20 mph Road Signs Painted Out - Long Lane

[Bill]

No Rod when I said tiresome I was referring to your replies, which although always polite are simply reshuffled repeats of what you have said over and over again.

 

The only point I was making was that your views on the issue are in stark contrast to that of the general public and reword or reshuffle it any way you will it won?t alter this fact.

 

Bill

[rodk]

Bill

 

Sorry. It was my clumsy attempt at irony. I must be more serious in future.

 

It is dissapointing that you won't enter a proper debate over this issue. As I said the key point seems to be between:-

 

The idea of selecting an appropriate speed limit based on local use, road characteristics, number of pedestrians and cyclists, number of shops, pedestrian and cycle facilities, etc. ?

 

Or should the speed limit be purely based on the fact that its an A or B road and regardless of consequences then the speed limit should be 30mph?

 

 

Are you trying to tell me that the vast majority of the public don't want to take into account the type of road user, whether there are shops etc? Are you saying that Traffic Enginners should not do so either?

 

As you say, I do try and be polite and certainly quote statistics and references which do back up my views. Is there anything wrong with this.?

 

Would you prefer that we just descended into calling each other names based on whether we cycle, or drive a lot, or walk a lot?

 

Would that really enable us to discuss and debate these serious issues with precision and objectivity?

 

It would enlighten me if you could tell me which of my views you believe are in stark contrast to the general public.

 

Regards

 

Rod

[Dizzy]

HI Dizzy

 

The figures come from the British Social Attitudes Survey 2005. In this 75% of those questioned thought that 20mph was the right speed limit for residential roads. Of those questioned who were drivers then 72% agreed that 20mph was the correct speed limit for residential roads. these figures are widely referenced in UK Government and other organisation reports.

 

Hi Rod

 

Having never heard of the British Social Attitudes Survey I had to have a look cos you didn't tell me how many people were asked Flippin heck what a report and analysys....it covers everything and the questionnaire for 2008 is over 400 pages long.

 

Anyway thanks for pointing me in the right direction and I will sleep better tonight knowing that for the following question

 

Question :

[self-Completion] Here are some things that could be done about traffic in residential streets that are not main roads. Please tick one box for each to show whether you would be in favour or not in favour.

 

Having speed limits of 20 miles per hour in residential streets.

 

the answers were as follows :_

 

Out of 4268 people questioned

 

2646 people fell under the category of n/a "skip B+C+D version" (% value n/a)

709 people fell under the category of "no self completion" (% value n/a)

 

And of those who answered by ticking the relevant multi choice box

 

208 people were strongly in favour (22%)

489 people were in favour (53%)

96 people were neither for or against (10%)

77 people were against (8%)

16 people were strongly against (1%)

13 people couldn?t chose (1%)

14 people didn?t answer (1%)

 

Thats only a total of 913 people 'answering'

 

The other two questions in the same category were for "Speed Bumps on Residential Roads" and "Closing Residential Roads to Traffic".

 

I wont bore you all with those figures but the same number of 913 people answered

 

Time for bed I think

[Peter T]

Rod,

Accusing me of not debating, then not answering my questions?

From the very first post on this issue some years ago, you have been a lonely voice. Are you a one man band?

[Grumpy old man]

Anyone fancy using one word instead of two? heres one (bullshit)....what a daft thing to campaign about. It's only a few weeks ago that young people from this town came back from doing their duty in coffins......GROW UP!

[disgusted]

Rod,

From the very first post on this issue some years ago, you have been a lonely voice. Are you a one man band?

See, this is the thing, Rod is good at quoting obscure surveys, but as Bill says, speak to any real person and they invaraibly do not agree with him (Rod).

 

From this forum, those who respond to Rod are against his pro-cycling anti-car viewpoint, and against the universal 20mph limits.

 

I don't know how many have posted a view, but it is certainly a high percent against considering Rod makes up all the percent on the other side.

[AdrianR]

isnt it about correct limits for each road rather than blanket approaches. Take Westbrook.

 

Behind Asda 60mph national limit with a footpath on one side and hosuing further up. Take the top of Cromwell. No pavment, no housing 30mph.

 

Sankey Way built for a reason and over the years reduced down to 40mph.

 

Other roads see the limits reduced from 40 to 30 and 60 to 50 without any obvious reason.

 

Add in congestion and people get frustrated and speeding happens.

