I am seriously considering standing as a single issue candidate in 2010, so fed up am I with the mess that has been made of our roads system in the last 3 years or so, particularly in and around the Callands/Westbrook area, and the skewed priorities that is leadingto vasty sums being wasted to serve a very small minority of the public's interests.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Think if you examine the Council budget, Highway maintance has always been a poor relation to Education and Social Services, when it comes to spending priorities: and what little is allocated, as you rightly point out, is wasted on theories designed to placate a minority of road users - but with Councillors said and led by their Officers, I doubt a lone voice will change anything? :roll::cry:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Peter T.

 

What bits did you not understand? and I will try again.

 

And yes I do drive as well as cycle and walk. But there again Baz thinks that all Warrington pedestrians are stupid anyway, so I am sure that puts me in my place.

 

Best regards

 

 

Rod

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Geoff said

Rod, it's good to read your measured reply, contribution & to see that you retain your humour despite the many snipes that are aimed at you from the posters on this site.

 

Thanks Geoff.

 

I can understand that many people are frustrated by driving conditions in Warrington. The same could be said for most towns. And we are all sold the dream of the "freedom of the car" by the manufacturers who then charge us over the odds to include all that advertising.

 

Hence when someone comes along and says "Look the dream is only a dream" and that in reality going faster does not usually get to where you want to go much quicker, and on the way you manage to blight so many streets and roads where people could have a quieter and better place to live, it is natural for that person to be sniped at. They then become the messenger with the bad news.

 

Today 9 people will die on our roads and about 100 maimed for life. We are losing our way on Road Safety in the UK and for pedestrians our towns are some of the most dangerous places in Europe.

 

20 mph on residential roads will not stop those deaths, but it will make a reduction.

 

I trust that in time those same people who are today sniping will in time mellow and understand that too much haste is not good for themselves or others. In time they can realise that we all share our roads and that the better we share them then the better our town will be.

 

 

Best regards

 

 

rod

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rod,

 

I am not saying that 20 mph speed limits are not a good idea in residential streets; quite the opposite. What is crazy is forcing 20mph on roads like Long Lane which is a main arterial road and one where 20 is not plenty as it causes delays.

 

The other issues I highlight you seem to ignore which is a normal reaction from the cycling lobby. Why don't cyclists use the cycle lanes on Cromwell aveneue and why do the majority (and I do not use the phrase lightly when it comes to warrington cyclists) of Warrinbgton Cyclists think that traffic lights and one way streets not apply to them

 

I really would like to see your response because up to now, you are merely picking sections of mine and others replies and answering them with the usual "safety and security" answers you usually do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am currently down in Bristol and today I have seen a town which does integrate the cyclist into its road plans and does it very well. The big difference is that when the cycle lane traffic lights are on red, the cyclists stop and wait (and that is without exception that I have seen all day)

 

Unfortunately the opposite is true back home where cyclists believe that traffic lights are only for cars and not for them and go through red lights without regard for other road users including pedestrians... education is needed for all to live side by side.

 

In Germany when we were driving across to Dresden, in every town and village centres we came to where there was a 20mph (or equivilant) limit, ALL of the cars slowed to 20 without exception. Again, education is what is needed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are two kinds of cyclists 1) the minority lycra brigade, who no doubt do everything by the book and 2) the majority of "amateur" cyclists, who take any route that suits, switching from road to pavement, to zebra crossing at will - thus being a danger to themselves and others - so no amount of cycle lanes will correct that problem. :roll::wink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Baz J

 

Thanks for the reply. here are my answers :-

 

I am not saying that 20 mph speed limits are not a good idea in residential streets; quite the opposite. What is crazy is forcing 20mph on roads like Long Lane which is a main arterial road and one where 20 is not plenty as it causes delays.

 

We (20's Plenty For us) have never campaigned for a blanket 20 mph speed limit on all roads in towns. Our position is that all roads should be set at 20 mph except those where the Traffic Authority can justify that 30 mph, or 40 mph is more suitable.

 

I hear what you say about yourself personally supporting 20 mph for true residential roads. I therefore suspect that your real argument is with the Traffic Authority as to whether 30 mph or 20 mph is a correct safe speed limit for Long Lane.

 

 

The other issues I highlight you seem to ignore which is a normal reaction from the cycling lobby. Why don't cyclists use the cycle lanes on Cromwell aveneue and why do the majority (and I do not use the phrase lightly when it comes to warrington cyclists) of Warrinbgton Cyclists think that traffic lights and one way streets not apply to them

 

Let me tell you that when it comes to 20's Plenty then I act more as a lobbyist for pedestrians than cyclists. It is true that I first became interested in the use of lower speed limits when I went to Hilden to look at how they achieved high percentages (24%) of in-town trips being made by bicycle. This was based not upon expensive or high quality cycle facilities but simply a lower speed limit. This had the effect of making every form of road use more pleasant and less dangerous including cycling, walking and driving.

 

From there on, (about 2005) I realised that it is pedestrians who are just as endangered and inconvenienced by higher speeds in residential roads as cyclists. In fact for every one cyclist injured or killed on the roads there are 4 pedestrians. Often those pedestrians are children or the elderly.

