vic Posted October 16, 2010 Report Share Posted October 16, 2010 Up at Exec Board on Monday. Evidence looks a bit thin for the 18 months trial - slight reductions in casualties in Orford and Park Road, but an increase in the town centre! A wider scheme subject to finance, but likely to reinstate the three trial areas - except Park Road itself and Long Lane. Also on the agenda: going out to wider consultation on the library service cutbacks. I do like this bit though: "As the thinking behind the Big Society develops, investigating other models of service delivery, particularly in those localities where there are not static libraries. A bid has been successfully submitted to the National Museums Libraries and Archives Council to explore use of volunteers in supporting some aspects of library services." The National Museums Libraries and Archives Council is one of the quangos to be abolished as part of the Big Society! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted October 16, 2010 Report Share Posted October 16, 2010 One volunteer is worth ten pressed men - and a lot cheaper too! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evil Sid Posted October 17, 2010 Report Share Posted October 17, 2010 if you go into the contact centre they have leaflets in there that give you contact details for volunteering to help with libraries in the community. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Posted October 17, 2010 Report Share Posted October 17, 2010 Back on the 20mph issue, I think quite a lot of people are seriously going to question if the reduction of just over 1 mph in average speed justifies the cost the costs involved. Statistically, these numbers are extremely small and while it can be argued any reduction in speed will theoretically reduce the mortality rate, the cost benefits ratio doesn?t seem that great. What worries me is that in similar experiments accident rates have actually increased and alarmingly, the figures show a significant increase in the number of accidents involving children. Maybe we're doing this all wrong and maybe we should be focusing on educating the kids that the roads are dangerous rather than lulling them into a false sense of security with claims of statistically safer roads. Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dizzy Posted October 17, 2010 Report Share Posted October 17, 2010 I agree Bill. In Portsmouth where they adopted the 20mph limit on all residentail roads 3 years ago the number of deaths/serious injuries has apparently increased (statistically by 1.2 people though ) http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1317430/20mph-zone-increases-death-rates-switching-cameras-reduces-accidents.html It's all very well and good lowering the speed limit but like you say until people (I include adults and kids) start taking more care and notice of what's going on around them accidents will always happen. The number of peope seemingly oblivious to cars and road safety these days whilst texting, chatting or listening to their ipods amazes me However having said all that there's apparently a far higher chance of survival if you are hit at 20 rather that 30 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted October 17, 2010 Report Share Posted October 17, 2010 Even safer a 5mph, are we going to get down to that? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sue Durnim Posted October 17, 2010 Report Share Posted October 17, 2010 20's PLENTY! Especially for residential streets anywhere in or around Warrington. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted October 17, 2010 Report Share Posted October 17, 2010 No but, if 20mph is safer than 30mph, then 5mph must be even safer?! You were right before; folk have no sense of road safety. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dizzy Posted October 17, 2010 Report Share Posted October 17, 2010 Our road is a 30 as are most of the other ones round here. Whilst for the most part people stick to the limit on ours as it's a straight road there are MANY who treat it as more like 40+ The other side roads which are a bit more built up are also 30's but most people drive well below 20 due to the layout and obvious possible dangers ie parked cars, kids etc etc but still OTHER drivers speed well in excess of 30 mph limit on those aswell Guess what I'm trying to say is that 'would people stick to 20 mph' or would it just be a false sense of 'safety' and make pedestrians even more likely to think they were safe when they aren't? It only takes one careless driver or one careless pedestrian to cause an accident Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter T Posted October 17, 2010 Report Share Posted October 17, 2010 No but, if 20mph is safer than 30mph, then 5mph must be even safer?! You were right before; folk have no sense of road safety. Get someone to walk in front with a red flag. If the young'uns text and talk whilst driving at 35/40, they would be reading a book at 20 mph. On heavy traffic roads, a no-brainer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted October 17, 2010 Report Share Posted October 17, 2010 Younguns, don't do 20mph, if they can't leave some rubber on the road when they're moving off, they wouldn't get noticed! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rodk Posted October 18, 2010 Report Share Posted October 18, 2010 For the record, the report from WBC identified that the schemes had resulted in a First Year Rate of Return of 800%. ie for every ?1,000 that the scheme cost, there was a reduction in road casualties costs that equal ?8,000. Expanding this up for the whole of Warrington would result in a ?5.9m saving in accident and casualty costs each and every year. Whilst 1 mph does not seem much of a reduction, when you consider that this is the average of all traffic movements then this equates to a considerable increase in the number of incidents where a slight lowering of speed has resulted in greater time for participants to take avoiding action. Those referencing Portsmouth should recognise that minor variations in KSI around a base of 20 are statistically not very significant. Of far greater relevance are the reductions in total casualties which are based on far higher numbers and therefore statistically more significant. Here the reduction was 22% and in the northern sectors