 

Yes 20 will reduce fatalities but i believe (from 20 years in the industry dealing with car accidents and the outcome), we have probably reached the best we can expect on that front. People will get killedon the roads with all the best will in the world that wont change (red flag being walked in front didnt even stop them completely!!) and you have to balance the costs to society (?1.8m for a life - er very dodgy accounting going on there) against the costs of the life. Ironically car safety technology i.e. airbags, design and NCAP have probably reduced the casualties on roads more than driver behaviour.

[Bazj]

The other thing that strikes me about Rods stance is the "cyclists are vulnerable" attitude.... If they are that vulnerable,

 

why do they insist on NOT using the cycle lanes on Cromwell avenue, opting instead to use the roads?

 

Why do MOST cyclists treat a footpath near a red traffic light as a convenient route to avoid said red light?

 

Why do cyclists insist on flying up the inside of standing traffic at daft speeds and thus put themselves at risk of a car turning left?

 

I know there have been criticisms of car drivers on here, but I would counter that cyclists are arogant, un-caring and mindless individuals (especially the ones you see now wearing ipod headphones as they cycle..... how do they hear any warnings??) who do not adhere to the rules of the road and think that red lights are an inconvenience to be ignored.

[Dizzy]

Has the whole 20's plenty campaigh specifically been created with regards to the safety of cyclists only ?? Confused again

[rodk]

Hi folks

 

Some answers if you care to listen!

 

Peter T

 

From the very first post on this issue some years ago, you have been a lonely voice. Are you a one man band?

 

Certainly not. At some recent fairs in Lymm and Orford 400 signatures were collected at each place in about 1.5 hrs from people who wanted 20mph speed limits on residential roads.

 

20's Plenty for Us has about 60 local campaign groups around the country and we are in discussions and consultation with most of the major towns.

 

We have interest fropm other campaigns in Switzerland, France and USA. Just today NYCDOT announced its plans for 20 mph speed limits in the Big Apple.

 

So, not a lone voice at all.

 

Grumpy Old Man

 

It's only a few weeks ago that young people from this town came back from doing their duty in coffins......GROW UP

 

What sort of comment is that? Do you really think that there is any less grief for a parent to find that their child has been killed walking down to the shops rather than being killed by a bomb on an Afghan Street. Any young death is a tragic waste of life. Shame on you for your comment.

 

Peter T

 

From this forum, those who respond to Rod are against his pro-cycling anti-car viewpoint, and against the universal 20mph limits.

 

If you were to read my posts you would find that I have never campaigned for universal or blanket 20mph speed limits. Only that they should be the default unless decided otherwise.

 

I am pro cycling, pro-pedestrian and pro-car. I use all three as a mode of transport myself and would encourage it for others as well.

That does not make me anti-car.

 

 

AdrianR

 

Yes 20 will reduce fatalities but i believe (from 20 years in the industry dealing with car accidents and the outcome), we have probably reached the best we can expect on that front. People will get killedon the roads with all the best will in the world that wont change (red flag being walked in front didnt even stop them completely!!) and you have to balance the costs to society (?1.8m for a life - er very dodgy accounting going on there) against the costs of the life. Ironically car safety technology i.e. airbags, design and NCAP have probably reduced the casualties on roads more than driver behaviour

 

Many disagree with you regarding being able to reduce accidents further. Whilst we have made great strides in the UK on in-car safety we are still way behind many other countries on pedestrian and cyclist safety, particularly for children.

 

Your comment about in car safety is correct, together with better trauma care in hoispitals. But vulnerable road users do not benefit from airbags, crumple zones or seat belts. For then its just skin against metal. So if we are going to reduce our casualties further then we need to reduce the number of times skin does collide with metal.

 

BazJ

 

why do they insist on NOT using the cycle lanes on Cromwell avenue, opting instead to use the roads?

 

Probably because they are aware of the statistics that cycling on separated paths leads to mor conflict points with vehicles than cycling on the roads, especially where the path jumps from one side of the road to the other and has no priority at intersections.

 

Why do MOST cyclists treat a footpath near a red traffic light as a convenient route to avoid said red light?

 

Well maybe you see this because you are looking for it. Stand at any junction in Warrington and I bet you will find no more cyclists going through red lights than car drivers.

 

Why do cyclists insist on flying up the inside of standing traffic at daft speeds and thus put themselves at risk of a car turning left?

 

Some do, personally I would overtake you on the outside.

 

I know there have been criticisms of car drivers on here, but I would counter that cyclists are arogant, un-caring and mindless individuals (especially the ones you see now wearing ipod headphones as they cycle..... how do they hear any warnings??) who do not adhere to the rules of the road and think that red lights are an inconvenience to be ignored.