 

Therefore I do not campaign on behalf of cyclists solely. Indeed for some years have not held an position within Warrington Cycle Campaign and now campaign almost wholly for 20's Plenty For Us on a local and national basis. This is mode agnostic.

 

But I will not avoid your question. I guess that the reason that cyclists do not use the cycle lanes (I presume you mean the off-road cycle paths) on Cromwell Avenue are :-

 

1. They do not have to. Cycle paths are not mandatory, in exactly the same way that motorists do not have to use motorways, rather than parallel roads.

 

2. Cycle paths often increase the distance to be travelled. When all your motion comes from your own efforts then you will try an make your journey as direct as possible.

 

3. Cycle paths often introduce points of conflict where you have to cross over the road at an inconvenient point and where there is no high engineering to assist. Such conflict points are where car drivers are not expecting to see cyclists. hence many cyclists prefer to keep on the road where they can see and be seen riding in a consistent and clear manner.

 

4. Many cyclists do not want to cause conflict with either motorists or pedestrians. On pavement shared cycle paths often cause such conflict, especially where the path narrows and has to cope with obstacles. Hence such cyclists will stick to the road.

 

5. Cycle paths are not routinely cleared, swept or de-iced in winter. Therefore many cyclists prefer to cycle on the road with a better surface.

 

Your point about the majority of cyclists thinking that red lights and one way streets do not apply to them is rather a sweeping generalisation. I could equally say that at most points that traffic lights change to red then I will see one or two cars going through on red. This has everything to do with how we all respect the road, both cyclists and motorists. I am totally in support of the police taking firm action on anyone who goes through a red light.

 

Equally the amount of action should be proportional to the danger created. A person on a bike going through a red light is far less of a danger than a motor vehicle going through a red light. Both the mass of the vehicle and its speed is far higher than the bike. I think that your concern should also be proportional to the risk created to the public. Transport for London did some research on Red Light Running and found that most accidents were caused by cars and motor bikes running red lights. When they do so they tend to do so at the beginning of the red phase by maintaining their speed when they pass the lights just changed to red, whereas most cyclists running red lights do so very tentatively and at about 5 mph during the red light phase and often at the very end of the phase in order to get some distance from surrounding traffic.

 

Therefore as a risk to the general public cycle red-light running is less than motorist red light running.

 

But this does not justify red-light running in any circumstances.

 

One-way streets are similar. It is notable that in Portsmouth where they have 20 mph on all roads except arterial roads, they are now making all 20 mph one way streets two-way for cyclists. This is also the case in Hilden.

 

Your comment about Bristol is interesting. Especially as I went to school in Bristol and was recently down there at the request of the 20's Plenty For Bristol campaign. The City Council already has plans for 1/3 of residential roads to be 20 mph and this is likely to be extended across the whole authority.

 

It is interesting that your impression is that there is no cycle red light running in Bristol. This seems to disagree with what some Bristol motorists think.

 

I take your comments about Dresden and cars slowing down at 20 mph (30 kph) signs. We are moving that way in Britain and motorists are showing increasing compliance with speed limits as time goes by.

 

Finally, I would defend my replies for focussing on safety and security. The debate is not about whether its best to cycle or drive. Or whether there is bad cycling or bad driving.

 

The truth is that it is often the pedestrian who dies. And so often the pedestrian dies because the sheer "pace" of motor vehicles on our urban and residential roads is too high.

 

I welcome the fact that you and Bill and fatshaft and many others on this forum are in favour of 20 mph speed limits for so many of our residential roads for which it is clearly suitable. Here we are in common agreement.

 

The arguments and debate about such as Long lane should be recognised for the distraction which it is. The guidance for setting speed limits allow the Traffic Authority to set 30 mph or 40 mph speed limits wherever it feels that this is appropriate. It can decide the most appropriate speed limit for such roads as Long Lane.

 

At the same time we should recognise the fact that setting a speed limit too low may at best increase your journey slightly and at worst get you to the end of the next traffic queue a little later. Whilst on the other hand, setting a speed limit too high may discourage walking and cycling, increase noise, increase accident rates and even kill or maim.

 

I therefore think that if as a community we are to get speed limits wrong then maybe it is better to err on the side of slower rather than faster.

 

 

And thanks to anyone who has got this far in the post.

 

Best regards

 

 

Rod

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally it would be a great success if we could get people to adhere to the 30 mph speed limit, never mind reducing it to 20 mph. When I correctly drive at the 30mph limit I get other motorists right up my bumper, try and overtake at inappropriate places....and some even gesture...and not with a sign of friendly greating.

 

It is interesting that in Germany as Baz pointed out, in the build up areas drivers do drive slowly, mind you given speed limits are higher elsewhere on their roads I guess they see it as give and take...driving at 17mph is OK...and actually quite pleasant when you know that in a short while you can be on certain sections of autobahn doing 140mph...or even faster.

 

Road design has much to do with people's desire to speed, lay block paviours instead of tarmac, remove pavements and stick street furniture in odd places soon seems to calm traffic down.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×