where the previous speeds were highest the reduction in speed was greater, the reduction in casualties was as high as 44% and there was the greatest resident satisfaction. In addition, compliance is increasing in Portsmouth as people get more familiar with lower speeds. Remember that in Warrington over the past 2 years 2,000 people have been killed or injured on Warrington roads. The cost of casualties is 50% more than the average for the 9 other towns in the 175,000 to 200,000 population range. Warrington is in the upper quartile for child casualties per 1,000 children. Its time to recognise that 20's Plenty where people live or play or walk. It makes little difference to motor vehicle journey times which are inevitably determined by the congestion and junction queues. It lowers noise and pollution, and sets the right conditions for more people, over time, to walk or cycle.Remember that many of those people who avoided accidents because motor vehicles were travelling slower were not only pedestrians or cyclists but drivers as well. It makes a great difference to the quality of life for us all, and will lead to Warrington being a better place for us all to live. My best regards Rod 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted October 18, 2010 Report Share Posted October 18, 2010 Doesn't seem to have affected the "school run" yet! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AdrianR Posted October 18, 2010 Report Share Posted October 18, 2010 Define casualties - A&E attendance or just someone who goes to their GP. As most car accidents involve neither and are not reported to the police, then I have doubts about this data. Secondly, the "costs" of an accident. Far too many presumptions. If I take time off work I work harder to make up for it (no one does my work) and thus there is no costs. A&E untis would still have to exist if the car vicitim didnt turn up so the saving is negligble. As for spped being the major cause of accidents, this is tosh. Poor driving, lack of attention etc from both the driver and pedestrian are the cause. Speed may worsen the injuries but doesnt generally prevent it. Also comparing Warringtons rate to say other local towns (Ste helens was used recently) is false. Same roads? Same speed limits on those roads? Sorry but to basic. I'm all for 20 on side resedential roads enforced with cameras outside schools, playgrounds etc but park road!!I knwo its not going to be taken up there but to try it there was a nonsense. However with lowering of the spped limits, shoudl be an increase on clearly safe rounds ie. Sankey Way to 50mph, Winwick road to 40 throughout, Cromwell Road 40 mph at the top (no pavements, no houses and no access but still 30mph!). 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wahl Posted October 18, 2010 Report Share Posted October 18, 2010 leave the current speed limits alone. they work well The speed of motor vehicles usually moderates to the road hazards. so why waste time and money on unenforceable stupid signs 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wahl Posted October 18, 2010 Report Share Posted October 18, 2010 just read the reports on wbc web site The so called perception was based on a response of between 20 and 30 people's replies to a biased questionnaire. What a useless way to review an 18 month trial Why were not more vehicle drivers stopped on both the trial roads and on adjacent roads and asked why they were either on the trial road or avoiding it and why. What were their reasons for bypassing the restricted roads etc. What a waste of time and money leave the road speeds alone. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazj Posted October 18, 2010 Report Share Posted October 18, 2010 Why not just educate the stupid cyclists and pedestrians to not walk out in front of cars? makes sense to me Hopefuly with the advent of spending cuts, these hair brained ideas will be stuck in the bin where they belong. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted October 19, 2010 Report Share Posted October 19, 2010 Certain professions at the Town Hall need to justify their existence! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
disgusted Posted October 20, 2010 Report Share Posted October 20, 2010 However with lowering of the spped limits, shoudl be an increase on clearly safe rounds ie. Sankey Way to 50mph, Winwick road to 40 throughout, Cromwell Road 40 mph at the top (no pavements, no houses and no access but still 30mph!). Can't have that Adrian, coming over the brow and heading west, the police like to sit round that corner so that they can pick up some fines. Wouldn't do to have asensible limit at the expense of revenue generation. Same goes for Winwick road actrually, where they like to sit behind the garage and get drivers there too. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazj Posted October 20, 2010 Report Share Posted October 20, 2010 Well lets all hope that the 4% cuts a year comes off the speed trap budgets!! 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wahl Posted October 21, 2010 Report Share Posted October 21, 2010 apparently Warrington councillors believe in congestion and gridlock as they agree to a 20 mph rollout. They have to find ?740000 for the cost of so doing. Perhaps they will not be in power when the next election comes as I for one will not vote for any of them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evil Sid Posted October 21, 2010 Report Share Posted October 21, 2010 had to travel across warrington and back yesterday at around half three and didn't even get close to reaching twenty miles per until i got into a car park. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dizzy Posted October 22, 2010 Report Share Posted October 22, 2010 You know what this "20's plenty stuff" is starting to really get on my nerves now the more I read about it........ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dizzy Posted October 22, 2010 Report Share Posted October 22, 2010 http://www.warrington-worldwide.co.uk/articles/9221/1/20mph-limit-would-save-59m/Page1.html#postedcomment Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted October 22, 2010 Report Share Posted October 22, 2010 If you don't vote for "any of them" Wahl; how will you decide who is in power? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.