 

Is that all cyclists? Do you also want to ban motrists who have their in car hifi on loud?

 

Dizzy

 

Has the whole 20's plenty campaigh specifically been created with regards to the safety of cyclists only ?? Confused again

 

No, 4 times as many pedestrians die on the roads as cyclists. The campaign is widely supported by pedestrian, health, environmental, and government agencies who see it as a way of reducing the inequities that exist in our society.

 

You may be interested in a report which came out today. It showed that in the UK 1 in 27 children can expect to be killed or injured on the roads before they are 17.

 

Of the top worst places for child road deaths in the UK, 9 of them were in the Northwest. You can download the full report from :-

 

http://www.roadsafetyanalysis.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/Child-Casualty-Report-2010.pdf

 

In Warrington 1 in every 374 children can be expected are killed or injured on the roads each year.

 

The good thing that has come out of our disucssions is that :-

 

Most people, like Bill., believe that 20mph is the right speed limit for non-arterial roads. Thats a positive agreement we have.

 

Some believe that no arterial roads should have a 20 mph limits. Whilst that is against the evidence of many towns who have already set some parts of their arterial road network at 20mph, particularly near shops and schools. I respect but do not share your views

 

Some, like myself, do NOT believe in a "blanket" 20 mph limit for arterial roads, but believe that any arterial road should be judged on its merits and way it is used by pedestrains and cyclists as well as motorised road users in setting its speed limit.

 

Whatever the case, no-one is going to ban cars, bikes or walking from our streets. We need to use all types of transport if we are going to be able to equitably and practically move around our communities. The key is the way we share our roads.

 

May I thank those of you who have engaged in this debate, and particularly thankfull to those who have remained polite.

 

 

 

 

My best regards

 

Rod

[Dizzy]

Pretty frightening statistics to say that 1 in 374 kids can expect to be killed or injured on Warringtons roads each year. We are ranked at number 99 out of 408.

 

Rod, as I'm no expert on road safety stats and analysys but you are so can you explain how these figures were arrived at (in normal speak please).

 

I presume the figures relate to deaths/injuries sustained by 'child' cyclists, pedestrians and passengers in cars/on motorbikes etc.

 

Are the figures based on number of actual children living in a certain area.... for example Warrington could have a lot more children aged 1 to 15 than another area so that would result in a higher probability of a child being killed/injured in Warrington than elsewhere simply because there are more kids here and not necessarily because the roads or drivers here are any.

 

I must be thinking about it too much though as whilst driving around here today it suddenly occurred to me that on many of the smaller roads I already do less than 20 mph anyway as do many other people.

 

It is also very rare to get above 20 through Stockton Heath village too (the A49) due to traffic lights, crossings and parked cars up near the hilal building.

 

So for a lot of roads a 20 mph limit would not actually make any difference to most drivers.

 

Guess the big debate is just about WHICH other roads though and until we know that then we will all just moan about it in a global sense

 

Do you and your local campaign group have a list of local 'target' roads that you hope to see becoming 20 zones ?

[rodk]

Dizzy

 

I understand that the postcodes of the child casualties were taken together with the total child poulation statistics for the borough. Hence the figures should refect the level of exposure rather than simply the number of children.

 

With regards to the 20mph roads, yes on many residential roads the average is very low anyway. Whilst those may not benefit from a 20mph limit, including them in a 20mph limit makes for better consistency and an understanding that in the vicinity of people then we should all drive slower.

 

Within Portsmouth they found that on the faster non-arterial roads (ie previously 24-29mph) then speed dropped by an ave of 7mph. One important consideration in Portsmouth was that because they went through the democratic process to make it happen across the whole town then there was a great deal of "ownership" of the lower speeds by communities and of course most people got the benefit on their own streets as well.

 

You are quite right to identify the BIG debate as to what roads to exclude. But this really needs to be done by looking at the very local characteristics rather any dogmatic decision on either 30mph or 20mph. Personally, as long as a 30mph can be justified by the local traffic authority as being approriate on arterial roads then I would leave this as an officer responsibility. Of course I would expect this to be done taking due consideration of those characteristics.

 

20's Plenty for Us have local campaigns throughout the country and in all of these we campaign for 20mph as the default and the exceptions to be decided by the relevent traffic authority.

 

That way then they can be subject to the views of local residents, commuters, pedestrians, etc as well as take into account schools, shops, etc and casualty history. Regardless of what is thrown at me, I am not dogmatic about Long Lane or any other arterial route being 20mph or 30mph. But I would point out that the reason why so many arterial roads are called Red Routes is not because of the number of Liverpool or MU supporters living on them. Its because of the hundred or so casualties in the last 5 years. and those casualties were not only cyclists or pedestrians but included motorists as well.

 

I trust that I have answered your questions appropriately, but please ask again if I have missed anything out,

 

Best regards

 

Rod

[disgusted]

 

why do they insist on NOT using the cycle lanes on Cromwell avenue, opting instead to use the roads?

 

Probably because they are aware of the statistics that cycling on separated paths leads to mor conflict points with vehicles than cycling on the roads, especially where the path jumps from one side of the road to the other and has no priority at intersections.

 

Well Rod, perhaps a point for you to start winning over the car driving population, is a campaign to stop wasting our tax money on these endless cycle lanes then? I seem to have missed the initiative somewhere.

 

 

 

Why do MOST cyclists treat a footpath near a red traffic light as a convenient route to avoid said red light?

 

Well maybe you see this because you are looking for it. Stand at any junction in Warrington and I bet you will find no more cyclists going through red lights than car drivers.

Rod, you've spouted this rubbish before. There is a difference between a driver just missing green, and going through on a solid red.

 

There are very very few of the latter that I ever see, yet with cyclists it is almost universal. I cycle as well, and because it pisses me off so much seeing other cyclists do it (and because it's illegal just as in a car) I never jump red lights.

 

And no, I 'am not looking for it', I am actually amazed now when I see a cyclist obey the laws of the road, they are the ones that actually stand out.

 

Finally, in overall numbers you may be right, there are no more cyclists go through red lights than drivers (although I'd be astonished if this was the case), but then with a 1000 cars to every cyclist, that's not much for a pro-cyclist to brag about is it?

[Dizzy]

Thanks for the reply Rod.

 

Seems it's not all just about cyclist safety then after all.

 

Perhaps if you ommitted the word 'cyclist' from the campaign and your posts you might not get so much backlash

 

One major problem though with your suggestion is that people just don't trust the ability of decision making of the officers in our local traffic authority. They have made so many bad decisions lately re traffic lights, road layouts, roundabouts, odd cycle lanes etc that maybe it would be better if the opposite to what they decide is implemented in future

 

PS whoever decided to make the island junction at the end of Manchester Road (Woolston) into a left feed straight onto the Grange must be mad. Twice now I have nearly been hit by large lorries who come round the island unaware of the sudden free feeder lane (or whatever the technical term is) :shock:I now stop as it it is a normal roundabout to the annoyance of motorists behind me but it is safer

[AdrianR]

I have to agree with the view that the vast MAJORITY of cyclists dont obey the laws of the road. I straw poll this mornign walkign into work saw none stop at red lights, they just mounted the pavement and used the crossing. i also saw a right turn on a no right turn sign, a riding the wrong way down a one way street and plenty overtakign on the inside.

 

Also: Rod K said:

 

Many disagree with you regarding being able to reduce accidents further. Whilst we have made great strides in the UK on in-car safety we are still way behind many other countries on pedestrian and cyclist safety, particularly for children.

 

Your comment about in car safety is correct, together with better trauma care in hoispitals. But vulnerable road users do not benefit from airbags, crumple zones or seat belts. For then its just skin against metal. So if we are going to reduce our casualties further then we need to reduce the number of times skin does collide with metal.

 

I have dealt with literally tens of thousands of accident claims involving allsorts of vehicles, pedestrians and some bizarre scenarios. The stupidity of the people involved far outweighs any element such as speed, types of vehicles, road conditions etc.

 

I fail to see how we can ban stupidity so I do believe and fatalitity figures bottoming out tend to support this, that we have gone as far as we can with current technology.

 

BTW "casualties" is a very wide open defintion and can include the most minor of reported injuries from an accident. The signs saying the number of these per year is wholly disproprtionate and paints an alarmist picture.

[rodk]

Adrian

 

You said :-

 

 

I fail to see how we can ban stupidity so I do believe and fatalitity figures bottoming out tend to support this, that we have gone as far as we can with current technology.

 

You may have heard of the "Systems" approach to collision anlysis and investigation. This approaches a collision from the perspective of being the result of a number of different circumstances coming together. These could include :-

 

Reactions of driver

Weather conditions regarding visibility

Weather conditions regarding slippery road

Volume of traffic and driver distraction

Relative speed between two vehicles

Absolute speed of vehicles

Road obstacles

Tiredeness of driver

Innattention of driver

Stupidity of driver

Illegal manoevre

Design and shape of road.

 

It is not any one of these which determine that collision but the gradual cumulative effect that leads to an "incident" turning into a collision and casualty.

 

Of course there are many thousands of incidents even in a town like Warrington each day, but only some will have all the combination that result in a collision.

 

Therefore if one is looking to reduce collisions then one way is to reduce the effect of as many of these factors as possible. Some, cannot be altered. I accept that reaction times and "stupidity" of the driver may be difficult to change. And the weather is also a little difficult to control. Highway re-design can be effective but is extremely expensive.

 

We come down to just a few which if we can control then these will reduce the cumulative effect of all the factors and bring us below the threshold at which an incident is turned into a collision.

 

One factor which can be controlled is the speed. This determines the time for the participants to react and take avoiding action. It also has a large effect on the momentum (or kinetic energy) of a vehicle. In fact it is proportional to the speed squared. Where there is a relative speed between two vehicles it can make a large differnece. Take a car at 30mph and a cyclist at 15mph and the difference is 15mph. Reduce the car to 20 mph and the differential speed drops to 5 mph and therefore reduces by a factor of 3.

 

So, if a car comes up behind a cyclist, passes too close (driver misjudgement) and the cyclist wobbles to miss a pothole then the time for the motorist to avoid the cyclist is 3 times greater at 20mph than 30mph. The kinetic energy in the vehicle is proportional to 30 squared (900) rather than 20 squared (400).

 

hence a lower motor vehcile speed gives 3 times the time to avoid the collision and reduces the kinetic energy of the vehicle by 55%.

 

You can make similar a similar analysis for a motor car and a pedestrian, or even a 40 ton truck and a motor vehicle. Even for motorists, if a truck is going to broadside you then I would prefer it to be going at 20mph instead of 30mph. That extra second may enable you or the truck driver to take avoiding action.

 

This "systems" approach is very much being taken as the accepted method for understanding all the various factors in how collisions develop. As much as we may like to feel that speed is something that gives us personal satisfaction through our desire to "move on" and "get ahead" it rarely makes a real difference to journey times.

 

Hence whilst speed itself is only seen as a one contributory factor in being the cause of a colision, it is one of the few factors which we have any control over. Given that reducing speed makes a huge difference in the ability to avoid collisions, then it is not surprising that lower speeds and calmer driving are seen both as able and necessery in order to reduce collisions, collision costs and casualties.

 

It is correct that we have a good track record on safety in this country. But much of this has been through engineering and treating junctions and intersections. as well as appropriate use of car restraints, etc. Other countries such as Netherlands, Denmark have focussed much more on reducing urban speed and changing driver behaviour. They are very much overtaking us on the road safety front. at the same time our percentage of pedestrains and cyclists killed is far higher than those countries. In fact for 5 of the past six years the road deaths of motorists have been reducing faster than pededestrians. We now have 23% of road deaths as pedestrians instead of 10% in the Netherlands. In addition we are 17th in the world for number of children killed per head of population. Key signs that we have some things wrong.

 

Whilst we may are reaching diminishing returns on the possibility for civil engineering interventions to reduce our death and injury toll, we do have a great opportunity to use behaviour change to enable us all to avoid more collisions and kill fewer people. And as a by product our streets become better places to live, walk and breath.

 

So please, don't give up on road safety yet. We have every opportuniy in Warrington to make it a better place to live through implementing lower speed limits on residential roads.

 

Best regards

 

Rod

[asperity]

YAWN!! (I'm a pedestrian by the way )

[Bazj]

Rod.

 

Just look on it as natural selection. If you ride a bike, you are more likely to die in a collision with a car than the driver of the car is. Just like if a lion has a scrap with a gazelle, the chances of the gazelle coming out on top is practically nil (unless of course the gazelle has a machine gun) If you want to be the lion, drive a car. (also, if you want to be a donor, get a motorbike because they really are the daftest things on the road!)

 

If people want to ride round on a twisted bit of metal with two wheels, then get them to stick to the paths provided or use the footpaths. You will reduce the collisions a lot more doing that than trying to impliment and enforce a 20 mph speed limit

 

Also, fyi your posts are far too long and I reckon 72% of those that start to read them; don't get to the end

[disgusted]

Also, fyi your posts are far too long and I reckon 72% of those that start to read them; don't get to the end

QFT

[Legion]

For those who wish to know why I was complaining :-

 

Well my basic complaint was that the pilots provided very little modelling of a town-wide 20 mph limit for residential roads as the compliance on isolated areas and streets will be less than when you have a consistent speed limit on residential streets across the town and where almost everyone benefits from a 20 mph limit on their street.

almost everyone? who? the only person that benefits would be somone who got hit by a car so its a suffer many to benefit one policy.

I also believed that it was somewhat badly planned not to allow a period for analysis before the ending of the Experimental Traffic Order. This would have allowed continuity in the event of deciding that the lower speed limits were appropriate.

and a delay in restoration of the correct limits if decided otherwise.

Since the Warrington pilots were planned in 2007 there has been far greater evidence available of how well they work in the UK. Indeed the DfT has even issued new guidelines to encourage local authorities to set 20 mph for all streets that are residential in nature or have high volumes of pedestrians and cyclists.

how can there be grater evidence of how pilots have worked while still in the planning stage?

 

It makes hardly any difference to journey times yet increases the quality and options in life for the many other people we share our communities with. Surely no great imposition in this age of a "Big Society".

 

Best regards

 

Rod

 

clearly maths isnt a strong point. it logically adds 1/3rd which is a significant proportion by any standards.

[Peter T]

Out of curiosity how many school children have been hit by a car along Long Lane? And how did it happen? The footpaths are wide enough.

Also, isn't it likely that children and students are even more likely to run across the road because cars are going slower?

[rodk]

Legion

 

Some responses :-

 

almost everyone? who? the only person that benefits would be somone who got hit by a car so its a suffer many to benefit one policy.

 

Children who feel the roads are safer to enable them to walk or cycle to school or the shops.

 

Adults who will find walking on the streets more pleasant.

 

Old people or those with limited mobility.

 

Those who live on the streets with lower noise and less pollution.

 

Drivers who can avoid collisions and reduce costs.

 

And as I have said many times, please someone at least stand up for "higher speeds" and tell us how they are of benefit.

 

and a delay in restoration of the correct limits if decided otherwise.

 

Not at all. an 18 month pilot with a review after 12 months would have allowed 6 months for analysis and decision within the 18 month period. Hence no change in the period at all.

 

how can there be grater evidence of how pilots have worked while still in the planning stage?

 

Many other authorities have put in 20mph limits on non-arterial roads without feeling the need for pilots.

 

clearly maths isnt a strong point. it logically adds 1/3rd which is a significant proportion by any standards.

 

Well I am afraid it is you who have just demonstrated that you wouldn't have got an A* in maths. In fact its a bit of a GCSE question really.

 

To travel 1 mile at 30 mph takes 2 minutes or 120 seconds

 

To travel 1 mile at 20 mph takes 3 minutes or 180 seconds

 

Hence for a steady speed of 20mph instead of 30mph adds 1/2 the time and not a 1/3rd as you suggest.

 

But let's look at it in practical terms.

 

In fact as almost every house in Warrington is within 1/3 mile of an arterial road, then even if you could go flat out at the speed limit for this 1/3 mile then the time would only increase from 40 seconds to 60 seconds. Hence the maximum increase in journey times for that 1/3 mile at both ends of your journey is 40 seconds.

 

In fact given the average distance to an arterial road and the fact that actual speeds will be not be steady then the difference in time is going to be far less than that 40 seconds. In additon take into account the inevitable wait to get out onto an arterial road then it makes no hardly any difference at all.

 

 

 

Best regards

 

Rod

[Peter T]

Rod.

 

Out of curiosity how many school children have been hit by a car along Long Lane? And how did it happen? The footpaths are wide enough.

Also, isn't it likely that children and students are even more likely to run across the road because cars are going slower?

 

No answers?

The speed of 30 mph is the norm, there is no need to justify it. As I have said before, getting people to obey 30 mph and educating people as to road sense will be far more beneficial than your suggestion. Another set of pedestrian lights near Tetley's and the speed is reduced the whole length.

[asperity]

YAWN

[disgusted]

Those who live on the streets with lower noise and less pollution.

 

Drivers who can avoid collisions and reduce costs.

Driving at 20mph will entail more pollution, as you are forced to drive in no more than 3rd gear, so you'll use more fuel than driving at 30mph in 4th, and create more noise as well.

 

And of course more cost to the driver as well.